Students should ‘wreck the vote’

Published: Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Updated: Tuesday, October 9, 2012 02:10

The new year 2012 is just beginning to enter its third month and already numerous events of importance have occurred. The domestic problems coupled with global events intoxicate the mind, alluding to better times while simultaneously casting a shadow of doubt. It insinuates that peril awaits us down the track despite whether or not we switch trains.

Although the memories of relative peace and future fiscal blessings are within sight, their proximity is endangered due to coterie conflicts. I am referring to our soon-to-be-held presidential elections.

Today, and even more so in a few months, whenever you turn left or right you will be consistently bombarded by party propaganda from both the right and left. “Well, of course,” you might say, “It’s an election year, and as such it calls for campaigning from aspiring presidents as well as aspiring two-term officials.”

Naturally, we all expect to stare at the endless campaign bumper stickers in traffic, watch television campaign commercials and hear spirited debates about who is running the country worse.

With President Obama’s approval rating hovering around 50 percent, and a vivacious race among the GOP’s presidential aspirants, particularly between Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, the unavoidable general election will be a showdown between parties.

The question that permeates my mind is not “Who is better for the country?” but rather “Can I actually expect anything different?” Yes, there are multiple parties running for election and naturally this would mean that there are different ideologies presenting themselves to the nation as the correct one.

But if the options are electing one party puppet over another, then can we really expect any changes? It is foolish to think that one politician over another has your best interests in the forefront of their minds. Come election time your opinions matter, and the rhetoricians, both left and right, do a stupendous job at convincing you that they are in this race solely to better you and the nation at large.

The problem is that these are merely words, alluring and awe-inspiring though they may be. Their only validation comes from the faith of those that they entrance. To blindly trust these politicians as having your best interests at heart is equivalent to presuming the first stranger you see after reading this is looking out solely for you and not themselves. That is as if they tell you this, you should outright believe the stranger. You know them no better than the politicians we will be forced to choose from.

So what am I saying? Don’t vote? Well I must admit it’d be interesting if everyone abstained from voting, but that is not my purpose, nor is it realistic.

I’m not of the opinion that indifference will make a difference, nor that we will forever remain a two-party system coupled with an electoral college. Instead I believe we must reach into the past, finding firm footing upon which we can construct a stable, efficient foundation for future generations to utilize in governing themselves.

Rather than propagate indifference by suggesting abstinence from voting, I implore you to go out and become fully knowledgeable about our country’s premises. These, in my view, are nothing less than the pure ideologies of a democratic republic.

There is no left, right, you or I. There is only a we. We must make decisions based off of what is beneficial for our society at large rather than giving our loyalties to parties that we have tied ourselves to with an imaginary noose that is caressing our nation’s neck.

This past year we’ve witnessed the flaws in both the Democratic and Republican parties. They’re biggest fault, in my opinion, is their inability to see past party affiliations and ideologies to come together to work for the betterment of the people whom they govern. If this is a prologue of the future that we are to live and written about following our lives, then neither of these parties deserve the privilege to govern us and represent our nation.

Soon, we as a nation will be asked to make a choice, that will be interpreted by our electoral college, as to who is more deserving of the position of president. Before we go to the polls, we must ask ourselves, “Do either of these men deserve to run our country?” and “Have they given an inkling of altruistic behavior seeking to better the state rather than their parties’ political positioning?”

It is time that we demand changes from all politicians who propagate partisan politics ultimately making the citizenry foot the bill. Don’t vote Republican, Democrat, Libertarian or along any other party lines. Vote for those who have earned the privilege to hold such an esteemed position. Fight for the survival of your nation, not a party. End the reign of the Republicrats.

1 2

Recommended: Articles that may interest you

Facebook Comments
Site Comments

Be the first to comment on this article! Log in to Comment

You must be logged in to comment on an article. Not already a member? Register now

Log In

Think Movies

‘42’ plays it safe

It is very easy to be cliche nowadays in the film industry.

There have been many biopics about any sort of inspirational figure filmmaker’s can think of, but every once and awhile there is one that manages to break through the generic stereotypes and stand out.

Many famous directors have tried to make a film centered on Jackie Robinson’s incredible baseball career, but they have all failed to bring his story to the big screen until now.

Brian Helgeland, director of “Payback” and “A Knight’s Tale,” delivers his respectful, yet unremarkable homage to Robinson, appropriately titled “42,” which covers all the bases while ultimately playing it safe.

The film focuses on the relationship between Robinson, played by talented newcomer Chadwick Boseman, and the general manager of the Brooklyn Dodgers Branch Ricky (Harrison Ford).
‘Evil Dead’ is bloody disgusting and wickedly fun

Modern horror movies are criticized for being repetitive and uncreative, relying on heavy amounts of gore and production value to make up for the lack of depth and originality. It also does not help the majority of horror flicks are remakes, rebooting vintage horror films that deliver all the splatter but none of the creativity that made those movies so great.

Classics such as “Halloween,” “A Nightmare on Elm Street” and “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre,” have been remade into the standard Hollywood schlock that audiences are conditioned to. So when it was announced that Sam Raimi’s beloved first film “The Evil Dead” was getting the remake treatment, it was no surprise that fans were skeptical and outraged.

However, director Fede Alvarez, handpicked by Raimi himself, has delivered an unflinching and grisly horror flick that manages to hold its own against the criticism and thrill viewers with his twisted vision.
‘G.I. Joe: Retaliation’ is more of abomination

Summer 2009 was filled with top-notch movie releases like “Star Trek,” “Up,” and “Inglourious Basterds,” which both entertained and dazzled audiences with great production value and stellar writing.

Out of all the movies released, “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” has the glorious distinction of being the worst movie of that year, which is quite an accomplishment considering its competition was “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.”

Now, four years later, the sequel no one wanted opens nationwide after being delayed eight months for a 3-D conversion and reshoots. Despite a new director, a remodeled cast that adds the likes of Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis, and last minute restructuring, “G.I. Joe: Retaliation” still manages to fall short of already low expectations.

After being set up and double crossed by the president of the United States, the G.I. Joes, led by the towering Roadblock (Johnson), pull together all their resources to confront the evil terrorist organization known as Cobra and save the world.
‘The Croods’ is a fun time for all

Pixar and Disney films have dominated the animated box office for the past few decades, but DreamWorks Animation has steadily challenged that market with hit movies like “Shrek” and “Kung Fu Panda”. Now filmmakers Chris Sanders, the director of “How to Train Your Dragon”, and Kirk De Micco bring audiences “The Croods”, a film that follows a family of Neanderthals through a prehistoric journey that is bound to be a hit with viewers of all ages.
‘Oz The Great and Powerful’ does the trick

It has been over 70 years since Victor Fleming’s “The Wizard of Oz” was released back in 1939, becoming one of the most important films in cinema history. Now, director Sam Raimi delivers “Oz the Great and Powerful” to the big screen, a prequel to L. Frank Baum’s original work.

After big Hollywood adaptations of fantasy stories such as “Alice in Wonderland” and the “Harry Potter” films, it makes sense that a film as influential as “Wizard” should be tackled next. Unfortunately, there are so many factors that come into play when revisiting a beloved franchise that it is nearly impossible to satisfy fans wanting to return to Oz.
‘Jack the Giant Slayer’ falls short of expectations

Fantasy films are becoming a major trend in Hollywood lately with such major releases like “Alice in Wonderland,” “Snow White and the Huntsman” and “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”

Now Director Bryan Singer brings the classic fable of Jack and the beanstalk to the big screen with “Jack the Giant Slayer.” Singer, who is known for making blockbusters such as “X-Men” and “Superman Returns,” relies on his experience with epic story elements and massive effects to deliver a movie that aims to please viewers with suspense, humor and action.

Unfortunately, the filmmakers give too much time to focusing on visual eye-candy and not enough putting together a new take on the story that holds up for today’s audience.

Nicholas Hoult stars as Jack, a young peasant who comes into the possession of magical beans that sprout into a giant beanstalk that acts as a bridge between the world of the humans and the land of a dreadful race of giants.
‘Amour’ redefines meaning of love

Michael Haneke is an Austrian director who is generally thought of as being cold, distant and unsentimental when making his films. His films are the epitome of the term ‘art house cinema.’

After making such perverse and unsettling films like “The Seventh Continent,” “Funny Games” and “The White Ribbon,” Haneke has earned a reputation for working on projects that are complex, unemotional and challenging for audiences to watch.

This is why it is all the more surprising a film as tender and honest as “Amour” comes from an auteur such as Haneke. Throughout four decades of making films Haneke has focused on the relationships and dark motivations that consume the characters that inhabit his frame, but he has yet to make a movie poignant and moving as his latest work of art.

Georges and Anne, portrayed with brutal honesty by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva, are both in their ’80s and are enjoying their quiet life together in a comfortable apartment in Paris.
It’s ‘A Good Day to Die Hard,’ but not a great one

In 1988 “Die Hard” became one of the biggest moneymakers of that summer and continued to become one of the most successful and beloved movie franchises of all time.

Now considered to be the best action film ever made by many hard core fans, it has spawned four sequels and countless rip-offs that still attempt to replicate the massive success that made a star out of Bruce Willis.
‘Side Effects’ leaves its mark

Steven Soderbergh is one of the most talked about and respected filmmakers of the past two decades, with a career that includes small independent films such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape” and “The Limey” and big budget studio projects like “Ocean’s Eleven” and “Magic Mike.”

He has avoided being pinned down to having one specific style and demonstrates such versatility in his film choices he never stays in one genre. Soderbergh has stated “Side Effects” will be his last theatrically released movie before he officially retires from directing, and it is fitting a film as smart and clever should be the final entry in the stellar filmography of one of the finest filmmakers in recent time.
‘Warm Bodies’ mixes romance, comedy with bloody good fun

Now that the “Twilight Saga” is over, Hollywood is frantically searching for a movie that will be a smash hit with teen audiences to fill the void where vampires and werewolves used to be.

Jonathan Levine’s film “Warm Bodies” mixes comedy, romance and zombies in a fashion reminiscent of Edgar Wright’s 2004 flick “Shaun of the Dead.”

Both films use preconceived notions of what romantic comedies offer viewers and the rules established in past zombie movies to surprise audiences by building on those expectations and providing their own filmmaking flourishes to the generic formula.
‘Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters’ is terribly fun mess

Every once and awhile a movie comes along that doesn’t care about critical reception or garnering any type of award attention.

Sometimes a movie is made for the sole purpose of entertaining its audience with no intention of being artistic or intelligent, allowing viewers to enjoy the experience without having to think at all about what they’re watching.

“Hansel and Gretel: Witch Hunters” is such a movie.

Director Tommy Wirkola is best known for his 2009 Norwegian flick “Dead Snow” where a group of friends vacationing in the Norwegian mountains run into a hoard of killer Nazi zombies. Four years later, Wirkola brings his sick, twisted sense of humor to an action-packed version of one of the most popular fairy tales of all time.
‘Mama’ delivers scares

January is known as a dry period for movie releases, with films from awards season still trickling into theaters, and big-budget, holiday releases still dominating the box office.

However, there is the occasional flick that manages to stand out among the rest of the mediocre fare of January such as “The Silence of the Lambs” did back in 1991. Director Andres Muschietti’s film “Mama” may seem like a standard horror movie at first glance, but there is a great film lurking within its generic setup.
‘Zero Dark Thirty’ goes distance

Director Kathryn Bigelow became the first woman ever to win an Academy Award for her 2009 film “The Hurt Locker.” Now, her follow-up “Zero Dark Thirty” is up for several awards this season and has been on the receiving end of raving critical attention and an impressive start at the box office.

However, there has been much controversy surrounding some of the sequences depicting torture being used to extract information that has placed Bigelow under much criticism.
‘Lincoln’ brings history to life

Filmmaker Steven Spielberg is known for making films of epic proportions. He created a monstrous great white shark in ‘Jaws,” brought dinosaurs back to life in “Jurassic Park,” and put viewers in the middle of a battle of WWII in “Saving Private Ryan.”

However, his latest project may be his most ambitious work to date. Making a historical biopic is daunting enough, but Spielberg’s latest film sets out to actualize Abraham Lincoln on film.
‘Skyfall’ celebrates 50 years of Bond

It has been 50 years since Ian Fleming’s iconic character James Bond first appeared on cinema screens in 1962’s “Dr. No” with Sean Connery playing the British secret service agent known as 007.

Five different actors have since taken on the role since Connery, with Daniel Craig now starring in the 23rd Bond film “Skyfall.”

After many attacks on MI6 by a devious cyber-terrorist called Silva (Javier Bardem), Bond is put on the case. Once in pursuit, Bond slowly unravels a plot of revenge set against MI6’s commander “M” (Judi Dench) that ultimately tests his loyalty to his commander and his own dark past.

With Academy Award winning director Sam Mendes at the helm, along with revered cinematographer Roger Deakins and composer Thomas Newman, there is no denying the talent involved from behind the camera.