Campus Forum | January 19, 2010

Globalization is not bad for liberty

In response to Wednesday’s column, “Globalization’s sovereign folly.” Columnist Chad Rhoades warns that greater globalization, particularly at a political level, will decrease individuals’ divinely bestowed rights and create more division between world political and cultural groups. Instead of greater globalization, Mr. Rhoades advocates that nations should work to better understand and gain mutual respect for each other through means other than global institutions. However, if we look at the stated fears of political globalization, we see that global institutions don’t generate these situations, but actually ameliorate them.

Through some type of global government, the political clout of its citizens is more evenly distributed, not lessened on the whole. Admittedly, as Americans we have more potent voices than citizens of poorer countries since we elect the most powerful officials on the global stage. However, this is not necessarily a good thing. We, as Americans, have a vested interest in the world status quo since we have it much better off than other peoples, while the peoples of the third world have an interest in a bit more of their rights being met. Surely we can agree that humans in absolute poverty should have their rights advocated on the global stage. With world institutions, this is possible.
       
Moreover, international forms only enhance understanding between nations and peoples through exposure to other cultures, not lessen it. Furthermore, with global institutions we find an alternative to war for promoting the moral course, communication.

Andrew Crothers
freshmen, chemical engineering

Wilson's opinions on sex provide appealing new view

I really liked Marlena Wilson’s column in Friday’s Technician. It's refreshing to hear opinions that oppose the college mob mentality, for once.

There are two trends that relate to this issue in society today. First, as you've said, the stated social norm in college is to have lots of sex. I've heard friends say things like “I haven't had sex in a week,” as if that's a long time. The media is all about “some sex,” as you mentioned in the article.

Another trend is that the divorce rate is through the roof, and climbing. In our country, if you are normal, you can expect at least one divorce and a mid-life crisis by the time you are over the hill.

I'm not saying that there is necessarily a cause-effect relationship between the two, but it seems that these days it is not wise to follow the norm.

And another thing, the most common reason I hear for people to have sex without making a long term commitment is that "I don't see a reason not to.” Strangely enough, of all the people that say this, most of them have been hurt by sex. I don't mean pregnancy or disease. I mean the emotional destruction that happens when someone gets cheated on, or when a relationship involving sex simply doesn't work out. People change their entire outlook on life when they get that close to someone and then lose them. I'm lucky enough not to have experienced that first hand, but second hand is enough to know that there are some things that we just don't
understand until it's too late.

So maybe the reason is that a relationship should be based on something deeper than “free love.” Or maybe it's that casual sex is desensitizing. Whatever the case, virginity is not something to be made fun of. To do so is both arrogant and foolish, and the reasoning behind it consists mostly of insecurity and lack of self-control; too-often justified by mob mentality.

Kyle Wissing
junior, mechanical engineering