Are Affairs Good For You?

No, no they're not. Even asking this question ought to be met with a knee jerk reaction to, well, knee someone in the crotch. And yet it would seem that the question arises anyways, albeit sneakily and in the guise of scientific and philosophical inquiry. I am, of course, referencing a recent Slate article titled "Why We Cheat" with the nauseatingly stupid subhead "Spouses in happy marriages have affairs. What are we all looking for?"

In the article, Esther Perel (a European quack that the New York Times dug up and started referring to as the "sexual healer") posits that affairs and cheating may not be indicative of an unhappy marriage or a negative relationship with one's spouse. This is, of course, evidence derived from asking her unfortunate patients whether or not they are happy in their marriage.

These days, Perel accepts only patients who are involved in affairs, and the vast majority of them, she says, are “content” in their marriages. In fact in surveys that ask adulterers whether they want to leave their marriages, the majority say no.

 Well SHIT! If a survey said so, it must be true! The fact that Perel bases the majority of her reasoning on the assumption that her patients are telling the truth is only the first of many red flags. Ignoring that the foundation of her logic might as well be made of Lincoln Logs, she continues on her nonsensical path from A to 5.

I can tell you right away the most important sentence in the book, because I’ve lectured all over the world and this is the thing I say that turns heads most often: Very often we don’t go elsewhere because we are looking for another person. We go elsewhere because we are looking for another self. It isn’t so much that we want to leave the person we are with as we want to leave the person we have become.

Completely ignoring the very obvious fact that Perel is far more interested in hawking her book than actually helping your marriage, let's examine this tidbit "We go elsewhere because we are looking for another self." This load of tripe is, despite Perel's protestations that she is not justifying cheating, a stupid justification to cheat. It's the old "It's not you, it's me" bullshit that allows one to assuage his or her conscience by blaming some inner or biological need to go smash our genitals on other people.

"Don't be mad, darling. It's science!"

This roundabout and convoluted attempt to justify infidelity reads more like a guilt-ridden narcissist that has trouble accepting that just because you can reason it out doesn't make it morally sound. Sure, you can blather on about the function of human beings as mere sperm or egg carriers, prepared to propagate the species until our junk no longer pumps. But just like we got past shitting in the woods and then covering it up to hide it from predators, we should be past the point where we need to hump every leg in sight because our biological urges tell us to.

Perel wants you to believe that monogamy is passé and that the newest trend to jump on board with should be open relationships. And that's cool if you're down with it. You can have a concubine of 300 virgins for all I care, as long as all parties consent and seem emotionally sound. But in trying to blame some deeper reason behind why people cheat on their wives or husbands, Perel is, whether consciously or not, giving the thumbs up to scumbags around the world to leave their mundane suburban lives and fuck hookers in Vegas until they bleed cocaine. In essence, it removes the blame of the individual and offers up a scapegoat of science and modernity. 

Perel argues that we don't have affairs because we are unhappy, but because we could be happier. This is, of course, assuming that a constant search for pleasure and gratification is some right deserved to us as humans. Who the hell told you that you were supposed to be happy all the time? For sure, pleasure and contentment are worthy goals, but to actively seek a lifestyle of perpetual mania is an absurd and, quite frankly, terrifying dream. There is no universal right that you have to seek your "favorite thing." The idea that everyone is completely within their right to leave their home in search of personal happiness is an affront to the very idea of a family. There are, of course, exceptions to this rule. If you are in an abusive home, by all means, seek a way out. If you have just discovered that you are either gay or straight and are in the wrong relationship merely for appearances sake, you have every right to peace out. 

But if you just think that you might find some deeper, more intellectually stimulating side of you out there among the greener grass, then sit down, have a talk with your significant other, and fucking fix it. Don't twiddle your thumbs and try to come up with ways in which you can both have your cake and eat it too. Contrary to popular belief, the universe does not spin on an axis around you and it does not offer up solutions to moral quandaries in the shape of Belgian pseudo-scientists like Esther Perel. 

Every relationship and marriage certainly is rife with problems. It's sort of comes with the territory. But shying away from problems and whining that your life could be infinitely more interesting if you were with THAT person is only a temporary solution to the problem that's crux lies within you. Instead of advocating for shifting the entire definition of your marriage why don't you, I don't know, communicate with your wife or husband? It'll be a helluva lot easier and cheaper than renting out the Motel 6.

Rotten Appal Issues An Apology

As should be evident by now, the Rotten Appal has issued a formal apology on their website. We here at The Daily Wit would be remiss if we did not acknowledge it. You can read the apology here. 

The apology seems sincere and I commend the Rotten Appal for pledging to remove all objectionable content concerning weight from their website and social media. There are, however, a few points that I take issue with. Allow me to first clarify that I am not pursuing this further with the intention of garnering hatred for the Rotten Appal. We all make mistakes from time to time and the internet is, quite unfortunately for us writers, written in ink. If I had a nickel for every time I wished I could take back something I wrote, I would be far too rich to be concern myself with matters such as these. But, luckily for you, my wealth has not yet reached that point. I digress.

The first thing I would like to respond to is the claim that there are no funds received from Appalachian State University. 

We would like to clarify that we have not received any amount of money from Appalachian State University in regards to funding for our website. As an organization, we decided that funds taken from student tuition should not directly support humor that students might not enjoy or appreciate. All funds procured to maintain our domain name were donated by our staff writers and editor board.

I have no way of clarifying this, but if they say that it is so, then I will be the first to admit that I was wrong in that department. That being said, it is worth noting that the Rotten Appal is still an official university organization and, because of that, still a representative of Appalachian.

As far as Greek life mockery goes, the apology was iffy. As in, there doesn't seem to be an apology.

One of our editors is involved in Greek life and has either produced or agreed with the content of the humor which we have chosen to publish.

I understand the sentiment in this statement, but it seems far too akin to "I have a black friend so I can make those jokes." Of course, equating the status of African Americans and people in Greek life is, for the most part, ridiculous, but the analogy is drawn far less for the severity and far more for the concept.

Finally, the apology itself, while sincere, lacked the one thing that could have made this all better.

Lastly, we would like to formally apologize to all who have felt personally attacked by our comments regarding physical stature.  

It failed to address Phi Mu directly. I understand that the apology to the sorority was implied by the statement, but without an actual direct reference, it just seems lacking and hollow. I have no knowledge of whether they have decided to issue a more private apology to the women of Phi Mu, but it would be nice if there was some public acknowledgement concerning this as it was, after all, the crux of the problem.

Like I said, it was good to see an apology as opposed to silence, but saying "Sorry bout it" is only the first step towards reparations. I will continue to closely watch the Rotten Appal in the hopes that this is the last time the line is crossed. I do want to thank everyone who shared the article for helping spread awareness and taking care of this issue swiftly. I would like to ask one more thing of you: Keep your eyes out for content like this and don't be afraid to speak up when you see it. It is, after all, our duty to foster an environment of openness and discussion. Thank you for engaging in that with me today.

Rotten Appal Trashes Phi Mu

Update: The Rotten Appal has issued a formal apology for their actions. You can view it here. 

Update 2: It has come to my attention that there was a petition made to "Take Down the Rotten Appal." I would like to quickly note that this is in no way affiliated with or generated by The Daily Wit. While I admire the fervor with which people received this message, I do not wish to see the Rotten Appal completely removed.

Update 3: I just received the following email from Ms. Kimberly Mitchell, Associate Director of the Center for Student Involvement and Leadership. She was nice enough to clarify a few things:

Alas, I was wrong in my assumption that the organization receives funding from the university. Of course, this does not absolve them from their statements and I still hold the university somewhat accountable due to the publication's claim that they are, in fact, an official organization of Appalachian. But it seems that, for now, you are not funding offensive jokes and for that, I believe we can all rejoice. 

Being unfunny is acceptable. In fact, it's expected of you. Humor is, after all, one of those difficult to acquire talents that seems to either be inherent or perfected after years of practice and attempt. Thus, for a college humor publication to be terribly unfunny is understandable, although irritating. Oh, of course, you'll make unintentionally offensive jokes every once in a while, perhaps pertaining to a vomitting chancellor. However for the most part, you'll remain grounded in a pursuit of satire and humor, not at the expense of others, but with your tongue firmly in cheek.

During my tenure as the Rotten Appal's self-appointed critic, I have witnessed terribly written jokes and banal themes. All of these things, while offensive on an intellectual level, were never quite worthy of moral outrage. Thus, allow me to first be clear that this piece is not written in an attempt to undermine the Rotten Appal's stated goal of comedy. I love comedy. I occasionally try (albeit poorly) my hand at it. I like it because it's the freest form of writing; it breaks rules and crosses boundaries. But breaking these rules and crossing these boundaries requires one to be very sure that what they say is not being said with any malice. It must be impersonal and purely mocking. If it fails to be these things, it borders on bullying. The Rotten Appal crossed (and never quite returned) one of these boundaries once. They certainly don't want you to know they did and it was quickly remedied. But before they could hide their awful mistake, I was able to capture it. Below is the offense in question.

For further proof: 

Aside from being a terrible and juvenile joke, it is an absolutely outrageous offense to the ladies of the Phi Mu sorority.  No, I take that back. This is an offense to anyone with an ounce of propriety. This is beyond mere teasing; it is an egregious and deplorable example of body shaming that infects our society and leads to sky high suicide rates and generally awful attitudes. There is already an undeserved stigma around the Phi Mu sorority and adding to it with mindless drivel like this is doing nothing but perpetuating a middle school mentality. 

To be fair, the Rotten Appal, perhaps noticing that this was just awful, quickly took this down. But the damage was done. If I saw it, who knows how many others saw it? 

I felt it appropriate to choose this week for the revelation considering the theme of Social Justice. Much to my surprise, we also welcomed a new chancellor to the Appalachian family who just so happens to be a woman. A progressive move for a purportedly progressive university. It was an unplanned, yet perfect, coincidence. You may be wondering, though, why I waited this long to break the news of the Appal's lack of class. Truth be told, I had faith that the writers would move past the mistake and improve their content to reflect the class and progress that Appalachian State is coming to be known for. How wrong and naïve I was. 

Over the course of the past several months, I have taken it upon myself to make fun of the Rotten Appal. I'm afraid I have been rather dishonest with you, my dear readers, about my true intentions. You see, while I was combing the publication for comedic tripe, I was also keeping an eye out for morally questionable content. While the former was a wellspring, the latter was a dripping drain, just enough to spread itself out over a long period of time and confirm the apparently ignorant attitudes of those writing these "jokes." 

On racism, there was not much, aside from a couple offhand and ignorant comments about the NAACP and Miss America. 

There was even a small jab at those who attend the gym. Slightly more innocent than the rest, but still an ignorant comment that leaves one with a sour taste in their mouth. 

It also seemed that the Appal didn't only have beef with Phi Mu, but with the Greek system as a whole, occasionally lobbing jokes their way that always seemed to soar past teasing and straight into the territory of mean-spiritedness. 

Hardy har har...

But the really bad offenses started popping up in the realm of body shaming, an apparent specialty of the ever-banal Rotten Appal staff. It seems that the writers over at the RA just can't get enough of fat jokes!  I mean, what a comedic goldmine, right? Laughing at the expense of others' weight? Hilarious. 

Just freaking hilarious.

But wait, there's more!

At first, I thought the Rotten Appal just hated overweight people exclusively due to some body shaming vendetta. Evidently, being skinny is a joke-worthy offense as well.

So, what's my point? This is, after all, a free country and publications like the Rotten Appal have the freedom to say just about whatever the hell they want, right? Not exactly. You see, the Rotten Appal would certainly have the right and freedom to spout their ignorant garbage as much as they wanted if they were purely self-funded. But they're not. In fact, it's more appropriate to say that YOU are funding them. And they aren't even hiding it! 

That's right! The organization that body shames fellow students is receiving a university stipend of $650 a year. Small potatoes, to be sure, but enough that it brings in to question their validity as a worthy investment by the university. After all, aren't we claiming to be moving in a progressive direction? Then again, how can we even say that when we're literally paying for jokes like these? But we'll get into that more later.

While morally reprehensible and worthy of protest, is it breaking any actual rules? Because, you know, they are still allowed to voice their opinions and....OH LOOK THE UNC POLICY MANUAL! 

700.4.2 in case you're curious.

"Faculty and students “share in the responsibility for maintaining an environment in which academic freedom flourishes and in which the rights of each member of the academic community are respected.” Students, specifically, must conduct “themselves in a manner that helps to enhance an environment of learning in which the rights, dignity, worth, and freedom of each member of the academic community are respected.”

It's a shame that I have to quote a policy manual in an attempt to convince the university that what the Appal said is disgusting and that you, an attending student, are paying for it. But, alas, it seems that legal/policy ramifications are the only things that gain any traction in the world these days. For good measure, it's worth taking a glance at Appalachian's own policy manual as well.

3.3 Harassment

is defined as unwelcome and unsolicited speech or conduct based upon race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, political affiliation, veteran status, disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity and expression that creates a hostile environment or circumstances involving quid pro quo. Harassment includes, but is not limited to, all sex offenses.

While it fails to explicitly state body image, it's hard to imagine that it would not be included, especially considering the high amount of bullying that is so often associated with it. 

But, again, you may be wondering: what's your point? I've stated the grievances and pointed out where and why they are wrong. What is to be done about the Rotten Appal's various and offensive missteps? For one, Phi Mu is owed a sincere and public apology. You may have deleted the joke, but you still saw fit to write and publish it. 

Secondly, in my perusal of the Appalachian Policy Manual, I happened upon this little gem.  It outlines the discipline process that an organization must go through should they happen to violate University policy. I'll be raising hell if it's not even considered. Furthermore, I will be forwarding this blog post to everyone relevant to the current discussion and then some. It's high time we drag these problems out into the light as opposed to letting them fester in the dark so that we don't step on any toes. The Rotten Appal has managed to offend not only women in the Greek community, but the community as a whole. We are, after all, an Appalachian family and when one of ours is picked on, it should be our duty to stand with them and stop it from happening any more. So, in a show of solidarity, I stand with the women of Phi Mu and vow to them that I shall do everything that I can to see that the Rotten Appal answers for its morally repulsive behavior. 

We live in a very free society and that's awesome. If we started banning everyone from saying offensive bullshit, I'd take up arms and revolt. After all, I'd be out of the business. But an individual's right to spout offensive rhetoric cannot be equated with a university funded organization's decision to publish jokes that not only body shame, but single out a specific organization while doing so. 

I don't want the Rotten Appal to disappear into obscurity so that I can have some smug satisfaction that I vanquished a rival. In fact, I hope that the publication will continue its existence here at Appalachian and I'm looking forward to the day that its worthy of praise. No, I merely want to hold them accountable for, what I believe, is discriminatory and bullying behavior. Because it's not about pointing fingers and it's not about petty rivalry. It's about a certain level of respect deserved by every member of our community. We can take issue with each other but when it becomes so personal that it calls into question the morality of an organization, it's truly worthy of review, and just an ounce of wit. 

Updates will follow. Thank you for reading and, please, share this with your friends. 

Update: It was brought to my attention by one of the friends I chose to proofread this before sending it out that there is, in fact, a very small disclaimer at the bottom of the Rotten Appal's website. It reads as follows: 

Allow me to address this right here and now. Just because you say "the content does not represent the views of (Insert Organization Here)" does not absolve you of blame, especially when you're paying for the content. That's like funding the Republican National Convention and then trying to claim that you have no conservative leanings. Payment = support = shared blame. Because the Rotten Appal is an official organization on campus, they are an arm of the University and, thus, a representative of it. You can write all you want about how you cannot be held responsible for what they say, but it's all sort of a moot point when you're funneling $650 a year to them.

Food for thought. 

A Building in Harlem Just "Exploded"

According to Gawker, a building in East Harlem "exploded and collapsed" this morning. Firefighters have been dispatched to the location at 116th and Park.

BREAK/CONFIRMED: FDNY says 33 units and 106 members en route to reports of an explosion and building collapse btwn 114 & 116 sts. Park Ave.
— Tom Winter (@Tom_Winter) March 12, 2014

As of yet, there is no explanation for the explosion and TDW will not speculate until further evidence is brought forward. Our hearts go out to anyone harmed in the explosion and hope that this was merely an unfortunate accident. Sadists may view a live stream of the fire here. 

Update (11:30): According to The New York Times, one person has been reportedly killed by the blast and there are further fatalities expected.

Update (10:55): The NYPD bomb squad is currently investigating the scene. One of the buildings is reportedly "completely gone."

College Board is Evil and Here's Why

Ah, the SAT. Just the thought of this evil little acronym can cause long-forgotten feelings of anxiety and trauma to come bubbling to the surface. When we were in high school, we were told that it was this that would guarantee our place in college, and by proxy, the world. Hours were spent with SAT prep books and flash cards so that we could master the test before we even got to it. It was all.....well, sort of stupid.

An arbitrary examination of our ability to cram shit into our heads, the SAT has been a fairly bad representation of students' abilities for years, and people have taken notice. Back in 2012, the ACT surpassed the SAT in the number of students who took the test. Not to be outdone, College Board, the corporation that administers the exam, has decided to revamp the SAT.  No one apparently told College Board, however, that revamping does not mean "make worse." In a "brilliant" decision by the company's president and serial douche (we'll get to this), David Coleman, the essay portion of the SAT has been removed and many of the vocabulary sections have been altered to be easier. The test, formerly on a 2400 point scale will return to its iconic 1600 point scale.

On the surface, this seems like a harmless, dare I say good, change to the out-of-date test. After all, shifting the way we educate can only be better at this point right? That is, it would be if David Coleman wasn't on a war path to remove creativity and opinion from the class room. Allow me to explain.

David Coleman was elected president of College Board in 2012. Since his rise to power, he has espoused the idea of the "common core standard." Coleman's belief is that the answer to improving education in the country is to create a standardized curriculum through which all students can go through and come out on the other side better off. Anyone who has set foot in a high school or elementary school classroom in the past ten years will almost certainly find this belief as hilariously out of touch as it sounds. Maybe it's because Coleman, someone who has never taught in a K-12 school, isn't looking out for the best interests of the nation's children, but for the interests of himself and the profits generated by the SAT.

Students weren't taking the SAT because the preparation was brutal so Coleman made it easier. This wasn't some attempt to make the test more "accessible;" it's a scrambling attempt to remain relevant and keep his customers. Because, at its very core, College Board is a business. Sure, it passes itself off as a "nonprofit organization" but its worth noting that Gaston Caperton, the man who preceded Coleman, received flak for his outrageous salary of $1.3 million back in 2011. In an effort to distance himself from the allegations of irresponsible spending, Coleman took on a base salary of "only" $550,000, "with total compensation of nearly $750,000."  Truly, he is a man of the people.

His scumbaggery aside, Coleman has come under fire from progressive leaning groups for his fixation on informational texts as opposed to fiction, citing that writing opinion pieces and creative writing will serve no one in the real world. He gave a speech (which received a tidal wave of backlash from educators) in which he mocked the idea of creative writing, saying that it would be rare to hear someone say, "Johnson, I need a market analysis by Friday, but before that I need a compelling account of your childhood.” Because we are so often faced with every day problems that require explicit knowledge of geometry and the scientific method.  By this logic, the only thing we should be teaching in schools is mindless drone work for an evil nonprofit that will eventually screw your kids. On that topic...

AP classes aren't working. Another scam run by College Board, reports are showing that Advanced Placement courses and exams are wasted investments. The classes, notorious for "teaching the test" and lying about being valid representations of college courses, are demonstrating that they are very bad at preparing students for the AP exams. The number of students bombing the exam has steadily risen over the past several years.

Photo courtesy of POLITICO

With these kinds of statistics, why would any school in its right mind ever offer them? Because money, of course. According to Politico, at least a dozen states give incentives to offer AP classes. Some states are even offering schools extra funds for things like textbooks and teacher training if they offer AP. College Board is effectively lobbying and forcing schools into their system by offering up a carrot and waiting for underfunded education programs to bite. By offering these classes and exams to lower income and minority students, College Board makes itself look like the knight in white armor, ignoring the fact that "many of those students lack the academic background they need to excel in a college-level course." Indeed,  African American students passed only 27 percent of the AP exams they took in 2012. Hispanics passed only 41 percent. 

So, how is all of this relevant to College Board's decision to remove the essay portion? It's indicative of a watering down of education into a convenient set of standards dictated by a man who has never set foot in the classroom. In a time where the nation is lagging behind in every major educational subject, it should be imperative to shift the way we teach in the classroom. This doesn't mean striking down creative writing and the generation of opinions in favor of mindless repetition. It means fostering an environment of desired learning and attempting to garner interest in a generation that desperately needs it. Yes, we are a distracted group of entitled little shits, but that's because we've been subjected to an awful, profit-oriented system of learning churned out by a corporation that masquerades as a nonprofit.

I don't know how to improve the nation's education and I don't have the credentials to really give my opinion anyways. But I don't think a corporate drone should have a say in the matter either. We've already taken the SAT and gone through the system, but we can ensure that generations after us get a quality education if we just raise awareness about clowns like David Coleman and Gaston Caperton and topple the charade that is the SAT and AP classes. 

Anchor for RT Quits On Air

The world (aside from Russia) engaged in a collective fist pump as RT (formerly Russia Today) anchor, Liz Wahl, resigned on air, citing that she could not be a part of a network that "whitewashed the actions of Putin." 

She is the second reporter for RT to criticize the Russian sponsored network after Abby Martin condemned the military intervention during her broadcast two days ago.

In an effort to seem less like an evil propaganda machine generated by a totalitarian regime, RT released a statement explaining that there would be "no reprimands made against Ms. Martin" and announced that it would be sending the journalist to Crimea to report more on the story. Obviously realizing that this was akin to disappearing into a gulag, Martin released a statement of her own that effectively said "Like hell I am!"

The statement by Martin and the resignation by Wahl are certainly bad news for RT, formerly a news source for smug Americans who felt that Al Jazeera was too passé and not nearly edgy enough for their tastes. But whether or not the PR shitstorm that is sure to ensue will put the nail in the coffin remains to be seen. For now, we here at The Daily Wit would like to thank Ms. Martin for standing up for her morals and congratulate Ms. Wahl on her decision to leave Putin's Propaganda Palace.

If you'd like to watch Ms. Wahl file her resignation in front of millions of people, please go here. 

A Brief Overview of Ukraine

The internet has been abuzz lately concerning the current events surrounding the issues in Ukraine and Russia. The latter, emerging from a controversy-ridden Olympic Games, quite literally marched on to the scene and stole the show this weekend with a dramatic demonstration of power. But why is all of this happening? Who is to blame? Is it more nuanced than that? (Yes) The media and the internet can be an overwhelming thing, so for the sake of your sanity (and at the expense of my own) I have condensed the recent events into an easy guide for even the most uninformed of readers. Hopefully, by the end of this, you will find yourself infinitely more aware and, therefore, share it with all of your friends and family.

To start: How/why did this all begin? 

There is a rich history of Ukrainian-Russian relations that a lengthy foray through the internet will most certainly reveal, but for the sake of brevity, we shall be looking at far more recent events. In particular, the ousting of President Yanukovych. It's important to note that the (former, depending on who you ask) Ukrainian President has had a history of pro-Russian relations, which became evident as far back as 2010 when he signed the Kharkiv Pact.  More recently, however, Yanukoych came under fire for his decision to nix a trade deal with the EU in favor of closer economic ties with Russia. This decision, of course, came with a hefty $15 billion "donation" from Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Ukrainian citizens, angry that Yanukovych decided to side with Russia and claiming that he sold out the country, took to the streets and began protesting, namely in Kiev Square. This is where everything went downhill.

The Protests 

On December 1st of 2013, about 300,000 protesters flooded Kiev Independence Square and seized City Hall. Reacting to these protests, on January 16th, Yanukovych passes anti-protest laws which are quickly deemed as "draconian." On January 22nd, live ammunition is fired into the crowd of protesters, prompting national attention and further vilification of President Yanukovych.

Following these events, the government quickly repeals the anti-protest laws on January 28th in an attempt to appease protesters. The next day, a bill is passed that promises the free imprisoned protesters if they relinquish seized government buildings. On February 16th, protesters agree to the deal and end their occupation of Kiev's City Hall.

The deal is short-lived, however, and on February 18th, Ukrainian police storm the protester camps and kill at least 20 people while leaving hundreds injured. Protesters, in response, retake government buildings.

In a further show of violence by the Ukrainian police, reports of snipers shooting at protesters generate even more controversy and attracts a flood of media attention. The next several days sees a massive disassembling of the Ukrainian presidency.

Feb 21: Parliament strikes a deal to reduce presidential powers.

Feb 22: Disgraced President Yanukoych flees the country after former Prime Minister and staunch rival, Yulia Tymoshenko is freed from prison.

Feb 23: Ukrainian Speaker, Oleksandr Turchynov steps up as interim president. 

Crimea and Russia

In terms of the most recent events, one need only go as far back as February 27. Pro-Russian forces across the region of Crimea took control of government buildings, resulting in whispers of civil war. The next day, armed men in unmarked combat fatigues seize Simferopol International Airport prompting cries of a Russian invasion of Ukraine. This possible show of Russian force leads U.S. President Barack Obama to warn Russia that there would be "costs for any military intervention in the Ukraine." Moscow, defending its military actions, claims that their movements are intended to protect its fleet position in the Black Sea.

On March 1st, Russian parliament approves a request by Putin to use military force to quell the revolution in Ukraine. This acts as a catalyst and causes Ukraine to mobilize its reserve troops and threatens war.  And that is really where we stand today. Ukraine and Russia are on the brink of war while the United States is standing on the sidelines attempting to dissuade the latter. Many are saying that Russian-U.S. tensions haven't been this high since the Cold War and there are discussions of isolating Russia. 

Obviously, the issues and events are far more detailed than what has been stated above, but for the sake of condensing them into an easy to follow guide, many details were left out. The hope is that this will better explain the situation and help readers understand the avalanche of news stories in context. If you are still in the dark, I direct you to the provided links so that you may better educate yourself.

The Problem With UNICEF's Tap Project

Water has been the source of a lot of personal irritation today. On the one hand, it's raining and my clothes are drenched. Furthermore, the bottle of water I bought from the dining hall is only half as full and half as cold as it was when I got it. These two "problems" are the frivolous, stupid musings of a privileged, white American college student who has no immediate worries in life. After all, my life doesn't hang in the balance on a daily basis nor must I ever look at water as a luxury. But, unfortunately for hundreds of millions of people around the world, this is not a common trait. Indeed, the lack of clean water in underdeveloped countries has been a major problem for years and various organizations have done their best to reverse it. In particular, the United Nations Program, UNICEF, has been at the forefront of delivering clean water to children in such countries.

UNICEF, an acronym for the United Nations International Children's Emergency Fund, has dedicated itself to saving and improving "children's lives by providing healthcare and immunizations, clean water and sanitation, nutrition, education, emergency relief and more."  A noble cause that I doubt any person with an ounce of empathy would take issue with. Setting aside the mission statement, however, let's take a look at UNICEF's most recent project. All around the internet, fellow privileged college students have been sharing the UNICEF Tap Project and urging their social media friends to use it. In case you haven't been made privy to the newest social trend, the UNICEF Tap Project aims to give clean water to children in need while also raising awareness (we'll address this in a minute). To accomplish both the former and the latter, the program is urging people to download an app and then not touch their phone for ten minutes. For every ten minutes that you don't touch your phone, UNICEF pledges to "provide one day of clean water for a child in need."

So, what's the problem?

Let us revisit the concept of "raising awareness" for a minute. This is an oft used phrase that, for college students, typically means "Telling my friends how socially aware I am." Contempt aside, however, raising awareness is all well and good in theory, but is creates a culture of narcotizing dysfunction. In the interest of brevity, I shall reduce the definition thusly: knowing shit and therefore, feeling like you're helping. People nowadays tend to equate being aware of a problem with being a better person for it. In all fairness, knowing about a problem is certainly half the battle. We do tend to live in a very sheltered environment that ignores the problems of the world in favor of a far more convenient reality of American exceptionalism. But knowing about a problem and dealing with a problem are two very different things. 

The issue with American college students (among others) is that we don't like to put forth an effort if we don't have to. UNICEF's Tap Project makes it so that all we have to do to help is nothing. I mean, hell, that's the dream isn't it? Being able to sit around and then smugly announce that you helped African children by not playing Flappy Bird for thirty minutes. 

Ok, but regardless of our attitude, we're still helping children, right?

Sort of. But mainly you're helping Giorgio Armani. Confused? Let's take a closer look at UNICEF's website. On the page explaining the Tap Project (link provided above), there is a noticeable watermark that recognizes Giorgio Armani as the national sponsor for the campaign. Furthermore, if you find yourself on the UNICEF USA home page, you'll find a conveniently placed link that leads here. If it weren't for the UNICEF logo in the top left corner, I would swear that this was an advertisement for Armani's cologne. And that's because, dear readers, it is. Unconvinced? Let us further delve into the UNICEF website. Aside from the home page, Giorgio Armani is also mentioned on the "People and Partners" section of the site (obviously) but also prominently featured in the "UNICEF's Work" section. For a program that aims to deliver clean water to developing countries, it sure does have a fixation with high end cologne.

Allow me to state several disclaimers: there is nothing wrong with advertising. There is also nothing wrong with being aware of an issue. There is, however, something incredibly wrong with using the tendency of lazy college students to do nothing as a method of advertising your product. I would argue that it is not merely useless for thirsty children, but harmful.

But Giorgio Armani is STILL helping!

Sure, but their help comes with the stipulation that they only contribute as much as people pay into their system, be it with time or with money. This not charity; it is an exchange being made between you and a company. If they were TRULY concerned with the lack of clean water, they would make a sizable donation with no strings attached. But Armani expects you to buy their cologne (or at least be aware of it) before they will do anything. I can't really fault them for doing so, though. They are, after all, a business whose primary concern is generating profits. But when UNICEF and the people that buy into this project claim that this is helping, it's no better than liking a page on Facebook and feeling warm fuzzies from your supposed contribution to the cessation of thirsty kids. 

Yes, I have no doubt that UNICEF and Armani truly intend to donate a hefty sum of money to projects looking to provide clean water, but this merely a short term solution to a problem. It's cool that they're giving kids clean water for however many days this project racks up, but its certain to be a short-lived trend that will inevitably lose steam until the next trend comes along. What we currently lack (and what things like this are impeding the progress of) is a long term solution to the problem. Raising awareness is, like I said, half the battle, but you have to do something MORE if you want to actually make a difference. There have to be massive shifts in how we as a country deal with developing countries and their denizens. But, because these shifts are so large in scale and so heavily debated, we don't like to consider them. Thus, small, seemingly harmless campaigns such as this one come into existence and make us feel like we're helping. 

I believe that my generation, while lazy and often stupid, truly wants to make a good difference in the world. I also believe that we are some of the most global and empathetic people that have ever occupied the planet and I think that we have the potential to do amazing things. But we have to stop looking at problems as social media trends that can be solved with the touch of a button and before breakfast. We have to see these things as the gritty (and often nearly hopeless) issues that they are. It's tough and no, you can't make a real difference by not touching your phone. But that doesn't mean the problems aren't worthy of examination. Personally, I don't have the answer, but the discussion (including this one) has to go on so that we can work towards a realistic solution to providing clean water for everyone.