Tag Archives: opinion

The Alabaman Inquisition

Recently, there has been some immensely confusing rhetoric coming from the conservative right concerning LGBT rights. Over the past few weeks, perhaps the most high profile story to develop concerning the divisiveness concerning homosexual marriage rights comes out of Alabama. Amid the refusal of the Supreme Court to grant a temporary stay in the debate, the Chief Justice of Alabama, Roy Moore effectively instructed other judges in the state of Alabama to refuse to grant marriage licenses to LGBT couples. His recommendation/demand is in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court of the United States refuted previous Alabaman law concerning the definition of marriage as  one man and one woman: “Moore’s actions come despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s refusal to stay the federal ruling, effectively allowing same-sex couples to marry in the state for the first time on Monday” (Diamond 5).

This is a particularly confusing argument for several reasons. The most obvious reason is because in this wonderful land called America, federal law trumps state law. Regardless of what Moore and his conservative compatriots may think, the law of the land is clear on this very issue. Put simply, as stated in the Supremacy Clause in Article 6, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution,

“[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding,”

Marriage equality arrived in Alaska. Graphic from Washington Blade
Marriage equality arrived in Alaska. Graphic from Washington Blade

As stated by the Constitution, which is the legal framework for the entire judicial, legal, and governmental system we all belong to, the federal government always takes precedence over the whims of the state. Hilariously enough, in American history, similar debates about strong state governments have been raised before. Before America has the strong federal government it now enjoys, the founders first tried the Articles of Confederation, which was a government with a weak federal presence but a strong state presence. Keep in mind, this policy had been tried when we had only 13 states, and it failed back in the late 1700’s. Now, with 50 states, the idea that a weak federal government could sustain such a global and economic powerhouse like the U.S. is utterly preposterous. The federal government needs to be large to support the commons, such as public schools and interstate highways. Much like desegregation, Moore wants to frame LGBT rights as a “federal intrusion into state sovereignty” when in reality, the Constitution gives the federal government that very power. If the state government is pushing an ideologically driven agenda of hate and discrimination, it is the job of the federal government to step in and assert its dominance.

The other main problem with Moore’s argument is that he defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. Frankly, the notion that marriage is legally defined as anything is facetious at best, and uninformed at worst. For all of their bluster, the Constitution of The United States of America makes no mention of marriage or the definition of it at all. Constitutionally speaking, marriage is left undefined. However, according to Amendment XIV, ratified in 1868, “[n]o State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Madison 26). Make no mistake, people like Judge Moore are “personally opposed to gay marriage and steadfastly against legalizing gay marriage, [Moore is] insisting that Alabama recognizes the ‘divine’ nature of the definition of marriage.” When the remaining 13 states choose to defer on this issue, and when states and figureheads for clandestine, discriminatory factions like Chief Justice Moore decide to litigate issues like these, they invite the Supreme Court to read the Constitution as it’s meant to be read, as a document written by people, not as a holy book written by a deity. The Constitution, the Bible, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Qur’an, along with every other sacred text, are mutually exclusive. Effectively, they’re ensuring their own defeat.

According to most religions, Christianity included,  marriage is an act between one woman and one man. Conversely, it’s just as simple to get legally married in a courthouse as it is a place of worship. Marriage is a legal covenant between two people as defined by our society. When two people get married, they may do it in a church, but when they get a divorce, they go to a judge. Marriage is a legal affair that started as religious ritual. As it has evolved along with our society, the constraints of it have changed. At one time, divorce was antithetical to Christian thought. Christians allowed (after much debate) an evolution on that thought of what defines marriage, much in the same way the (so called) definition of marriage will continue to evolve.

Only 13 states still ban gay marriage; 37 states in the Union have sided with rationality and the Constitution that no person (regardless of sexuality) should be discriminated against. There will come a point when those holdout states (it’s no surprise that 8 of those 13 states are in the South) realize that by fighting this battle, they have essentially lost. Much like the equal rights marches of the 1960’s, LBGT rights is the great civil right issue of our day; when historians write about the inevitable victories of LGBT activists, people like Chief Justice Roy Moore and his kind will realize that they were on the wrong side of this issue.

I, for one, will relish that day.

Science is just as fulfilling as religion

Growing up, I was never forced to be religious, but I chose to be for a long time. It wasn’t until I started to really get into science that I realized that science was filling a void in my life that I never knew existed.

I often hear people say that those who don’t have Christ in their lives have a hole in their heart; that’s simply not the case. Science, to me, explores the miracle of life. After the countless documentaries exploring theories of how the Earth came to be, and the scientific proof that backs it up, I can’t help but be content with the idea that we, as humans, are miracles of nature, not miracles of God.

For instance, when you think about the sheer enormity of the universe, it’s amazing! It’s so huge, and we’re so tiny and insignificant. We’re just riding around on a dust particle. We’re not even dust particles, we’re on one. When we think of things that are big, we think of houses, cars, mountains, bridges- but when you really want to be amazed by the size of something, just look at earth and imagine that it’s a dust particle in the sunlight. That’s us.

Science and it's natural beauty. Graphic from Universe Today
The Universe has natural beauty. Graphic from Universe Today

I remember being amazed in elementary school at how teeny tiny earth is compared to the sun. Now, I’m amazed at the fact that our galaxy isn’t even significant. When I think of Earth on a time scale, it helps me to truly appreciate the life I have. We moan about how Mondays are long and how tired we are of being at school or work. When you imagine how short our lives are in the grand scheme of things, you realize that we have practically no time here.

That little moment that we are here is why I’ve turned away from religion. I realized that in the time I’m here, I was spending so much of it worrying about a god that I thought was going to take his thumb and just crush me if I did one thing that displeased him. But I’m here for a brief moment, and I want to learn as much as I can without interruption. I want to try my best to explore what we know about the universe and the last thing I want is someone telling me I’m displeasing a god that we have no proof of.

I can truly appreciate those who turn to god for answers and comfort, because I was once that person. But one day I decided that the voice in my head that was telling me right from wrong was my conscience. I find that way more beautiful than living a life for god, and doing good things because god wants me to. I think the fact that I have so much faith in myself and my own decision-making abilities should be enough.

I’m so incredibly content with myself now, whereas before I was worried that I wasn’t doing things the “right” way. I know now that I can make mistakes and learn from them and I don’t feel the need to beg for forgiveness. I’m no longer living my life afraid that the “Almighty Lord” is going to come down and smite me. Some may find comfort in a forgiving god, and that’s okay. But for me, observing and being curious rather than spending my days with closed ears is how I would like to live my life.

Four things you learn after working in a restaurant

At the beginning of my sophomore year of college, I got my first job at a restaurant. Although I was reluctant, I needed money, so I had to get a job. This first restaurant job was in Blacksburg, right off Virginia Tech’s campus. After working there for 7 months, I was fed up.

You see, for those who have never worked in a restaurant, there seem to be a lot of things that people just don’t understand. Although I’ve never been a server (I’ve always been a hostess) there are a lot of things I observe servers battling with. As a hostess, there are quite a few things I’ve experienced firsthand that need to be addressed.

  1. There is a set system for seating

In both restaurants I’ve worked at, the seating chart is fairly simple. Servers each have their own sections. Each server has a “turn,” in other words, servers usually get seated based on what order they came into work. At my current place of employment, a few servers will come in at 4 p.m., a few at 5 and a few at 6. This way we’re not over-staffed when it’s slow early on in the afternoon. But the one minor flaw with this system is that the sections of the servers who come in later cannot be used.

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve tried my best to keep servers in their prescribed sections, but it never fails, something has to go wrong. For example, a few days ago I came into work at 5, before the closing (6 p.m.) servers had arrived. A couple came in, and the server whose turn it was only had one table that needed to be wiped down. I told the couple to wait just a moment as I cleaned off the table. They both started looking around confusedly, as there were a few tables nearby that were perfectly clean. The woman asked why I needed to seat them at the table that needed to be cleaned when there were already clean tables. As I cleaned off the table, I tried to explain how the system works but the woman just scoffed.

In a situation like this, where it will only take a moment to clean off the table, I cannot comprehend why it matters so much. Sure, if the table had to be completely bused and wiped down I probably wouldn’t have made them wait so I can clean the table. But it takes about 15 seconds to clean a table. If you want your service to be good, don’t mess with the system.

  1. We have limited space
Working at a restaurant can be irritating. Graphic by Jilletta Becker
Serving at a restaurant can be irritating. Graphic by Jilletta Becker

It never fails that on Friday nights the restaurant gets busy. Families are winding down for the weekend and want to be able to relax and be served. During the school year, a lot of times big groups and teams will come to eat after a big game. But the thing that always seems to be hard to comprehend is that sometimes there’s no physically possible way to seat a large group together.

One night, at about 10:30 p.m. a woman came in and said she was going to be having a group of 12. Both of our big tables that can usually accommodate large groups were taken. I explained this to the woman and she said, “Do you not have anything we can put together?” I explained that the only tables that could be put together to fit them were taken as well. She looked around the store and said, “well it doesn’t look like you’re busy.”

The thing is, just because we’re not busy doesn’t mean we can still accommodate a group that big immediately. Especially a night such as where high school football games are being let out and several families decided to go out to eat right after.

Not only is timing for these bigger groups complicated, but sometimes we simply can’t fit a large group completely together. During the summer, a basketball team came in and asked to be seated together. There were going to be 25 people, so in the limited space we had, this was going to be impossible. You can’t always get your way.

  1. Small requests can be difficult to fulfill.

On a busy Saturday night, sometimes the smallest request can throw you off. As a hostess, sometimes there is a line going out the door of people who need to be sat. When I’m running back and forth, seating tables, grabbing menus and telling servers they have a table, it can be difficult for me to fulfill any extra requests.

Several times, I’ve been running through the store and a customer will flag me down. Even if I’m in the middle of something, I can’t ignore them. I’ll often be in the middle of a seating crisis and be asked for another cup of ketchup, or extra napkins. At my old job, it was very often that customers would ask me to put in an extra order of fries or a drink order. But as a hostess, I can’t even do those things.

As far as seating goes, picky seating is really difficult. I can completely understand when someone needs a table because getting in and out of a booth is difficult. But I’ve had customers say, “I don’t want to sit in the front,” or “I want to be somewhere quiet/cooler.” When it’s slow, these little requests aren’t hard to fulfill. But on a busy night, these little things can throw the whole restaurant off.

This goes back to the seating system. When someone asks for a booth and it’s a certain server’s turn, yet all they have is a table, I’m going to have to skip them. Sometimes this means someone else will get double-sat, if they’re the only one with a booth open. This can ruin no only your night, as the customer, but cause the server to not be able to tend to their tables at top efficiency. Therefore, you get bad service.

  1. There are rules

At both restaurants I worked at, there’s a rule that after 9 p.m. no one under 21 is allowed to sit in the bar area. When I say “bar area” I mean the area around the bar, including the bar. At my old restaurant, there was a rule that no child under the age of five was allowed in the bar area.

One night at my old job, a couple came in with their baby and asked if they could sit at the bar. When I explained the rule, they grinned at each other and walked into the bar area anyways. My manager had to go find them and explain the severity of the rule, especially because they were sitting at the actual bar with a baby carrier, which is a huge no-no.

The reasoning behind this rule is first, because they don’t want underage kids drinking. But second of all, especially with a little infant in a carrier, there is a risk that a glass could fall off the bar and onto their little head. There isn’t a bar stool made for baby carriers so obviously the glass catches a lot of momentum as it falls off the bar.

At my new job, a regular came in with his four kids. He asked to sit in the bar area, but because it was after nine and one of his children was only 18, I couldn’t let them sit there. As I sat them elsewhere, he grumbled, “I’ve been coming here for 25 years and not once have I ever had to sit away from the bar area.” I apologized, explaining that it was a rule at a lot of bars. He rudely scoffed, although his kids didn’t seem the least bit bothered by it.

Although I feel bad having to deny people of their one simple request, the rules are there for a reason. Some might seem egregious, but incidents have happened that have put these rules into place.


After working in the restaurant business for just over a year, I have a new appreciation for those who work in restaurants. I notice I’m a lot more friendly and understanding to servers when I go out to eat. I hope that those of you who haven’t had to work in a restaurant, reading this gives you a new appreciation for those who handle your food.

This article will change everything you know about HuffPo

There’s no denying that Facebook has permanently changed the dynamic of marketing. Any marketing director for any business knows that they cannot thrive without a strong social media presence. This could be great for selling products, but what if the product is professional journalism?

Huffington Post always delivers top-notch cat videos, which is why it’s hard to criticize it over the fact that it always delivers cat videos. The problem with Huffington Post is that they have a brilliant marketing strategy, pandering to a society that has an increasing aversion to knowledge. Using clickbait headlines and breaking from objectivity, Huffington Post played all of their cards right to draw in exactly the crowd they want.

There’s no problem with entertainment journalism. That’s what we do at Whim every day. Frankly, with the integration of Facebook, you need to have an entertainment aspect or you won’t be able to keep an audience. However, you have to make the distinction between what qualifies as news and what doesn’t.

“Do you like doing things a certain way? Huffington Post says you’re wrong for doing so. They post a ridiculous amount of articles about why a certain way of thinking is wrong.”

What doesn’t work is glossing over the beheading of an American journalist at the hands of ISIS in favor of posting numerous times about why looking at leaked nude photos of celebrities constitutes rape. It’s essentially selling out journalism for more clicks. It’s expected from Buzzfeed or Upworthy, but not from Huffington Post.

It’d be nice if that was the end of Huffington Post’s crimes against journalism, but it isn’t. They go the extra mile and hire the most hyperbolic examples of left-wing lunatics and give them a forum to shred the liberal ideology. I believe feminism is a great thing, yet when Huffington Post writers tackle the subject, it makes me temporarily revert back to the “make me a sammich” days of my middle school career. Their feminist articles go out of their way to make men seem like the worst thing on the planet, while women cheating can be written off as the man’s fault for failing to satisfy his woman.

Do you like doing things a certain way? Huffington Post says you’re wrong for doing so. They post a ridiculous amount of articles about why a certain way of thinking is wrong. More often than not, it’s about why society isn’t politically correct enough, but every now and then an interesting article pops up telling me that I’ve been eating cookies wrong this whole time and I can’t resist the click.

Then there’s the overwhelming number of seemingly pointless sections. One would wonder how they bother to keep them maintained, but it helps to explain the quality of their content. Sections like politics, world news, crime, or tech make sense to have in any publication. I’ll even admit to subscribing to their weird news section just to see what outrageous things happen in the world. Is there really a need for a section on divorce that can’t be lumped in with a less specific section? Or what about the sideboob section, which at the moment of writing this article features an article of Jennifer Lawrence flashing a sideboob at a film festival? I understand different writers can have different opinions, but it seems extremely hypocritical for a publication to leave that featured while blasting people for searching for the nude photos.

Huffington Post can be a powerful news organization like the Washington Post, or they can be a great entertainment publication like Buzzfeed, but currently they’re trying to be both and it’ll never work. They can sacrifice their journalistic morals for more subscribers, but they have to stop pretending like they’re still interested in being the news.

Is raising overly-religious children dangerous?

This summer, a Texas court ruled against a couple who took their kids out of school in 2004 to be home-schooled. A family member had started to notice that the children weren’t being educated, even at home. Instead of teaching them, the parents, Michael and Laura McIntyre, told the nine children that they didn’t need to go to school because they were going to be raptured. Further investigation revealed that the children weren’t being educated properly, according to the states standards. In 2006, one daughter  even took it upon herself to run away so she could go to a real high school.

In 2007, an attendance officer filed complaints against the McIntyre’s, who responded by claiming that their rights to religious freedom were being violated. But alas, they failed. The court found that no religious rights were being violated. It’s simply impossible to home school kids without some regulation.

Personally, I agree with this ruling. I understand that many parents fear that their children will stray from their god and start believing in the blasphemy that is science. (Insert extreme sarcasm here.) But let’s be honest, the reason it’s required for children to go to school is so we don’t have a nation of warped idiots. I’ve met a few perfectly normal home-schooled kids. But I’ve also met a few people who were home-schooled and seemed to be totally brain-washed. I’d say in most cases, the reason parents want their kids to be home-schooled is either for religious purposes or because parents don’t trust the school system.

“I’d say in most cases, the reason parents want their kids to be home-schooled is either for religious purposes or because parents don’t trust the school system.”

Public school systems can be very iffy. Many worry that public school kids aren’t experiencing a wide enough array of subjects, and aren’t being able to explore their interests. I will agree with that reasoning for home-schooling kids, but I don’t agree with home-schooling for the purpose of forcing your kids to be religious. In the documentary “Bible Camp,” (available on Netflix) there’s a scene with a mother home-schooling her child. She explained that she pulled him out of public school because he was being taught evolution and the Big Bang theory. She couldn’t understand why creationism wasn’t taught as a theory and even told her son “science is wrong.” Creationism is such an old idea that has so much evidence stacked up against it, which the reasoning behind it. But to only want your child to believe in one theory, and not allowing them the option to explore others is simply cruel.

Children are naturally curious. In watching my nephew learn about dinosaurs, I’ve always thought it was great to see children being so curious and wanting to learn more. I know that when I have children, I’ll expose them to all sorts of sciences and theories so that they can make their own decisions. I can’t imagine being a parent and not wanting that for your child.

In the last few years, there’ve also been cases where parents have neglected to take their children to the hospital when care is needed because they believe that “God will provide” and somehow their child will be magically cured if they pray hard enough. For example, a couple watched as their daughter died of diabetes. She was in pain because of this chronic condition, yet her parents just watched her deteriorate. It’s so hard for me to imagine being a parent and watching your child die when prayer is obviously not working. I feel like any reasonable parent would go to the ends of the earth to heal their child, even if it could screw them financially. There are so many parents who have put their entire life savings and put themselves in crippling debt to save their children. I don’t understand how anyone could accept their child dying as “God’s will” and just let them go when there are doctors who’ve gone to school for years in order to save people’s lives. I suppose if someone is crazy enough to believe that God will magically intervene and save their child, they probably also believe that doctors are of the devil because they’re trying to “play god.”

Some try to argue that parents should be allowed to make decisions based on their child’s health care, and that calling this “child abuse” is infringing on religious freedoms, but any case where a parent knowingly endangers their child’s life because they’re too proud to admit they’ve been wrong, they should never be allowed to have children again. Keeping your child from basic health care is essentially the same as starving or neglecting them. Prayer may work coincidentally, but if it doesn’t seem to be working, how can anyone just let their child die?

Seeing parents who are so set in their ways that they kill their children’s curiosity, endanger their lives and tell them “science is wrong” makes me worry for the future. The reason our country and states have specific laws and regulations on what kids are taught is so that we won’t have a generation of idiots. Science has provided us with the amazing technologies, medicine and many other amazing applications. Why anyone would deny that, and force their beliefs on their children is beyond me. Why anyone would allow their child to die and accept it as “God’s will” is amazing to me. One can tell that the McIntyre children knew what their parents were doing was wrong, considering one daughter ran away to receive an education. The girl who died of diabetes as her parents prayed over her also begged her parents to take her to a doctor. We need to take it upon ourselves as human beings to make sure every child has the opportunity to receive a real, practical education, and real, practical medical care. Parents are supposed to protect their children, not endanger them with stupidity.

Limbaugh’s commentary on Williams’ death & credible news sources

A couple of weeks ago, we lost a legend. Robin Williams was found dead in his home, due to an apparent suicide. Scrolling through Facebook and various other forms of media, it was easy to see that his loss affected everyone in some shape or form. I’ll openly admit, to ugly-crying a few times watching tribute videos.

But, of course, in the sea of praise for Williams, there were also many negative voices. One of those voices belonged to the infamous Rush Limbaugh. In one segment of his radio show, Limbaugh began by reading a question from one of his listeners that asked, “what are the politics in Robin Williams’ death? Limbaugh began to explain that Williams’ death was somehow connected to the “general unhappiness of the left.”

“I was, however, very shocked that Limbaugh would be so trashy and distasteful as to tie a suicide to politics.”

Even though I’m definitely a left-winger, I wasn’t terribly offended by Limbaugh’s comments about how “miserable” the left is. After all, Limbaugh is a right-winger; he doesn’t know my level of happiness. I was, however, very shocked that Limbaugh would be so trashy and distasteful as to tie a suicide to politics. It’s especially offensive that Limbaugh would attack someone who was so very loved and brought nothing but joy to his audience just days after their death. No matter what your political preference is, there’re certain things that should be left unsaid. Suicide has nothing to do with politics. Williams lived a great life, but he was ill. He died of depression, not his political standpoint.

Limbaugh wasn’t only offensive in saying this, but he was also making a very far reach. What makes him think that he can tie two very different things together? Limbaugh has proven over and over again that he isn’t a credible source, though many would argue differently. His opinion is his opinion, but with logic so blurry, I can’t help but wonder how this man was given a platform. With so many talented young professionals looking for jobs, why do we allow this guy to have any platform?

A few people may agree with Limbaugh, which is sad. But why do we continue to give people such as him, or Bill O’Reilly for that matter, a platform? People like Limbaugh and O’Reilly make these far reaches just for the shock factor. But it seems that people believe them just because they have a platform. No matter how big of a platform they have, they may very well have no credibility or anything that makes them qualified whatsoever. The fact that Limbaugh isn’t categorized as a satirist is shocking to me. We need to stop making these people famous, and start looking into what makes a real, credible news source.

Five things tattooed people are tired of hearing

Although I’m not particularly covered in tattoos, I often hear the same set of questions over and over. Although I love that people acknowledge my body art, sometimes hearing the same thing over and over can be very frustrating. So here’s a list of things that most tattooed people are tired of hearing. Continue reading Five things tattooed people are tired of hearing

Changing the concept of ‘family’

In order to avoid getting arrested for existing during Quadfest this past weekend, I went home to spend time with my family. And during these few short days, I realized something: I don’t fit in with these people at all. The moment I stepped in the door, my family began instigating me. My uncle found out I was the new Opinion Section Manager and immediately wanted me to write right-winged articles. I felt like an insect under a microscope. Swear words are an important part of my vocabulary, and being shot dirty looks every time I swore made me extremely uncomfortable. This extreme discomfort that I faced got me thinking about the concept of family. Continue reading Changing the concept of ‘family’

Why is being single a bad thing?

Although I haven’t been single for very long, I’ve noticed a lot of things ab0ut it that annoy me. I will often hear people say, “you just haven’t met the right person yet,” or “you just have to be patient, you’ll find someone!” To be honest, I think I’m okay with being single. If I found the right person, I wouldn’t fight it. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with being single. Continue reading Why is being single a bad thing?

Robert Sarvis: The third opinion you know nothing about

When there’s a serious third-party candidate in any political race, we always brace ourselves for the weirdest possible crackpot we can imagine. However, in the 2013 gubernatorial race, Virginia’s libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis is actually pretty normal. Sarvis does not live on some crazy Ted Nugent survivalist compound complete with a catapult and a garden fertilized with his family’s feces. Continue reading Robert Sarvis: The third opinion you know nothing about

The LGBT double standard

The following is a conversation I recently had with a friend of mine.

“What do you think about guys kissing?” I asked.

“That’s f–king nasty. I don’t want to see that s–t,” he replied.

“What about two women?”

“Now we’re talking. That’s fine, it’s different,” he said.

I’m sure you’ve heard things like this several times. Someone voicing the opinion that gay women are fine, while gay men are not. I do not have a problem with many opinions. Although I am gay, if you do not

A image standing for "equality" took over Facebook not long ago. Image from abc News.
A image standing for “equality” took over Facebook not long ago for supporters of gay rights. Image from abc News.

believe homosexuality is right or moral, I’m completely fine with your view and respect your right to have it.

However, you have to pick one side.

Continue reading The LGBT double standard

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Tragic reactions

Last week we saw a horrible tragedy unfold over the course of four days, which resulted in a total of four dead and one terrified city. Boston has arguably gone through more last week than any city in America has since New York City during 9/11. Take a moment to be thankful that it’s finally over.

Every time there’s a tragedy, we see people react in many different ways on Facebook and Twitter. It’s a nice thing when we see millions of people come together to show their support for the victims. However, if you’ve been following the pattern of my articles, you’d know that nothing is ever that simple. Continue reading Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Tragic reactions

Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Polarization

Picture from Know Your Meme.

Remember when we were kids and all we had to fight over was which Pokémon was the coolest or which Superhero would win in a fight? As children, it was our civic duty to argue with each other and prove that your way was the only way. Then we grew up, and those quarrels were replaced with new ones. Whether it’s our hatred for Justin Bieber, One Direction, swag, PewDiePie or the dozens of other trends that preceded them, it always seems that when something becomes popular too quickly, there will never fail to be a counter-movement of people who hate that thing. Like Newton’s third law said first, with every action comes an equal and opposite reaction. Continue reading Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Polarization

Highlanders Anonymous is back!

Have any questions you’re embarrassed about or make you feel uncomfortable when you ask aloud? Are you having relationship problems? Do you have any pent up sexual anxiety that you want to get off your chest but are too shy to voice aloud?

What secrets do you have to share? Image from Creative Commons.
What secrets do you have to share? Image from Creative Commons.

You’re in luck. The Whim staff is pleased to announce Highlanders Anonymous is back and will begin this week, under the Life section.

Highlanders Anonymous is a place where Radford University students can turn with all of their unanswered questions. Continue reading Highlanders Anonymous is back!

How not thinking can lead to better decisions

Ever since we were young we have heard adults say, “Think before you speak.”  In school we are taught the importance of analyzing our decisions. We have essay topics like, “What do you feel about this and why?” However, how can you say why you feel the way you feel? Your emotions — not rational thoughts — govern your feelings, and emotions are hard to explain. Continue reading How not thinking can lead to better decisions