Category: Opinion

Many people, from friends to enemies, have told me that they dislike horror movies because they don’t want to be scared, but what if I said that’s not the point? You’re probably watching horror movies all wrong. 

Yes, it is true that horror movies are scary. That would be kind of asinine to believe otherwise. After all, if something can be described as horrible, it is generally scary or terrifying. But the misconception comes from perceiving incorrectly where the terror and fear are directed. To explain the issue, we’ll use a movie that I believe to be a horror classic: David Cronenberg’s “The Fly.” 

In “The Fly,” starring Jeff Goldblum, a scientist is transformed into a grotesque insectoid bent on warping the fabric of his wife and child’s DNA. This specific example is part of a subsection of horror known as “body horror.” In body horror, a majority of the scare comes from transformations of the body and these transformations are usually graphic.  

Before dissecting the issues in “The Fly,” it is pertinent to define what the acceptable canon of horror films really is. Horror films are three things primarily: they play on rational fears, they are referential to horror movies that came before them, and they commentate on important political and social issues of their time. “The Fly,” of course, does all three of these masterfully. 

The film primarily plays on the fear of losing oneself to their work. The scientist in the story is initially just curious with the prospect of teleporting an object or a living creature between two points in his teleporter pod, but his curiosity evolves into madness as the creature takes over his mind. 

The film also builds on the genre that came before, pulling from such classics like “Invasion of the Body Snatchers,” with the pod motif washing over the self and introducing a new identity, which does happen to the scientist. It also maintains the motivic idea of the “scream queen,” all in white, similar to “King Kong” and “Creature from the Black Lagoon.” 

In terms of political commentary, “The Fly” has an obvious issue and a not so obvious issue. The obvious one is the march of science’s progress and how far should science go. Should altering the DNA of humans be legal? Should scientists subject themselves to their own experiments at the risk of their own lives? The answers are up in the air even today. The inconspicuous issue within the film is the issue of abortion. The scientist’s wife becomes pregnant after he begins to change into the insectoid creature and so she contemplates aborting the fetus. This, at the time, was quite a scandalous issue and had a polarizing effect on people. 

Now, you’re probably scared from the description of the film alone. That’s OK. However, this fear should not deter you from watching the film. Ultimately, horror films function like any other dramatic work, be it movies, theatre, radio, or television. They are meant to tell a story. You should watch horror films to see how the characters react to their circumstances, spooky or not.  

My advice: take in a new horror film this October. Make it an evening where you really pay attention to what these characters are doing and why. Treat the film much like you would any other movie and really think about what the filmmakers did to bring you into that experience. 

Judge Brett Kavanaugh, Supreme Court nominee, and Christine Blasey Ford testified on Thursday for the Senate Judiciary Committee about Ford’s accusation against Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting her when they were teenagers. Ford came out with a statement saying Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her, after he was announced as a nominee for the Supreme Court. Ford said the assault happened at a high school party she attended when she was 15 and he was 17. Ford stated in her testimony that Kavanaugh held her down on a bed with his hand over her mouth and groped her and that she was terrified he might have accidentally killed her in his drunken state.   

Many people think that since the assault happened more than 30 years ago that it does not matter. I watched a video in which a group of women were interviewed, and sadly they all said things among the lines of, “It happened so long ago she should be over it,” “If she waited so long it must not have affected her that badly,” and one woman stated, “It was a touch, if she’s still hung up on a touch after thirty years maybe it’s her problem,” and another said, “What 17 year old hasn’t done this.” I personally know many 17-year-olds that have not sexually assaulted someone. Why are we normalizing sexual assault? It should not be something that we say “who hasn’t done it” because frankly that is ridiculous.  

According to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, 63% of sexual assaults are not reported to police. Also, according to Psychology Today, there are many reasons victims don’t report their harassment or assault; such as, shame, denial or minimization, fear of the consequences, low self-esteem, feelings of hopelessness, having a history of being sexually violated, lack of information, and disbelief, dissociated, or drugged. When dealing with trauma, sometimes to cope the brain may dissociate so it doesn’t have to deal with everything at once. 

Many have questioned her choice to come out with the accusation now, now that he’s nominated for the Supreme Court. Many people think it has something to do with political parties and Democrats trying to prevent another Republican being elected. There are many reasons, though, as to why she came out now. Perhaps she saw his name in the news and it was a trigger for her past trauma or maybe she wanted to prevent the man who assaulted her, and seems to not know what consent is, from taking such a high-power position.  

Leading up to the trial it seemed as though Kavanaugh was really grasping at anything he could use as evidence that he did not sexually assault this woman. With statements saying he remained a virgin through high school and many years after; he also wanted to submit a personal calendar as evidence, saying he didn’t write down on that day that he attended the party so therefore he didn’t attend. The fact that he stated he could not have sexually assaulted someone because he was a virgin is ridiculous because nowhere in her accusation did she say that he forced her into sex. One can sexually assault someone by groping them and still be a virgin.  

During the hearing Kavanaugh seemed upset, with hand waiving and yelling. He continued to repeat the same things over and over and got noticeably more aggravated every time. He continuously interrupted Senator Dianne Feinstein and seemed to throw a small fit. Kavanaugh also continuously said that he liked beer. Apparently, he wanted to get the point across that he did indeed like beer. He did, though, deny any chance of blacking out, drinking too much, or getting carried away. He did a lot of denying during his questioning. It was concluded at the hearing’s finalization that there would be an FBI investigation, though it is a short one, ending Friday, Oct. 5. 

There have been not one, but three women who have come forward with allegations against Brett Kavanauagh, however Dr. Ford was the only one who went to the hearing. Let us not forget about the Anita Hill case. Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexual harassment and after their hearing it was decided that Thomas was a good candidate for the Supreme Court and still serves today.  

This should not be a Republican vs. Democrat situation, it is a sexual assault accusation; a woman was sexually assaulted and it’s come down to political parties. We should be worrying about a man, not his political affiliation, who allegedly assaulted a woman when he was young. It should not matter if he was young when he did it, consent is a simple thing, though some seem to think it is more difficult than “yes” or “no.” Instead of putting a woman on trial and sending her hate mail, who went through a traumatic experience and deserves justice, let’s work on learning the truth and not putting a second man on the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, who was accused of sexual assault.  

Nearly 22 veterans commit suicide daily, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Of these 22 only six had recently reached out to the Department of Veterans Affairs for help.  

This percentage has risen nearly 31 percent since 2004. While many studies have been completed to get a better understanding of veterans’ mental health, not enough services have been provided to help our veterans treat and learn to live with these disorders.  

Returning soldiers may suffer from one or many mental disorders, such as post traumatic stress disorder, depression, substance abuse, or traumatic brain injuries. These are life-altering conditions. It is much more than simply being sad or shaky; many veterans completely lose the lifestyle they had before their service.  

There are numerous treatment options for these disorders; however, they are not as readily available as they need to be. More and more veterans are coming forward and asking for treatment, but there has not been a similar increase in providing help for those who served our country.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs is supposed to be a resource for the issues a veteran may experience during their enlistment and after. However, due to extensive wait times for diagnosis and care, and subpar treatment options, many veterans are going untreated or having to seek help from private services. For example, most veterans’ mental health diagnoses are completed in primary care facilities. Though I am glad the men and women were able to find their diagnosis, the department dedicated only to these service members should have been able to diagnosis their own veterans. 

If the United States can spend so much money sending soldiers overseas, why can’t we be as willing to take care of them when they get back? Why can’t we spend as much time assisting those who sacrificed their lives? Why can’t we do more to explain the symptoms and warning signs of mental health issues before soldiers even see combat? Our service members are worth it. Our priorities must change.  

The Department of Veterans Affairs also needs to provide more mental health education, not only for service members but also their families. The VA should also publish more public knowledge to civilians to help end the stigma against mental health disorders. This stigma discourages service members from reaching out; military members are supposed to be “tough” and do their jobs without complaint. No matter how tough someone is, going to war can cause mental damage that no one is immune to.  

The best way for you to help the nearly 30 percent of military members with any service-related mental health issues is to educate yourself and share your support. While you may not directly have the abililty to treat them or raise the funding for their mental care, breaking the stigma against mental health is a step in the right direction.  

They’ve done their part. It’s about time we do ours.  

Video games are protected as free speech under the law, but they do not yet have that same respect in the realm of art, though they should. 

Video games are a new art body, as compared to others. We’ve had theatre since the spoken word. We’ve had books since the written word. It is only in the last hundred years that art has taken off into entirely new mediums. Radio programs, television shows, and movies evolved out of the theatrical tradition but it is hard to trace the family tree of interactive media. Video games are sort of a hodgepodge, Frankensteinian creative medium where things not possible in books and movies come to life.  

Chris Melissinos wrote in Time Magazine, “They’re the only medium that allows for personalizing the artistic experience,” and he’s right. They are the only art form that exists inherently on the predication that someone is interacting with it. If the console isn’t on, the game cannot be experienced in its intended form. 

Now, the problem of “are video games art?” requires us to truly define what the word “art” means. Merriam-Webster defines “art” as “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination.” By that definition, video games must be art. They require a conscious decision to both create and interact with, meaning one cannot accidentally just make a video game. It often takes years of study into multiple fields to be successful at creating video games. 

The problem stems from the nomenclature, not that there is anything better to call them. Inherently, when someone hears the word “game,” they think of the word “play,” and by extension they are lead to the adage, “all work, no play,” implying that if something is play it is not as important as work. These mental jumping-jacks lead to a slippery slope that puts the Mona Lisa, Moby Dick, and Mad Max on one side, and Super Mario on the other. 

You’re probably thinking, “Why should I care? Let the kids have their fun and the teachers teach their classics. No harm, no foul.” That would be where you are wrong. Say that the idea is solidified that video games and other interactive media is purely for entertainment and cannot tell a meaningful story, and that they are purely for children. Then, the art form dies. An entire selection of narrative expression will go extinct, because if children are told that the games they are occupying their time with mean nothing to them, even though inside their own heads they relate to the experiences on the screen, then they will go on believing that it truly doesn’t matter and the future of game design will dwindle. This will cause either an incredible shortage of game designers and by extension video games themselves, or there are no video games left at all and they will become a footnote at the bottom of a textbook. 

When you buy your children video games, encourage them to think critically while playing. Instruct them to think about what is happening on screen, not just with the mechanical aspects of the game but with the narrative aspects, too. Invite them to think of video games as a book you can interact with, a movie you can play with your friends. Make them know the narrative power of video games that the law finds to be evident.   

 

Nike’s future is only looking up, so stop burning your shoes and socks, it’s immature and practically pointless.  

Monday, Sept. 3, Colin Kaepernick announced that he would be the new face of Nike’s 30th anniversary campaign. “Believe in something, even if it means sacrificing everything. #JustDoIt” were the words used along with a headshot of Kaepernick. Following the tweet came quick backlash from disagreeing audiences to Nike’s decision, starting the hashtag “#BoycottNike”.  

Though the next day, Sept. 4, Nike stock dropped $1.72. The stock has reached a high of $85.85 per stock with a low of $84.43, and maintained its market cap at around $136.50 billion as of Sept. 19, and it hasn’t even reached October yet.  

Nevertheless, stock drops are an everyday pattern for most stock. In fact, in June 27 of this year Nike’s stock was selling at the low $71.17 and has since raised $13.26. Adding to that, Nike and the NFL resigned their deal for Nike providing all of the NFL’s gear, extending the deal into 2028, potentially looking to keep it’s same worth of $1.1 billion. 

Now, if numbers aren’t enough, there’s also discussion of demographics and consumer research. In a Sprout Social study researching brands and their action in taking a stand for social issues, they found that brands speaking up was better for marketing as well as gaining long-term customers. 

“… 61 percent of respondents say it’s important for brands to take stands on social media specifically… The good news is two-thirds (67 percent) of respondents already feel brands are credible when speaking out on social and political issues on social media… These findings are supported by the fact that people are more likely to have positive emotional reactions than negative ones after brands share a stance on social media. In fact, three of the top five emotional reactions people say they are likely to have in response to a brand taking a stance are positive.” 

So why are some consumers burning shoes? The answer is that it’s due to the new market overtaken by those who temporarily are upset by what a company is doing, leading protests, but come back for a buy down the line when the tensions have cooled. 

According to an Edelman study, buyers are those who are younger, yet gross high numbers of money each year. They are what they call “belief-buyers” who base their purchases on what the brand believes in and if it agrees to theirs. 

“They’re young. The majority of millenials (60 percent) are belief-driven buyers, as are more than half of Gen-Z (53 percent) and Gen X (51 percent)” 

With Nike’s demographics ranging from the ages 38 years and younger, this is its exact target audience, making it clear on Nike’s intentions of pleasing it’s consumers. 

So to all those who think they’re spooking Nike by are burning your already purchased shoes, give it a rest. Nike is only looking up from here. 
 

 

The race to decide the Republican party nominee for the gubernatorial race in Kansas has officially come to an end with Kris Kobach taking the win over the incumbent Jeff Colyer. 

The primary election’s results had Kobach and Colyer close in the polls. Kobach received 127,211 votes, while Colyer received 127,101 votes, and trailing behind was Jim Barnett, receiving only 27,674 votes. With these vote counts, the two candidates were only within a hundredth of a percent of each other. Kansas does not have any laws requiring a recount with close elections and is up to parties involved in the election to call for a recount.  

“We have to look towards the future of the state and for the best course of action for each person,” said Kaden Wimmer, junior in strategic communication, who worked as a communication intern for Colyer this summer. Wimmer worked personally with the governor to help spread the word about his re-election campaign.  

“It was a very positive experience because I got a rare glimpse to see how a campaign works,” Wimmer said. “The truly most amazing part about it was how great a man Governor Colyer is.” 

As part of his internship for the governor, Wimmer had the opportunity to meet and work with professionals in the field of politics, including communications director Kendall Marr and businessman Warren Buffett. 

The close race did not only affect Republicans but also had an effect on the other side of the aisle. Democratic candidate Laura Kelly received her party’s nomination in the race and shall stand up against Kobach and Independent candidate Greg Orman in Kansas’ midterm elections in November. 

“It’s as if the Republicans are handing us buckets and buckets of free money,” Chris Reeves, Democratic national committeeman, told the Wichita Eagle in reference to the close and sometimes aggressive race that took place between Kobach and Colyer. 

During the Democratic primaries, Kelly received a majority 51 percent of the casted votes. Kelly, a long-time public servant, has received a generally positive reception from Kansas democrats. The Kansas City Star endorsed her as “deceptively tough” and “focused on the right priorities for Kansas.” 

“People are excited about Laura and her vision to get this state back on track,” Johanna Warshaw, spokeswoman for the Kelly campaign, told the Topeka Captial-Journal. “It’s clear Kansans are looking for an experienced governor focused on reversing the effects of the failed Brownback experiment and properly funding our schools again.” 

Kelly is a staunch critic of the controversial Brownback era in Kansas, rallying against the administration’s treatment of the foster care system, which caused more than 70 million children to become lost from public records. 

The concession by Colyer endorsed Kobach as the nominee for governor. 

“We will make sure the next governor is fully prepared, and I hope it is a Republican governor,” said Colyer. 

After initially preparing for a recount, Colyer’s election team determined it would be “mathematically impossible” for him to win the election with the confirmed numbers. 

The department of modern languages is rolling out a new program for students of Spanish and French: the seal of biliteracy. 

“We’re rewarding people for what they can do,” said Grant Moss, associate professor of Spanish at Pittsburg State University. 

The faculty of the department of modern languages, based in Grubbs Hall, pushed for the biliteracy program in an effort to provide a pathway toward earning degrees, both major and minor, in French or Spanish.  

The modern languages department has programs that have been previously in place for students to test out of would-be remedial courses. Students who pass can enroll in upper level French or Spanish classes and receive credit for the previous classes bypassed. The Seal of Biliteracy program has a similar function. 

“A gold seal means they communicate at an intermediate level,” Moss said. “Platinum level means they are advanced.” 

After receiving the Seal of Biliteracy for French or Spanish from their high school, freshmen can enroll in the appropriate upper-most language course. After students pass these classes they gain credit for all previous coursework, similar to the department of modern languages’ other programs.  

Upon completion of the Seal of Biliteracy, students only have to enroll in and pass three additional classes to complete a minor in Spanish or French. To complete a major in Spanish or French, students only need to enroll in and pass six additional classes. 

Moss and his colleagues created this program as a helpful initiative to majors of all kinds. Spanish and French are becoming increasingly useful in a variety of fields. The medical and psychology fields employ interpreters or translators to create records in multiple languages; courtrooms and police stations use bilingual professionals to provide efficient communication between the law and citizens who may only speak a non-English language, or whose first language is not English; the education field is introducing subjects in English along with Spanish and French more frequently. 

Students who earn the Seal of Biliteracy will also have the ability to place the accomplishment on their résumés in order to become more marketable. Additionally, this initiative incentivizes students who take advantage of Pitt State’s flat-rate tuition to earn a double major/minor/etc. for the exact same price as a single major. These dual major programs allow for more varied career options to Pitt State graduates.  

The Seal of Biliteracy serves to attract potential Gorillas to Pittsburg State during a recent downturn of enrollment. The classes of 2013 and 2014 provided record PSU enrollment and since then enrollment has seen fluctuation, so with that the Seal of Biliteracy program aims to increase enrollment headcount back to more positive numbers.  

Faculty and staff involved are confident that programs such as the Seal of Biliteracy and other recruitment efforts recently put in place are working to achieve the goals of increased enrollment and a more improved experience for all PSU students. 

The First Amendment contains an apparent oxymoron: religious freedom is to be protected and there must be separation of church and state. Understandably, this can lead to erroneous interpretation, but one would expect the attorney general of the United States to know that the government’s laws derive from the Constitution, not the Bible.  

Recently, the First and Second Amendments have been the focus of public outcry on issues such as freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and religious freedom, and while the Constitution provides a foundation for laws and rights of citizens in this country, it is a 231-year-old document that requires interpretation according to the changing times. Some things, however, remain constant, and one of those is separation of church and state.  

The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof …,” which simultaneously ensures the protection of inhibited religious practice in this country as well as a distinct separation of the government from religion.  

Therefore, it is absurd to claim that the United States is a Christian country just as it would be absurd to claim we live in a nation dedicated to any other world religion. To claim so would be to deny the foundational beliefs this country was built on: the United States of America is a nation where people of all beliefs, religions, ethnicities, backgrounds, and even nationalities can live, work, and prosper together.  

As soon as religion becomes a basis for governmental action or policy-making, not only does this violate the First Amendment, but it jeopardizes the essence of who we are as a country.  

Recently, the Trump administration issued a policy separating immigrant children from families who cross the border hoping to escape inhumane and violent conditions in countries such as Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. Attorney General Jeff Sessions defended this policy citing the Bible. To make matters worse, he quoted Romans 13.  

“I would cite you to the Apostle Paul and his clear and wise command in Romans 13, to obey the laws of the government because God has ordained them for the purpose of order. Orderly and lawful processes are good in themselves and protect the weak and lawful,” Sessions said, according to USA Today.  

The full Romans 13 quote reads as follows: “Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”  

Not only is citing a Biblical passage unconstitutional, but there are also major red flags with this particular passage Sessions chose to use as a defense for the Republican’s new immigration policy.  

Strict adherence to Romans 13 basically gives the government unlimited power and forces the people to act as blind followers in the name of divine authority.  

In fact, Romans 13 has been used in the past to justify other atrocities, such as slavery and white supremacist agenda. The fact that the attorney general of the United States is using this Bible passage to wipe the Trump administration’s hands free of any wrongdoing is extremely alarming. Even more frightening is the fact that many people blindly worship whatever Trump and his corrupt administration say as gospel, which points to a disturbing trend away from facts, logic, and democracy toward chaos and totalitarianism.   

Religion is not synonymous with morality, so to claim that religion has no place in government is not a renunciation of moral values. Rather, it is the only way to maintain a balanced, neutral, bi-partisan nation based on laws dedicated to freedom and justice for all. Otherwise, what’s to stop the government from doing whatever the hell it wants?  

As of last Monday the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) finally got their way with the web—after quite the lengthy battle, might I add. June 11 marked the end of free internet and the beginning of an unnecessary competition with the repeal of net neutrality taking affect. 

Net neutrality provided a fair and necessary safety net to internet users as providers were prohibited—at the time—to charge higher prices for faster usage with certain content. This kept all webpages running at the same speed no matter its corporate owner or the services offered. As net neutrality is no longer in affect with the FCC’s ruling to repeal this concept, these guidelines do not exist anymore. In their place are ones such that are of opposite manner. 

Internet without net neutrality will face the opposition of corporate webpage owners having the opportunity to now charge higher fees for access to their services and pages—such as Google, Netflix, and even social media outlets. If you think this does not affect you and that you can simply live past this repeal, you are extremely, sadly mistaken. While some companies are claiming they will not change their terms of use, many will. 

This repeal was first voted on in December, as public outbursts followed in response to the FCC’s action headed by FCC chairman Ajit Pai. Pai, as a vigilant member in opposition of net neutrality, claimed such set back necessary competition between corporate owners—specifically internet service providers—and that with net neutrality repealed and removed the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) would have the ability to regain its authority over these providers—as if free reign internet were inherently wrong. Pai claimed that through the repeal he was able to “reverse” the “mistake” of voting for net neutrality at its recent surface only years before. 

With net neutrality now voted down by Pai and the others against free reign internet and rather in favor of unneeded, added competition, the internet will face a major change. While we are still only in the beginning phases of the internet’s transition from neutral to unequal, there is much that has the prospect to change. Such a foreseen change includes corporate owners either banding together or taking over others in order to create larger monopolies and conglomerates of internet service providers, which may lead to the franchise of “package” internet services such as like a cable channel package. This then has the prospect to feature a set price for only select services, such as Twitter, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, etc. in one package with another price for another package including other services. If corporate owners were to follow their now free reign of competition, nothing would (or will) be free to the average user.  

Not only does net neutrality affect internet users home at night wanting to catch up with family states away via social media or the college student between classes wanting to research for a paper via any online search engine, it affects any and all businesses as well. At the focus of this are small businesses, as if (when) corporate internet businesses decide to increase their prices and/or create these bundle packages, this will set the bar entirely higher for these smaller, less well-known, and less wealthy businesses or freelancers; this forces these businesses to either face their competition or sell out. When these larger, corporate companies increase their prices it will create a “fast lane” for their provided services as their higher prices reflect the faster speed while smaller businesses’ lower prices reflect their slower speed left in a “slow lane.” 

While the affects of this repeal are in transition, many states have taken preventative measures in providing bills to save net neutrality. The number sits at 29 states totaling with 65 bills ensuring the practice of net neutrality principles within their states at current. 

This transition does not have to be the end of internet freedom, as every voice matters and can repeal the repeal in time; we will get our internet back. Pay attention to your changing services and speak up in opposition of Pai; this is a country where we all may live united and free, not restricted and controlled.