Social Security debate, I hate you.

You not only created this fear in me that my future is in jeopardy, that some giant monster is currently chomping away not necessarily at my retirement because I currently make $0, but at the potential for my future happiness and the opportunity for me to retire if I ever start working! Jerk.

To quell my fears, I go to NYTimes.com and peruse the articles highlighting the debate. The first one that catches my eye is about a 9-year-old from Texas who is going to campaign for Social Security reform. At this point, I realize that my first problem is that I don’t really know what Social Security is or does. I just know I have a Social Security number, and it’s really easy to remember, 46…wait, that’s not smart.

Then, I find an article by Roger Lowenstein called a “Question of Numbers.” It’s nine pages long, compared to the one-page 9-year-old article, but I decided to give it a read anyway. It’s anti-privatization, if you’re curious. The largest impact on me was that it made me realize how I’ve framed the Social Security debate based on my limited knowledge.

I learned that there are a lot of numbers involved with this issue. There are 15-year to 75-year deficit projections mixed with payroll tax percentages, mixed with projected stock market benefits, mixed with who knows how many private bank accounts. What scares me the most is how easy it is to report a figure that’s been tweaked by statistical sleight of hand. Yes, both figures are accurate, but in different ways. Like how on The Simpsons Lionel Hutz the real estate agent explained to Marge about the truth and the truth.

The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner first made me aware of the potentiality for statistical tinkering. While the material in the book is a bit dated since its 1999 publication, the argument is still applicable. I can say that I’ve drunk two times the coffee I did during this February compared to last year, but that could very well mean that I drank one cup last year and two cups this year. The point is that while numbers and figures are a good way of illustrating and measuring, they aren’t really as concrete as they seem to be.

Which means there still needs to be argument with the numbers. Not apocalyptical-type arguing, more like the type I learned in high school debate: claim, warrant, impact. This leads me to my second point: I think that this debate, in addition to large numbers of other debates in politics, is not as much economic as it is ideological. I’m not saying there is anything wrong with this, or that it’s a fact that isn’t already widely acknowledged. However, I do think it is a principle that is easily lost in something as numbers dependent as the Social Security debate.

But seriously, they want to create how many personalized bank accounts?

Elaine Ayo can be contacted at e.ayo@umiami.edu.

“What a difference a year makes,” began last Friday’s editorial in this very paper. And I couldn’t agree more.

Of course, while our editors were talking about the transformation of Pete Maki from frat boy to career politician, I am referring to this year’s thin variety of choices, of which there are three: Maki, Pamela Scheiss, or not voting (my money’s on the vast majority of campus voting for the latter).

This is no knock on either of the two candidates. Our paper’s editors came to their decision to support Maki based on an analysis that went far beyond throwing darts at a wall (at least, as far as I know). And for what it’s worth, Scheiss is the perfect candidate for, say, a broadcast journalism student such as myself, as evidenced by her media-friendly platform that includes supporting the $1 referendum to make WVUM more respectable and providing the Wall Street Journal and New York Times in the dining halls, a perfect complement of conservative and liberal periodicals, respectively, that will enhance this school’s “marketplace of ideas.”

Which brings me to my current gripe about our upcoming election: not too much variety. As many can recall, last year’s race featured several candidates, from student-athletes (Billy Bludgus) to architecture students (Josh Arcurio) to Hurricane writers (the talented Scott Wacholtz). Beyond that, there was also an informative debate-more a question-and-answer session, really-held at the Rat to help undecided students better understand the ideas and goals of the candidates.

But this year, we’re left with two candidates, which means a drastically reduced “marketplace of ideas.” Two sets of ideas create a tricky dilemma, as the onus of creativity now falls flatly on the student body to decide what matters most to them. And we all know how involved our collective population on campus is with school politics.

So, what’s the solution? We can only hope that whoever does win takes more than a glance at the opposition’s platform objectives. We can only hope that the student body starts making suggestions of their own. We can only hope that the seeds planted by Vance Aloupis can be nurtured into blossoming plans. We can hope all these things.

The one thing we can know, though, is this: At least we don’t have to worry about being harassed with flyers by more than two people at the Rock this year.

Ben Minkus can contacted b.minkus@umiami.edu.

What does it mean to be a true friend? Is it simply clicking “add to friends” on theFacebook? Is it saying “hi” in passing? How about being there when someone is sad? Happy? Is it just someone to rely on? Is it all, some, or none of the above?

I once heard this story about a father and a son. The son came home from school one day and said, “Dad, I have these two great friends from school.” The father replied, “Oh, really, and how do you know these boys are your friends?” The son said, “Well, I hang out with them on the playground. Don’t you have any friends dad?” The father replied, “I have half of one. Why don’t we test your friends? Let’s kill a goat and put it in a bag and tell your friends it’s a body and see what they do.” (Sorry for the graphic scene but I didn’t make up the story.) Anyway they go to the first boy’s house and he shuts the door in their faces and sends them away. The second boy said that he didn’t want to get in trouble for helping in hiding the evidence in a murder. The boy was distraught; he asked, “What about your half a friend?” So they went to the half a friend’s house and he replied, “I really shouldn’t be doing this but let’s get the wheel barrel from the back.” The moral of this story is simple. In the son’s time of need his so-called friends weren’t there for him, while the father’s half a friend had to state that it was wrong before he did it. Does friendship need to be unconditional? Would you help your friend hide a dead body? I am not sure what I would do in that situation. I would be scared out of my mind if a dead body was dragged up to my door.

Dictionary.com defines “friend” as “a person whom one knows, likes and trusts.” I can buy that to a certain extent. Trust, loyalty and honesty are all very important and almost essential qualities of a friend. If you don’t like someone you wouldn’t hang out with him or her and if you don’t know someone then obviously they aren’t your friends. However, I don’t think this definition is complete. Friendship cannot be a one-way street. If someone walks all over you they are probably not your friends. My good friend said to me the other day, “I think you are now one up on me on the I owe you one scale,” after I did him a favor, to which I quickly replied, “Who’s counting?” I am not completely sure what a true friend is; I believe I have a few good ones. I also believe a standard thing to think about is, those who mind, don’t matter and those who matter don’t mind.

Justin Diamond can be contacted at j.diamond@umiami.edu.

Re: “Tips on how to overhaul SG Senate,” 2/25

Donald Trump isn’t the CEO of UM SG Senate, Inc., and while Don Donelson may be trying to imitate his demeanor, I would suggest he take a closer look at “unique demographic” constituencies before he tosses them out as examples of groups causing inefficiency in Student Government.

Yes, I would agree some constituents are double represented, for example there are seven Commuter Senators as well as an Association of Commuter Students Senator, so it could easily be argued that they have highly similar goals and constituents. Although, given the number of commuter students to be represented this still seems fair.

However using SpectrUM as an example of this double representation was a very poor choice.

While there may “be a few GBLT students in the School of Business”, this does not mean that a School of Business Senator could or would represent their needs and demands. If GLBT students live in the dorms, similarly this does not mean that a residential senator would represent them either.

Donelson asks, “Why isn’t it good enough that those students be represented by the Senators elected from the more broad constituencies?”

The simple answer is because “those” students will not be represented by their constituent senators. Quite simply, GLBT students do not have the voting power to be recognized by a broader constituency senator running for election or one already seated. If these particular senators wish to support or initiate assistance to the GLBT community, they do so upon their own volition, and cannot be relied upon for such assistance.

I hope that Donelson, and others, realize that a senator elected from a broad constituency cannot promise to uphold the rights and needs of our GLBT community, which is important to ensuring the protection of diversity on campus.

Sincerely,

Amy S. Lawrence

SpectrUM Senate Representative

Ahh, the irony. We spent all of last semester immersed into the heart of democracy. We registered, we campaigned, we learned the issues, we debated. What a novel idea, a debate. That’s right, that whole idea that people should discuss the issues, that candidates should be asked questions about their positions, about their ideas, about themselves, that they should be given the chance to address the voters.

As if our school wasn’t apathetic enough, the Elections Commission has done a horrible job of advertising the fact that elections are this week. If it weren’t for the red and teal shirts and the constant barrage of flyers, few people would even know that elections were going on. It’s an issue of laziness on the part of the Elections Commission. It has a serious lack of organization that has prevented candidates from reaching out to their potential constituents, and vice versa.

Then it goes and cancels the debate. Sure, we all know that it isn’t really so much a debate as a Q&A session, but it still gives us a chance to see how the candidates are in action, to see how they think on their feet. Plus, it puts them to the test on their platforms; we learn more than just what they want to know, but also how they plan on actually doing it. Anyone can say (and in fact, both candidates do) that they want a 24-hour study area. But the key issue is how they are going to accomplish it. This is where the Elections Commission has cheated us by forcing us to judge the candidates on nothing more than a pretty picture and catchy motto on a four-by-six palm card. Martin Cruz-Mesa, Elections Commission chair, even said that by looking at these palm cards you can see the difference between the candidates, thus making them sufficient enough for students to base their votes on.

Fortunately, WVUM at least attempted to hold a “debate” on Sunday morning at 10 a.m. Unfortunately, yet definitely predictably, few, if any students actually heard it. Forget about the fact that it was at 10 in the morning; there were also serious technical difficulties-malfunctioning microphones-and the fire alarm going off putting a quick end to the discussions.

A few questions were asked of the candidates, yet they were weak questions and didn’t really give much enlightenment into their strengths and abilities. Fortunately, the candidates have taken it upon themselves to visit organizations, fraternities and sororities, to campaign and ask questions. At least they understand the seriousness of the elections and the importance of educating the voters.