Recently, a new campus organization called Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics (AHA) has been working to get approval by the Tucker Foundation as an “affiliated religious group” as you will see in Sora Ryu’s article on the group this issue. Despite the large number of students at Dartmouth who self-identify as atheists, AHA would be the first non-theistic organization to be officially recognized by COSO in Dartmouth’s history. In a recent article in The Dartmouth entitled “AHA’s Moment”, the author, Brendan Woods, said that as a Christian, he believes that all people should be permitted to join in religious discourse, no matter their faith. I agree wholeheartedly with his position of acceptance, and I think the recognition of an atheist group on campus is long overdue.

To my surprise, many students at Dartmouth are of a different opinion. The most common response of Dartmouth students, when asked about the approval of a new non-theistic group on campus was “Why would anyone want to join that group?” The real question here is why would an atheist—a person who does not believe in miracles or fate—be impassioned by the absence of faith? What would they talk about?

We all know the stereotype of the disillusioned atheist who has become alienated from religion and regressed into apathy. Many people who hear phrases like “The First Atheist Church”—which does actually exist and has ordained 2523 ministers—would consider it an oxymoron and assume that no such thing would exist.

All stereotypes aside, there are still those impassioned atheists who may not believe in God but who nonetheless believe in some higher purpose, whether it be achieving enlightenment or protecting the health of the planet. They can change their beliefs no more easily than religious people can change theirs. Although atheism is not technically, a religion, the fact that the Tucker Foundation has already adopted 25 affiliated religious groups and yet has not included the non-theists in their debate seems incongruous with their stance on diversity. Why is it that we have overcome the days of shunning “non-believers” as with people of different faiths, but we have not yet overcome our fear of allowing theist and non-theists to sit down next to each other?

I remember when I was in third grade, I would argue with a girl in my class over the existence of God. My parents had not yet explained to me that the subject was “taboo,” especially coming from seven-year-old. I would ask her over and over, “why do you believe in God if you have never seen him, if you have no proof?” And she would simply respond, “At least I believe in God!” To say the least, the conversation didn’t get very far. After having turned this poor girl’s face beet red numerous times, she finally offered one justification that made some sense to me: she needed no proof, and that was why it would always be true. They were simply people of faith and I was not.

Alas, I discovered that as an immature atheist, conversing with a religious person about morals and religion was nearly inconceivable. There is simply no way to hold a worthwhile conversation about religion, I thought, when you are missing the key ingredient: faith. Soon however, as I met people who practiced religions other than Christianity and Judaism, such as Daoism in East Asia or Santeria in Cuba, I realized that despite vast cultural and geographical differences most religious people obey many of the same basic principles. Though every faith may believe in a slightly different version of our creator and the afterlife, we all face virtually the same consequences for our actions here on Earth such as guilt, physical harm, or imprisonment. As many atheists have argued before—and Siyue Liu ’13 reiterates in her interview inside—you don’t have to have faith in a certain deity in order to have morals or even to consider yourself “religious” by a loose definition. By now, I would hope that this fact has become widely accepted amongst educated people if not a platitude.

Yet the reason that so many people are uncomfortable talking about religion with non-theists is not that they see them as immoral, but rather precisely because they do not have faith, at least in the traditional sense of the word. So we are back to the old wall of faith (or lack thereof). Having an honest, level discussion with others about religious issues, especially if they do not subscribe to the same religion, takes some mutual understanding of faith, and what it means to defend your beliefs instead of merely rejecting the beliefs of others. But this has to work both ways, and ignoring the voice of non-theists is no different than dismissing the faith of religious groups.

The idea that atheism is about disagreement is a misconception that has stunted ethical and moral discourse at Dartmouth for years. Something tells me that the members of AHA are not merely out there to start arguments. If this were the case, then why would the members participate so enthusiastically for years without official recognition? Even non-theists have beliefs of their own. Ultimately we are all searching for answers to the same basic questions, and whether we choose to believe that the universe began 15 billion years ago or a few thousand years ago is irrelevant. What matters is that if there are people out there who share a common system of beliefs, they should be permitted to hold a civilized discussion with each other and bring their discussion to a public forum.

Last week I visited my hometown of Burlington, VT to conduct an interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I -VT). Seeing as he is the longest standing independent congressman in American history, and that I also consider myself independent on most political issues, I was excited to ask him about what I consider the most important progressive issues in politics right now.

His office stood on the second floor of the largest building at the top of Church Street. I couldn’t picture the bustling cobblestone avenue in the years before Sen. Sanders took office as mayor of Burlington in 1981, when the paved Church Street had no pedestrians, no national chains, and no fancy restaurants to speak of.

My first impression of Sen. Sanders was not what I had expected from a seasoned United States Congressman: His rapid-fire Brooklyn accent had a rugged intensity, and his wispy white hair spilled over his forehead irregularly, more like an edgy professor than a politician. I couldn’t tell whether his unadulterated appearance was authentic or just a well-crafted persona. Either way, he conveyed a genuine interest in our conversation. In order for the reader to experience some of his presence, the interview below is unchanged from its original form.

DFP: How did you develop your “no bullshit” persona? A lot of people view your persona as being very straightforward. Is there a specific reason why honesty is so important to you?

Senator Sanders: Thank you for the compliment. It’s just kind of the way I am. I sometimes think things aren’t as complicated as people make them out to be. You have to be straightforward and tell people what you think. Even if people disagree with you, they appreciate you if you’re being forthright with them. Now we don’t have a lot of time, so let’s get down to the questions.

DFP: OK. One thing that seems to be on your mind a lot is how you think the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke, appointed during the Bush Administration, needs to be replaced. Why do you think that and what kind of person do you think should replace him?

Senator Sanders: Well, it isn’t my job to come up with a name but I do think that the chairman of the Fed is a very powerful position. The primary function of the Fed is to protect the safety and soundness of our financial system. It is very clear almost by definition, because under Bernanke’s watch we came very near to a financial collapse. The second goal of the Fed, an important goal, is to try to provide as close to a full-employment economy as we can. Obviously, we are very far away from that—we’re in the midst of a major recession. So I think what you need at the Fed is somebody whose main interest is protecting the interest of the middle class and the working families of the country, rather than just the powerful interests on Wall Street. That is what I believe Bernanke’s record has been. You need to use the tools of the Fed—which are very many—to help ordinary people rather than just large banks.

DFP: Do you think the Goldman Sach’s fraud issue speaks to Bernanke’s failing policies?

Senator Sanders: Yes, I do. I mean, that is precisely what the job of the Fed is. The Fed is there to protect the safety and soundness—well, you’re not going to have safety and you’re not going to have soundness when major, major financial institutions are, according to the SEC [Security and Exchange Commission], engaged in fraud. In this case, they worked with a hedge fund manager to put together securities which are designed to fail, so that the hedge fund managers can place the bet that they’re going to fail, while investors are buying thinking that they think they’re going to make money because of the value of that security. So that’s fraud, if the SEC charge is correct. And frankly, I think you will see that charge leveled against a number of other financial institutions as well; I don’t think Goldman Sachs is unique. But, to answer your question, where was the Fed during all of this? Clearly they were not doing their job.

DFP: So you’re saying this might open up a whole new slew of fraud issues?

Senator Sanders: I think what people have been talking about now is mostly the recklessness and irresponsibility of Wall Street. This is the first major charge where there is not only recklessness and irresponsibility, but there is fraud as well. What I’m saying is I think this will not be the last major charge against financial institutions. My own guess is that fraud was probably rampant.

DFP: I know you serve on the Congressional Committee of Energy and Natural Resources. You also just received a grant of $3.2 Billion for alternative energies.

Senator Sanders: Right. What that was about was that I helped write legislature with Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) which is called the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. It’s a national program, and what it does is to provide money to cities, states, and towns to help them move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In the stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the president put $3.2 billion into that program, and that brought $12 million dollars into the state of Vermont, and billions around the country. I think it’s going to help us transform our energy system, and in the process involve people at the local level to think about how they could best go forward in terms of energy sustainability and efficiency.

DFP: Is that related to “Smartgrid”?

Senator Sanders: Well, there’s a lot of money coming down the pike, and there are a lot of programs. This is a separate program. What it has funded, for example, in the state of Vermont, is promoting energy efficiency. You’ll have older buildings that will be able to use this money to be able to add new insulation, new windows, a new heating system, new roofs, when necessary. Also, communities can use it for photovoltaic, geothermal, and wind, biomass, and so forth. So it gives communities a wide range of opportunities to move in the right direction. On top of that, there’s another large grant coming into the state for $79 million which is called “Smartgrid”, which will allow some 90 percent of buildings in the state of Vermont to have meters, which will allow them to identify how their energy is being used. We know that can help in a significant way in making energy use more efficient.

DFP: In some ways, your ideas on energy are against the current in Washington. For example, Obama just funded loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. Do you think the Obama administration’s energy policy is headed in the right direction?

Senator Sanders: Well, what you have to understand is that the answer is yes and no. The Bush administration’s policies on energy were a disaster and refused even to acknowledge the reality of global warming. [On the other hand] President Obama understands that global warming is real and it is a very serious problem for the planet. He has, in the last year and a half, invested far, far, far more than we have seen almost forever in energy efficiency and sustainable energy, so that’s the good news. For example, generally speaking we spent $200 million a year as a nation on weatherization, which is helping lower income people retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient and save fuel. In the stimulus package, we put $25 billion. It was a huge increase in the amount of money we spent on weatherization, and that is a positive step forward. It’s cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions; it is saving consumers money; it is bringing us to energy independence. The president is also appointing Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, who is very good on energy issues and very good on global warming issues. I disagree with the president when he provides loan guarantees for nuclear. We still haven’t solved the issues of how to get rid of nuclear waste, not to mention that nuclear construction is a very expensive proposition. I’m also disagreeing with the president on his view on coal sequestration. But, having said that, in terms of sustainable energy and energy efficiency, they are making some very significant steps forward.

DFP: Do you think Obama really is pro-nuclear—because I know he has come out against it before—or do you think he is just pandering to the Republican Party?

Senator Sanders: No, I think he really is pro-nuclear. Energy is a big word. I think he can take credit for moving the country forward in some very progressive ways. I mean, all of the money that is coming in to the State of Vermont is a result of his initiatives, and support from those of us in Congress who are moving in this direction. That’s a positive. On the other hand, I think there are areas in which he’s moving in the wrong direction.

DFP: Some people are still saying that the healthcare reform bill is a socialist development. As an Independent Senator and self-proclaimed Socialist, do you find the Healthcare Reform Bill to be leaning towards some Socialist ideas by your standards?

Senator Sanders: No. It’s a pretty conservative idea. It’s using primarily private insurance companies to expand health care to many people who do not have health insurance. It is raising Medicaid by raising the level by which people can qualify for Medicaid. So you’ll have another 15 or 16 million people getting Medicaid, which is a government run health insurance program. But the other people are going to come in the subsidies or private insurance companies. I voted for the bill. It is not a particularly strong bill, but it will provide health insurance to some 30 billion people who don’t have it today. I think it has to be improved over the years, but I support it. Socialism has nothing to do with it.

DFP: Yes, I don’t really see why it would, but there are still people out there who call it that.

Senator Sanders: Yes, it has been called that by Republicans to scare people. But what people don’t know that there are countries around world who have socialized or national health insurance programs which are much more cost effective than our system. We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all people as a right of citizenship.

DFP: Do you think if we open up trade to Cuba, it will stay a socialist country in the future, or do you think that it will open up to capitalism and go back to the way it was.

Senator Sanders: A few weeks ago we had the Ambassador from Denmark, which would not consider itself a socialist country, but which has very progressive social programs. It provides health care to all people without virtually any out of pocket expenses, college education there is free, every worker there has six weeks paid vacation, they are very strong on the environment, workers are overwhelmingly in unions, and so on and so forth. So I look to countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden as models we can use as models and learn from. Cuba is obviously a small, developing country, which is an authoritarian Communist country which has done some good things in terms of health care. I haven’t studied it lately but I think their education system is pretty good. I think what you will see on votes in the House and the Senate in recent years is a desire to establish a more normal relation with Cuba and ending the embargo. What I think American businesses understand is that countries all over the world are investing in Cuba, and businesses in the U.S. can’t do that. So there is pressure to open up to allow businesses to invest in Cuba, to have Americans to freely visit Cuba in a normal way. The question is, if you can’t have normalized relations with Cuba, then how can you have normalized relations with a country like China, which is of course a Communist country and is also much more powerful.

DFP: Do you think there is ever going to be a time when the progressive voice on issues like these—financial regulation, energy policy, health care reform, and US-Cuba relations—can have a strong voice, not just as a third party, or the “other,” but truly included in the dialogue?

Senator Sanders: Well, you’ve seen that take place in a number of countries around the world. For example, if you go up to Canada, which is just an hour away from here, and you go up to the most conservative person in parliament up there and you say ‘do you think you should abolish your health care system,’ which is a single-payer health care system, and in fact they have a conservative government up there, none of the conservatives think they should abolish it. So the idea of saying, so in Canada, the idea that health care is a human right is a part of their culture. I think that’s what you’re asking; whether progressive values become a part of people’s culture. That’s certainly true all over Scandinavia and many European countries. We have a long way to go. There are millions of Americans and, you know, many people in Congress who do not believe health care is a human right, that quality education should be a right regardless of their income. So we are behind many other countries in achieving a culture in which progressive values are accepted. We have a long way to go.

Winter is over, and the Green is green once again. The Olympians are back in their homes, and the tapping season has come to an end. Our pallid complexions are reverting to their tanner states, and our windows are left open so that our musty, dusty rooms can finally breathe in the aromas of Hanover. We at the DFP, with a new Editorial board and a cleansed critical palette, are excited for and committed to another term of keeping our eyes, ears, and noses open, following leads, and voicing our opinions. Whether or not you agree with us, we hope you, too, will share your voice with us and remain open to change.

Yes, it’s the season of renewal: by the time you read this issue, new members of the Board of Trustees will have been elected and the Student Assembly elections will be underway (the latter will be covered in a special DFP “SA Elections” issue).

Some of the new changes are a little hard to grasp. For the first time in decades, we may no longer be sending “blitzes”. Instead, as Parker Phinney explains in his article on email server change, we are most likely going to be sending, well, emails. Though for many of us, the idea wrenches the heart at its very mention—we will all miss that iconic dog-attacking-the-pixilated-mailman—we can rest assured that the change is all for good reason. It will make communication more efficient and reliable, and hopefully our Darmouth Experience will be purer: the more memory we can store in our email server, the more we space we can clear in our minds.

As Liz Klinger notes in her article, this summer Thayer Dining Hall will be closed for demolition and renovation. But before you storm the steps of Parkhurst, look on the bright side—at least Collis will be open. What’s more, if things go according to plan, the construction of “The Class of 1953 Commons” will provide a whole array of new-age common spaces to complement those already in nearby Robo and Collis. Who knows, it might even have a catchy nickname.

Meanwhile, in national news, magic mushrooms can cure depression, The Census is going gay (hopefully) and the healthcare Bill was passed over spring break. Zach De covers the census in his article, and some of the Health Care Bill’s more exact dimensions are clearly enumerated for our readers in Sora Ryu’s article on Health Care Reform.

Universal Health Care is one of those ideological shifts that for many seems overly technical, like the email server change, and so is reduced and boiled down until it is no longer a debate of Health Care Reform vs. no Health Care Reform but instead Socialism vs. Capitalism, or even charity vs. responsibility. This is simply not case—the two paradigms simply are not that different. There is no inherent reason why health care cannot share properties of both, and meet the needs of all parties.

Turning this idea on its head, as Sora Ryu writes in her article on Dambisa Moyo, helping the less fortunate is not—indeed, should not—be a matter of charity. It is hard for us, sitting around our coffee tables, eating our delicious Novak food, talking on our cell phones, to ever take the stance that helping starving children is not the right decision. We can’t see where our money is going or how it is being used; all we know is that we can’t stand for doing nothing. The problem with this mindset is that we are at the center, and once we drop our money through the slot or send our check in the mail, we have already achieved that feeling of moral satisfaction, whether or not it has benefitted anyone. Exploring this principle on the ground in Ghana, James Wang explains that the correct way to approach poverty in Africa is with investment and microfinance. If we can trust the people of Africa with the ability to repay small loans, new monetary freedom will stimulate the economy.

While the new Editorial Board at the DFP is looking forward to investigating these topics in the coming term, it is important to remember that even at a time like this (looking outside), not everything is like bunnies and sunshine.

The SEIU and staff cuts seem to have faded into the background, and the six-figure success of our Haiti relief effort is certainly a cause for celebration. Ethan Wang ’13, in a recent opinion article in “The Dartmouth,” chirped a familiar tune, writing “These two causes [Haiti and the staff] have generated a lot of attention on campus — but perhaps a little too much”. These “buzzwords”, as Wang writes, have become obsolete fashion statements, and the programs the college has enacted to address these issues “do little more than unnecessarily drain resources.”

Ethan Wang argues that we should not have taken in two Haitian immigrants for term at Dartmouth, because such an experience “will give them a fleeting taste of our privileged academic environment before returning to their impoverished country”. Wang concludes that they are not “Making the most of their experience.” But how can Wang make claims like this without having spoken to the students himself? I am sure you would find they are far from disappointed or bitter with their experiences here. As leaders in the Haiti relief effort, it is also the College’s obligation to uphold its, and our, image in the academic sphere by showing that we are willing to do more than publish photographs of our experts getting off of planes with fancy equipment. We are embracing the problem here as our own.

Labeling words like “Haiti” and “Staff” as buzzwords so that we can feel more comfortable about dismissing them does not show any well-formulated opinion. When there are no better alternatives, sometimes the most meaningful thing to do is to offer “a kind gesture” rather than embrace a colder, more financially “efficient,” logic.

One of the themes of this issue is that we have to know when charity is productive and when it becomes “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” In both cases, of course, the intentions are good, but the difference (or, perhaps, the devil) is in the details. Whose hands touch the money before it reaches its destination? When we choose to help one group of people, what more needy groups are we ignoring? Are we really making a difference?

As we prepare for a new term and the discussions to come, we have to make sure we keep in mind the consequences of our decisions in the future. We do not make decisions just to win or lose in the moment of disagreement, just as we cannot forget the struggle that got us here on issues like Haiti and the Staff. In the same way, we must consider how we look back on things like Blitzmail and Thayer Dining Hall as different people. If we remain open to change now, we will thank ourselves later.

As Barack Obama continues to massage the “Recovery Act” in an attempt to bridge the disparate demands of Republicans and Democrats over health care, the economy, and the government, energy has once again gained his focus—albeit with a more pro-nuclear tone than before.

Lying somewhere between the low-carbon diets of the donkeys and the insatiable appetites of the elephants, nuclear power appeals to many as a panacea for our rampant energy crisis, especially when this panacea comes from the mouth of our Fearless Leader.

The carbon emissions generated by nuclear power are minimal, and with enough money we can construct power behemoths that will each survive for over forty years. Obama recently stated—to the uproarious applause of both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans)—that he plans to “triple loan guarantees required … to finance safe, clean nuclear facilities” in order to “revive the nuclear industry in the United States”. Sounds like a squeaky-clean plan, right?

Wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as “safe, clean nuclear power.” Although nuclear power is safe in the sense that it won’t have you choking on smog every time you walk past the local reactor, the fact remains that there is no existing long-term way to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste systematically. Even the fact that Barack Obama describes it as “safe” suggests an intrinsic fear of the poorly studied dangers of nuclear power: we don’t hear people saying that coal mining is “safe” because we assume that it will not precipitate an explosion or permit the construction of a nuclear warhead.

As of now, our methods of nuclear waste disposal are temporary solutions at best and economic and environmental catastrophes at worst. In order to find out exactly what these “solutions” for disposing of waste are, I went to Steele Hall to interview professor Anthony Faiia, professor of Isotopic Chemistry.

DFP: ““How do nuclear power plants normally dispose of waste?”

Professor Faiia: “After a Uranium fuel rod is spent, they will typically put it in a pool inside the power plant until it cools down a little. Then they will seal it in a cement or iron cask, which they then put outside on the premises of the plants… Some of those isotopes will last millions of years, some of them will last hundreds of thousands of years.”

DFP: “Is there any more centralized way of storing the radioactive waste that would be better?”

Professor Faiia: “The truth is that putting nuclear waste all in one place is not the best way to store it. There is too much risk concentrated in one area. People have suggested storing the waste in places like Yucca Mountain, or even sending it into space. But then there is the [problem of] transportation: what happens if the spacecraft full of Uranium 238 explodes before it reaches space, as a handful of spacecraft have in the past? And all those semi trailers making the pilgrimage to Yucca Mountain or wherever would have to drive on the same roads as many civilians.”

DFP: “Yeah, I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable driving next to an 18-wheeler full of radiation.”

Though there have been no additions to our 104 nuclear facilities in America in over thirty years, Obama’s proposal wants to increase this number to 106 with the construction of two new reactors in Georgia. It seems that political inertia has proven to be no obstacle for Obama’s “Recovery Act”.

Unfortunately for nuclear supporters, a group of anti-nuclear progressives has made itself known just across the river in Vermont. Last week, in the state’s Senate chamber, the long, storied life of one such nuclear reactor was cut short. Since Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant’s (VY) first day of operation in 1972, it has provided over a third of Vermont’s electrical power.

If that seems like a long time, it’s even longer when you consider the 70-year half-life of uranium, or the virtually infinite amount of time before it’s completely gone. For what it’s worth, it appears that our nation’s energy schema has taken two steps back and one important step forward.

In front of an audience of over 100 anti-nuclear citizens, who had been staying in hotels in the capitol over the course of the 3-day hearing, a vote of 26-4 overruled Vermont Yankee’s license to operate, effective in 2012. The event was covered in the New York Times, The Boston Globe, ABC, and even The Guardian in the UK. A public ruling to decommission a power plant has not taken place in the US in over 20 years, as such legislation is usually considered by members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

A loophole opened up in 2002 when VY accepted a contract according to which it deferred to the authority of the Public Service Board of Vermont (PSB) in exchange for an increase in power output by 20%. This loophole was further exploited when lobbyists helped to pass Act 160 in 2006, which stated that all nuclear power plants in Vermont needed a “certificate of public good” from the PSB in order to renew their licenses, making it even harder for VY to extend its operation.

And now, what appeared to Vermont Yankee as an understandable bargain seems to have derailed the future of the plant. Thanks to the incremental progress of so many anti-nuclear activists, a slew of once-futile testimonies against the plant made adequate ammunition to take down the giant in a battle akin to David and Goliath.

Citing a water tower collapse and a transformer fire in the last decade—and, more recently, evidence that Yankee not only denied the presence of underground drainage pipes, but also denied tests that found that these pipes had leaked traces of radioactive tritium into our very own Connecticut river—the lobbyists were able to corner Vermont Yankee defendants.

Despite the attempts of VY and Entergy (VY’s parent organization, whose slogan, ironically enough, is “the power of the people”) at corporate coercion, the chances of turning over the Vermont Legislature’s vote are slim.

Bob Walker, director of the Sustainable Energy Resource Group (SERG), reiterated in a phone interview with the DFP that “the Senate’s decision was not dependent on the economics of the situation so much as the issue of trust, or a lack thereof, in Vermont Yankee.”

Other activist groups are not so confident. One of the main groups responsible for the long-standing battle against VY is the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). In order to look deeper into the fears and ambitions of the activists, I interviewed James Moore, the Director of the Clean Energy Program at VPIRG.

DFP: “Will you be expecting any amount of “corporate coercion” on the part of Vermont Yankee and Entergy to reverse the Senate’s decision?”

J.M.: “Yes, absolutely. The main problem that we’re facing is that we have a [senate] election in November. [In order to renew its contract], Entergy needs permission from the state legislature, and the concern is that they could try to buy votes in the next legislature and overturn what has been accomplished.”

DFP: “What can we do to prevent that from happening?”

J.M.: “Well, we can work to make sure that the people who vote for legislators are educated. If we can expose what is going on enough, I am sure the voters will support closure [of VY].”

DFP: “I heard the figure for decommissioning VY is over $1 billion. Why is it that decommissioning costs so much?”

J.M.: “Well, in that billion-dollar number there are two things. The first is cleaning up the building, getting rid of contamination, digging up foundations, etc. The second part is keeping the radioactive waste on the premises until the federal government comes in and takes it away. That could be decades, since we have no standardized solution for getting rid of that waste in this country.”

DFP: “But Vermont’s annual budget is only about $1 billion, and the state is already in debt. Who is going to pay that cost?”

J.M.: “That is actually a highly debated question. When Entergy bought VY in 2002, it promised to be responsible for the full decommissioning of the plant, and all the clean-up costs. Now they are trying to go back on their promise by deferring the cost to their limited-liability subsidiaries, which presumably would not pay the full price. We don’t want the big parent corporation in Louisiana to take all the profits and then walk away from the liability.”

Although Vermont Yankee has its fair share of problems, it is neither the oldest nor the most decrepit of the 104 nuclear reactors in our country. There is a rising trend of similar management and infrastructure problems in nuclear power plants in the US: 27 of them are still currently leaking radioactive waste.

Even if these leaks have not yet been connected to any widespread health concerns, as is the case with VY, this is no proof that nuclear power is safe. The effects of radiation are long term and sometimes unknown for decades, as was the case after Russia’s Chernobyl incident.

Nor does this take into account the latent potential for weaponizing nuclear material at any nuclear plant. In addition, we must remember that uranium is by no means an unlimited or cheap resource.

In the face of such daunting odds, the success of progressives in Vermont should serve as a model for energy legislation in all states. On our side of the Connecticut River, for example, is Seabrook Nuclear power plant.

Although Seabrook is one of the newest plants in the country, New Hampshire may look to what is happening in Vermont and decide that as Seabrook gets older, New Hampshire must be sure to have a voice in its fate.

Hopefully, President Obama will hear the cries of Vermonters and begin to change his energy policies. There is simply no getting around it: nuclear power is dangerous, unsafe, and an unsustainable long-term energy source.

If Barack Obama must continue to build new plants, we progressives need to make sure to resist by shutting down old plants, exposing corporations like Entergy for their lies, and looking for alternative sources of energy.

Last week, just days after a State of the Union address that was reassuringly reformative, President Obama was invited to speak at a Baltimore GOP retreat, where he pressed upon Republicans the necessity of closing the partisan gap in Congress. Although the hour of question-and-answer that followed may have been more controversial and certainly more entertaining than the address itself, Obama’s speech to House Republicans was more significant: it was the greatest triumph of the First Amendment since Stephen Colbert’s scathing routine at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2006.

But perhaps the Republican’s self-opposing stance that authorizing national media coverage as a “mistake” is only fair. Though it is true that Obama’s remarks were “chastising” and “confrontational”, these incivilities should not be allowed to preclude the point. What we should take away from this historical moment is not how well (or poorly) our politicians defend their rhetoric, but rather what Obama’s 20-minute “in-tele-promptu” offensive reveals about the success (or failure) of his presidency.

“These are serious times,” he declared after a brief introduction to the members of the Grand Ol’ Party. “What is required by all of us— Democrats and the Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy for me to say this, but there are things more important than poll numbers, and on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.”

Or can we? Just because Obama’s approval ratings have fallen to 47% in the past few months doesn’t mean this is a result of his political steadfastness, as this quote seems to suggest. Is Obama’s rhetoric of taking on the plight of bi-partisanship, ending war in Afghanistan (remember that?) and curbing the deficit reflective of reality, or is Obama really an ideologue, contrary to his denials?

Obama noted that he had already enlisted many of the Republicans standing before him to cross party lines. He mentioned working with Sen. McCain to make the largest increase in the Veteran’s Association budget in 30 years and dissolve state lines for insurance companies. He implemented Rep. Eric Cantor’s idea to make the website “Recovery.gov” and incorporated the ideas of Republicans Mike Enzy and Victoria Snow to create affordable “catastrophic insurance” for young people. This makes it hard to deny Obama’s willingness to work with lawmakers regardless of their political affiliation.

While Obama has followed through on his promises of bipartisanship, those on the left might argue that he is making too many compromises. Have his personal liberal views begun to gravitate towards centrist ones in order to achieve success as President? Perhaps. But while I, as a progressive, am aware of his diplomatic elasticity, I am also aware of the current state of our politics. Right now the most critical issue is not that our politicians lack good ideas; it is simply that we don’t trust them and they don’t trust each other – all with good reason.

Is Obama succeeding in using his position as President to its fullest capacity? Both his proposal to the GOP of a “modest fee on the nation’s banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers’ money” and his decree for all congressional earmarks to be made public before they came to a vote reinforced his seriousness in reigning in the national debt. Even after the senate rejected his idea just a day earlier for a “bi-partisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long-term,” Obama made it clear that he would nonetheless establish such a commission by Executive Order. Having placed all his cards on the table, it seems rather obvious that Obama is not prepared to go on playing political games, and that he is indeed living by his principles.

It is interesting to note one of the many disarming claims made in his speech. Obama cited a recent CNN poll which stated that “while most Americans disapprove of the 2009 economic stimulus bill, they like each individual policy in it. When you break it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, and 80 percent approved of assistance to the unemployed.” A more recent article on CNN clarified that while “Obama’s summary was largely correct,” the poll stated only 70% of Americans approved of the tax cuts.

Despite this interesting paradox, neither CNN nor Obama has offered a deconstruction or explanation. Obama’s economic stimulus package seems to be obscured by an air of blind disapproval—even distrust—despite the fact the individual policies are transparent, and most American citizens support specific mandates wholeheartedly. This suggests that the viability of the stimulus bill amounts to more than the total viability of its parts. We must imagine, then, that the American people are having some collective hallucination that up and vanishes upon closer inspection.

Obama may value principle over his popularity for the time being, but he will inevitably face re-election and be forced to worry about public opinion. Perhaps the best way for Obama to transform his stimulus bill from a failure to a success is to allow the American people to get closer to the political process. If they are exposed to and continue to see the political discourse inside Congressional chambers and witness the ideological crossfire, then perhaps the American public will be rid of this illusion. Obama successfully promoted transparency by airing the speech on national television last week. Subsequently, it should be no surprise that since the convention, Obama’s polls have begun climbing again for the first time in months.

Thanks to Lady Gaga, quality pop music is still alive in the 3rd millennium. If you are an anti-radio purist who claims that pop perished sometime in the 90s, there’s now a way to redeem yourself—for Lady Gaga has resurrected pop in the form of the macabre and the uncanny, the oversexed and yet threateningly asexual.

And while she may not be restoring life to popular music, Lady Gaga is instead drawing on our fear of its demise by taking what is passé and reanimating it as the culturally undead.

If you were to ask me what I mean by “uncanny,” I would ask you to hit up YouTube and watch Lady Gaga’s “Bad Romance.” That shit is FREAKY. If you want a definition of the “undead” in Gaga’s work, just watch the video of her sanguinary performance at the VMA’s, in which she looks like Sissy Spasek in Carrie and eventually hangs herself from the ceiling.

Just as she writes and produces all of her own music, Lady Gaga herself choreographed this figurative murder and rebirth of Pop. She later commented to shocked reporters that to the performance was a way of “say[ing] something honest and real.”

Amidst Lady Gaga’s cryptic responses to news reporters—she told one that the only thing she looks for in a man is “a big dick”—and rumors of her being a hermaphrodite, you can’t help but wonder if she is hiding something.

When an MTV reporter commented on her heavily stylized persona and asked her if he was speaking with “Lady Gaga the person or Lady Gaga the character,” she passionately responded, “For the last 10-15 years there has been an absence of theater in Showbiz.

There is an assumption that unless I am showing you myself with no makeup and a t-shirt on, doing no dance moves and strumming on a guitar … that I am artificial, and I’m not. I am simply a performance artist … and my life is my art.”

As for her being a hermaphrodite, the sources of those rumors have all been proven unsubstantial, though Lady Gaga has not commented on the issue. All publicity is good publicity, as they say.

Yet if Lady Gaga’s untamed art is her life, then we should also assume that her life is her art. But what is the life of Lady Gaga like?

Well, a starting point may be what Lady Gaga claims as her deepest conviction and primary inspiration: the gay community. According to Gaga, the single most important moment of her career was when she spoke in Washington D.C. for the National Gay Rights Rally. As usual, though she has refrained from any comment on her sexual orientation.

Then there is Gaga’s method of work. The so-called “Haus of Gaga” is the nexus of all production and collection of props, sets, and clothing Lady Gaga uses in performance, and everything is manufactured there, in-house, by Gaga and a team of close friends. In a warehouse reminiscent of Andy Warhol’s “Factory” (admittedly, Warhol is one of Lady Gaga’s main influences), Gaga evades the limelight in order to focus on her creative endeavors. The Haus of Gaga, given its self-referential and self-aware concentration of creativity, is likely one of the keys to Gaga’s success in a world of otherwise impersonal collaboration.

Considering even this romantic image of Lady Gaga as a rogue, anti-social burlesque-dancer-gone-celebrity, there are still many who believe she is undeserving of both critical and mainstream attention. She possesses neither the sex appeal of Britney Spears nor the vocal chords of Celine Dion, so what is it she has—beyond pop-art savvy and a derivative, self-conscious public image—that no one else has?

The answer is this: Lady Gaga is a mistress of covert suggestion. Take a closer glance at her music videos and lyrics (which, I am ashamed to admit, I have done obsessively), and you will notice a slew of hidden linguistic, visual, and formal meaning. I am no psychologist, and certainly don’t find Lady Gaga to be all that attractive, but perhaps that detachment is exactly why the red flags go up so easily for me.

To highlight what is going on beneath the surface of Lady Gaga’s work, let me point out a few things that require no embarrassing Lady Gaga YouTube sessions. Some background: the two events that first catapulted Lady Gaga into stardom were her hit singles “Poker face” and “Just Dance.” The pronunciation of this former song’s title is essential; if you listen to phrasing of “p-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face” when sung, it sounds exactly like “fuck her face” the second time.

During the bridge of the song “Just Dance,” the lyrics “half psychotic, sick, hypnotic, got my blueprint, it’s psychotic” sound exactly like the words “have sex” repeated over and over when she says them. During this sequence in the music video there is also a clip of Lady Gaga humping a whale and a flash of the word “join” for no apparent reason.

To be fair, Lady Gaga does not necessarily hide the smoke and mirrors, and she may consider subconscious influence a part of her art—something half-concealed that lends entertainment value and intrigue. In an another interview with MTV, a reporter suggested that the death of Princess Diana was a direct result of her fame (“the fame” was the name of Gaga’s first album) and that fame may place Gaga in a similar position of undoing. Gaga calmly responded, “You know, it’s actually interesting you say that, because I speak that way too.”

If Gaga is so keen to recognize and critique an attempt at unconscious emotional persuasion, we can imagine the role it might play in her work.

Sometimes Lady Gaga’s attempts at leading her audience into a trance take the form of explicit, self-conscious comedy. In the music video for the song “Paparazzi,” one scene has Lady Gaga falling into a whirling black-and-white spiral while a voice in the background says the word “beautiful” repeatedly.

Maybe it’s just me, but Lady Gaga’s absurdist and deliberately derelict style reminds me of Mugatu from Zoolander, only instead of getting you to relax, she just wants to turn you on.

Any critique of Lady Gaga’s powers of suggestion begs the question of whether she is really something unique, or if she is just a more “manipulative” version of countless other musicians in the past.

After all, there will always be verbal ambiguity when words are spoken instead of written—we have all gotten song lyrics wrong before. And doesn’t music, by pairing sound with the written word, inherently imbue words with extra-lingual meaning?

At its end, music is about making the listener feel a certain way. How, exactly, that feeling comes about isn’t always relevant to the person experiencing it.

So, if you are a born-again conservative, Lady Gaga is probably what you would call (as many bloggers have) the “antichrist.” However, if you are an intelligent person who is willing to look deeper into the inspiration and methods of her work, you will notice that she is, quite likely, a genius with an overactive sex drive.

Go Lady Gaga!

Eating at Dartmouth is unlike eating in at a restaurant or at a dinner table. Most of us don’t think of a late-night trip to FoCo as a chance to enlighten our taste buds, and it is certainly not the kind of place where you wait for your friends to sit down before you dig in.

We get so wrapped up in our to-go wraps, our “facetime” and our frenzied hunter-gatherer instincts that we don’t stop to appreciate the hands that are feeding us. If you haven’t noticed the interesting people who work for DDS, then you are a victim of this hunger-induced blindness.

To find out more about the ways we interact with DDS employees, I waited for a lull at FoCo when there wouldn’t be any lines. I met many recognizable faces for the first time and shook their hands across the counter.

DFP: I think for a lot of people at Dartmouth, getting food is more of an expectation than a privilege. What do you think is the best thing people can do to connect on a more personal level with the servers and improve their dining experience?

Hippie: To me, the most important thing in our interaction with the students is good manners. “Please” and “thank you” are like the grease on the wheels of communication, and we really appreciate that.

Kevin: The “please” and “thank you’s” are nice, especially for the older guys on the grill. Being the oldest guy on the grill, and having at least one child almost your age, saying please and thank you really helps. I don’t demand it, but in some ways I still expect it.

DFP: What time of day do you find your job to be most enjoyable?”

Kevin: Things are usually easy going anytime before late at night. Around a quarter to one or twelve thirty is the worst time. Sometimes you’ll have customers who are belligerent for one of a number of reasons, usually alcohol-related. You’re all around 20 years old… We were all there once.

Eric: One night at around 11:30 we had a long line of people all chanting, “We want Mozz Sticks! We want Mozz Sticks!” because we had temporarily run out of them.

DFP: What do you guys do to deal with that? Do you just take a cigarette break? Or do you try to intervene?

Kevin: You know, I let it roll off. But a lot of times I will say, “What’s the magic word?” You know, just like I would do with my kids. We enjoy having a little fun just to interact with the students. Sometimes I say, “Cluck like a chicken.” Some people will flap their arms and go “bck bck bck,” and some of them just go, “Give me my steak.” I wouldn’t make them cluck like a chicken, you know? At the same time, maybe next time that dude comes around, I’ll do something a little better for him.

DFP: Are they any circumstances where you don’t have to serve someone?

Kevin: In some cases if the person is being really belligerent, we won’t serve them food, and we’ll probably just call one of the managers.

DFP: If people do share casual banter and have good manners, does it really make a difference?

Eric: Yeah, if a guy is cool, we might put a little more pizaz on his cheese steak. Or if he orders the same thing every day and he’s nice, I might get his food to him a little earlier. I might see him at the end of the line, and he’ll just put up one or two fingers, and I know he wants a grilled chicken so I throw it on the grill right away.

So next time you’re awkwardly standing in line at the Hop or FoCo with nothing to say to the people next to you, try throwing a comment across the counter to one of the cooks. This could be a simple “top of the morning,” a commentary on something happening behind the counter (“I saw what shape you made that fried egg, heh”), or if the line isn’t too long, it could even be a brainstorm of some outlandish and exotic dish—don’t be mistaken, they love making something different.

Whatever way you choose interact with the DDS employees, it will pay off, whether that means not eating an egg that was once in the shape of a phallus, getting your food earlier, or getting your cheese a little more melty.

And bring back the trays at the Hop (I wonder who it could be, AD pledges?)! We already have enough to juggle in our lives.

About two months ago, I suddenly was no longer able to log on to my Facebook account. We all know the procedure: click the “Forgot Password?” button and have it sent to your email, where you can reset your password and quickly get your life back. However, I have tried at least eight times now, and the most I have gotten is one mocking email from Facebook claiming that all I had to do was respond and I would finally receive a new password—but apparently they were just kidding. After a week or so I moved on from Facebook and decided I didn’t need it anymore, but alas, I found there was no way to delete my account. The good news is I have been liberated by the expectations that used to shackle me to my wall. The bad news is that the wall still stands, and now the most I can do is to watch my poorly-maintained identity as it drifts through cyberspace, being tagged in obscene scenarios (ok, that’s my fault), and deterring potential friends with my forced anti-cyber-socialism.

My unfortunate experience has made me a lot more aware of cyber-shenanigans and I decided to examine the issue. Appropriately enough, October happened to be National Cyber Security Month.

What exactly is cyber security? Most people think it is analogous with the health of living organisms. My story is the equivalent of a minor itch—especially compared to some of the breadth and destruction inflicted by certain computer illnesses. Just like health in human beings, there are two kinds of illness: those inflicted by some other organism, and those that are simply accidental. The Consumerist recently reported a number of people who were accidentally charged $23,148,855,308,184,500.00 on their debit cards due to a malfunction in the bank’s computer. This is a very rare and unavoidable type of bug, and of course Visa agreed to fully reimburse the victims. Still, it’s a reminder that our bank accounts exist in cyberspace, which, like the world we live in, is unpredictable.

Then there is the other kind of illness: the virus. People called “hackers” or “phishers”—essentially rogue computer scientists—engineer them. Most of these criminals derive funds by siphoning discretely from savings accounts, acquiring information about competitors, or if they are especially talented, by directly robbing a bank via computer.

Other common computer illnesses, usually driven by commercial motivations, are generally called “malware.” Some viruses, called “trojans,” can hijack your email account and force it to send out spam to other email addresses—contagious viruses are among the most successful. Other viruses will remember the keystrokes when you type in the password for your bank account and use it to redirect your money to another account. For about a week, your account appears to be normal while the virus is doing its work, and by the time your balance visibly declines, the virus has vanished without a cookie trail.

So what can we do to prevent getting these viruses, and recognize when they invade our computers? The first steps consists of what you’ve heard many times before: Always have trusted virus protection, never leave your computer unlocked in a public space, and don’t open suspicious emails claiming to extend your “membership.”

However, these cyber-hygiene maxims leave a lot of questions about cyber security unanswered. Is the amount of Internet crime going to decrease with improved technology in the future? Then there is the more obvious question: why is there so much Internet crime in the first place? Is Facebook to blame?
In order to answer these questions, I went to Thayer Engineering professor George Cybenko, a specialist in this area.

DFP: “What do we have to do to improve cyber security?”
G.C.: “Improving security will require two things… a) better technology and b) better user awareness of security threats. People are working on a) and making progress. In order to achieve b), users and consumers will have to be educated.”
DFP: “So if the technology is out there, why are so many computers and networks still getting sick?”
G.C: “Although there is better technology, not all users invest in it. Even large companies cut corners on security investment—it’s a calculated cost-benefit analysis.”
Maybe Facebook is to blame for my untamed Facebook wall, I thought to myself.
DFP: “Is data protection keeping up with the new boom of Facebook, Myspace, and online desktops, or is the overall safety of our online identities getting worse?”
G.C.: “The vulnerabilities of Facebook and Myspace are not related to data protection or encryption technology. [The problem] is that people put stuff out there for many to see. There’s more personal data out there [nowadays], for sure.”

It is important to remember that not all viruses are illegal, and not all illegal programs will give you viruses. Some “warez” come in the form of free online “cracks” for unlocking full-version functionality in popular programs that you can download on illegal websites. Although they can be extremely helpful to an unscrupulous consumer, they are also illegal, and authorities usually discover them in a few months. Many of their creators have no incentive to design these programs other than peer recognition. “Hacking has become a business with economic incentives which are not completely open or known,” Cybenko added. For example: Counterstrike, arguably the most internationally successful first-person shooter of all time, was adapted from another published computer game (Half-Life) by an anonymous computer hacker.

Ironically, one could theoretically use an online “crack” to protect one’s computer against viruses. However, due to the many legal risks of downloading freeware—and the fact that at second glance most spyware and virus removers are themselves malware—this is highly discouraged. Although the cyber black-market is not synonymous with corrupt and infected files, there are other obvious calamities to watch out for.

These risks have nothing to do with viruses or computer health in general… they are more legal in nature. Downloading music, cracks, and keygens with generic software clients like Limewire or ever allegedly safe torrent clients is simply a game of roulette. The world of free downloads is a “gray market” that ranges from semi-legal to illegal.

I do not advocate illicit activities, but if you must indulge in cyber piracy, you should choose your methods of downloading wisely—and again, the DFP is most assuredly not advocating these. If you like the regularity of a place that won’t get shut down every few months, the safest option is buying the premium package from a file hosting website (such as rapidshare.com or hotfile.com) for a flat rate and with unlimited downloading capacity. This usually costs about $60 dollars for a year, but the selection is like an all-you-can-eat media buffet. You can search for files on this database through torrent websites like warez-bb.org, or you can use a little trick a-la-Google that will allow you to access to the database from the back, saving time. After you have subscribed to a website like rapidshare.com, simply search on Google: “file:rapidshare.com name of file”, and it will present only premium files from the site. But you still take all the risks and dangers associated with pirated content—including potential legal ramifications.

The Internet is the landscape of the new millennium: it is a battlefield, a library, and a Las Vegas. Like any of these places, if you don’t know the rules you can be taken advantage of and/or hauled away, and even then, the rules aren’t always enforced. Worst of all, you can compromise the safety of anyone with whom you may be connected. However, if you stay quiet and accept that you—and your wallet—have to make certain sacrifices, you will find yourself in command of enormous potential.

The reason why Dartmouth is better than any other Ivy League school is the fact that you can have sex on it’s mascot. The green may be a risky place to bump uglies, but then again, that is precisely the reason why it has earned a spot on the Dartmouth Seven.

In case you have no life, the Dartmouth seven is a list of places where you have to have sex before you graduate. Some may think (and by some I mean I) this list harkens back to the seven deadly sins, or sailing the seven seas, or the lucky number seven, and for that reason they may be attached to that number.

But please, allow me to retort. After all, its sinking the 8-ball that wins you the game, 8 is the Chinese lucky number, are 8 planets in the solar system (fuck you, Pluto). In fact, the Dartmouth “7” is actually not completely agreed upon in some of the worse educated echelons of Dartmouth society, and frequently a stray 8th will slip in there (usually golf course). For the record, the agreed upon Dartmouth 7 as of now consists of:

President’s Lawn
The Green
Bema
Stacks
Steps of Dartmouth Hall
Top of the Hop
Football Field

This pivotal decision is obviously not up to the DFP. The Dartmouth 8 should be for the people, by the people. In a recent interview with Dartmouth community members, I asked what location they would add to the Dartmouth seven.

These were their responses:

Inside an SNS truck – FoCo Grill guy

The Climbing Gym – unknown

In the pool – Alyson Picket ‘11 “bathing suits allowed, water jets not included”

The Tower Room x4 – Jacob Batchelor ’12 “Make sure she’s not a screamer”

Golf course – Riley Kane ‘12 [get a hole in one]

The pendulum in Fairchild – Santiago Romero’11 (for that slow, gentle sex)

First Floor Berry – unknown

Graveyard – unknown (so totally blasphemous)

Foco x3 – Mandy brasher ’12 (mmm…)

Dick’s House – unknown {as long as you’re both sick…}

On the swing of the metal beam sculpture behind the Hood Museum – Nathaniel Seymour ’12 (so postmodern)

Novack x2 – Chistopher Valleu ‘12 (extra point during finals)

The pond when its frozen over – my personal fave

On a pong table x2 – unknown (extra points if it doesn’t flip over)

Dr. Seuss room – Anonymous (where the fuck is that?)

We think a lot of these places blow the Bema and the Steps of Dartmouth Hall away. If you agree, send us your opinion (blitz “DFP”) and we will tally your votes for the next issue.

So, Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” This honor has filled some Americans with a surge of pride, others a shot of surprise, and for the majority of world citizens, an undermining suspicion that the Nobel Peace Prize has been devalued. In the same way that one wonders if the son of a former President has been elected on his own merits or connections, we have to wonder: was it Obama’s genius that won the prize or his position? The award does not feel deserved; it is less a celebration of his past achievements and more a confident encouragement for the future. Whatever happened to the American Dream—or the international dream—of not having to be president or royalty in order to win a million bucks and some recognition?

To answer this question, we must look to a different award ceremony that awards a different kind of genius. The Ig Nobel Awards are intended for inventions and discoveries that are “first intended to make you laugh and then think,” according to their website. Although you won’t be inducted into a Royal society or receive comparable prize money as a “real” Nobel Laureate, you can become a member of the Luxuriant Flowing Hair Club for Scientists, provided that you fit the criteria.

Many of the scientists who submit their work to “improbable research” had absolutely no funding from external endorsements. Most of the discoveries are simple and elegant — not the result of arduous years in grad school.

For example, the Public Health Prize was awarded to Dr. Elena Bodnar for inventing a brassiere that, in an emergency, can be quickly converted into a pair of protective masks—one for the brassiere wearer and one to be given to some needy bystander. The genius of this invention lies in the fact that, assuming that the majority of women wear bras (hint hint), and given the fact that 51 percent the world’s population is female, the application of such a product could be nearly universal. Plus, it produces a great new pick-up line: “Hey babe, I have Swine, give me your bra.”

Some researchers combined common sense and ancient practices to form orderly answers that stand up to today’s high-standards. For example Donald L. Unger won the Medicine Award “for investigating a possible cause of arthritis of the fingers, by diligently cracking the knuckles of his left hand—but never cracking the knuckles of his right hand—every day for more than sixty (60) years.” What a trooper.

Similarly, the Veterinary Medicine Award went to Catherine Douglas and Peter Rowlinson “for showing that cows who have names give more milk than cows that are nameless.” Unfortunately, this discovery goes hand-in-hand with the demise of the entertaining game “HEY COW!”
More interestingly, in 2008, the Physics Prize went to Dorian Raymer and Douglas Smith for proving with mathematical knot theory that “heaps of string or hair or almost anything else will inevitably tangle themselves up in knots.” I don’t want to know how, but Geoffrey Miller won the Economics Prize “for discovering that professional lap dancers earn higher tips when they are ovulating.”

Other discoveries, like the fact that potato chips can be electronically modified so as to sound crunchier when chewed, merely prove some of our suspicions about the shadiness of the commercial world. Dan Ariely of Duke University, Rebeca Webar of MIT, Baba Shiv of Stanford University, and Ziv Carmen of Singapore won the Medicine Prize “for demonstrating that high-priced fake medicine is more effective than low-priced fake medicine.”

While many of these problems are ancient and their solutions timeless, others are extremely pertinent to global issues today. This year’s Economics Prize went to the auditors of four Icelandic banks “for demonstrating that tiny banks can be rapidly transformed into huge banks, and vice versa.” In 2008, the Peace Prize was awarded to the Swiss Federal Ethics Committee for adopting a legal principle that plants have dignity. Now that sounds like a real paradigm shift.
The Ig Nobel Awards’ purist philosophy coupled with the Nobel Award’s prestigious regalia could help reinvent our notion of “genius.” Over a century ago, Alfred Nobel thought the Peace Prize was deserved by “the person who shall have done the best work … for the reduction of standing armies.” It’s clear Obama has not taken significant steps to reduce the number of troops in the Middle-East, and therefore does not deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. Although the Nobel Award might be cheapened, the Ig Nobel Awards rewards deserving professors and entities for competent, albeit zany, work.