USC GREEK SYSTEM MUST GO

It's safe to say that the University of Southern California's Greek system has generated an above average amount of negative press this past semester.  First it started with a derogatory fraternity email towards women than eventually circulated the whole school.  Then came the infamous sex scandal on top of Waite Phillips Hall this past month that became international news.  All of this on top of a dozen or so sexual assault/ rape charges at numerous fraternity house during parties.  If the Greek system were a publicly traded business, every stockholder would be calling for change.  And that's exactly what I'm proposing.


To start off with I am not ignorant.  I know that USC will never abandon its Greek system.  It's too deep seeded in our traditions as well as the large alumni base that will go up in arms if it happened.  However this needs to be done sooner rather than later.


I was a member of a fraternity for 3 years, and even held one of the highest leadership positions in the house.  I know how these places run,  how the people inside think, and the overall attitude that the members put out.  I can tell you that it's about lifelong friends, about giving back through philanthropy, and all about collectively working to better each other.   However I don't enjoy lying.  While I was in a fraternity we spent more money on a philanthropy party ($5000) than we actually gave to the cause we were raising money for ($2000).  Everyone I know in the house's grades slipped, and to be honest there were numerous clicks within the house and after you graduate you only really care about a select handful in the group.  Fraternities are about drinking too much, banging girls (which most guys in my frat referred to as "sluts"), and having a gang of people to call your own.


Sororities are a whole other story.  I don't have a daughter, but I can imagine that it gets difficult when she turns 13 and you have to parent her through any body image issues she has or anything that makes her fell self conscience.  You work until she's 18 to build a self confidence in her that will carry her through college and beyond.  Then she gets to USC and what happens?  She immediately gets placed into a group of girls completely based on her looks and wealth.  It's the most superficial system I've ever seen.  If your the hottest girl in the world then you will be cherished; if your a bit chunky and aren't appealing, then they can't wait to boot you out their door and pawn you off onto someone else.  They can't let you bring down their "reputation".  This system goes against everything that we are parenting our children to live by.  Then once their in they are brainwashed into thinking that because their in a TOP sorority that they should be treated as such.  It boils down to your creating needy, narcissistic psycho bitches then getting them drunk and sending them into a jungle filled with horny college guys willing to say anything to close the deal.


It's clear to me that this is a flawed system.  There was a psychology experiment in the 1950's called the Robbers Cave experiment.  It "studied the origin of prejudice in social groups".  To paraphrase they took a group of 24 boys to the Robber's cave summer camp.  They let them all get to know each other and watched who in the group separated into groups of friends.  Then they divided the boys into two groups, making sure to separate some of the friends.  They told each group why they were better and encouraged them to remain fractionalized. What happened is that the two groups developed gang like mentalities and hated each other.  It got to the point that the groups couldn't be in the same room because they would fight so much.  This is what has happened at USC. We have these frats and sororities and they all think they are better one another and it breeds problems.  Your told to remain with your group and that everyone else is not as good. That isn't what college is all about.


My solution is unfortunately easier said than done.  I believe USC should get rid of the "Greek System" , but maintain the Row of houses by purchasing all of them.  USC could then turn this into "Preferred student living" and continue the tradition of being the place to party.  This transformation would provide many benefits to USC.  First off USC could charge premium rents to students that wanted to live in the most social housing.  They could also put a GPA floor level that you have to maintain to live there; Nothing too severe, minimum 3.0.  Secondly, USC could monitor and even organize the large parties that happen here.  Now this might be seen as more work for USC officials, but its worth it.  Better security, provides more jobs for the surrounding community, and the peace of mind that if anything goes wrong you can react immediately.


For the students this would create a "Bourbon street effect".   Bourbon street is located in the heart of New Orleans.  It's a Street with bars, restaurants, and other more risky businesses on each side a few hundred yards long.  Imagine that at USC.  Every Friday night each house is going off, with live music, free drinks, and of course security insuring everyone is of age and the peace is kept.  And the best part is that everyone is welcome.   You won't be turned away because your an outsider or just plain different.  Imagine the college community that would spawn.


Yes this idea is radical.  Yes it's unlikely to occur in this decade.  But never ever, say never ever.  
Fraternities are infamous for hazing. Whose to say something couldn't go horribly wrong at a USCStarkley,


"18-year-old Carson Starkey was attending the San Luis Obispo school at California Polytechnic State University. He was also pledging the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity. During the pledge process, Starkey was required to complete a “brown bag” challenge in which he was forced to drink whatever amount of alcohol he was given in a brown paper bag by an older frat member. He died on December 2, 2008 amongst chants of “puke and rally.” His prospective fraternity brothers didn’t even take him to the hospital."


I only pray that if such a tragedy occurs at USC that the person in charge of fixing it finds this essay.  To him I say good luck sir.

Goodbye 4/20

See you next year.

Public Square: Charl Schwartzel Won The Masters

 Charl Schwartzel Won The Masters.

This is the headline because in a year everyone will forget who won this year.  The South African with the difficult phoenetic name will be forgotton until the 2012 Masters roles around; unless the world ends as forecasted.  Unlikely doomsdays aside the the moment that Americans will remember from the 2011 Masters will be the rebirth of the Tiger Woods of Old.


Tiger roared back into contetion early in the forth and final day of the tournmant.  Shooting a -5 on the opening nine holes Woods pulled within one stroke of the leaders.  He fell behind only to Eagle the 13 hole and gain a tie for the lead.  Then his round ended.

He finished the round tied for the lead, but with 5 golfers tied with him and 4 of them with more holes to play.  The odds were against him as he sat back idle and watched.  He bared witness to multiple lead changes and finally a strong push by the Unheard of Charles Schwartzel to win the masters in his first ever time at the competion.  This main shouldnt have won.  Tiger Woods would have won that tournament he just simply ran out of holes to play.  I would argue that this is the moment Tiget gets his life, and golf game, if the two can even be seperated at this point.  Back together.

(Editing required)
The Masters is a classic American Golf Tournament.

PUBLIC SQUARE: Obama failing as of late.

He's launching a secretive  military strike against Libya.  He's organizing a below average relief effort for rattled Japan.  On top of all that he's running a country full time that is not returning on its investment.  But I'm not here to talk about any of that.

 No this Obama issue has to do with his personal NCAA MARCH MADNESS Tournament Bracket.

About a week ago, President Obama appeared on ESPN networks for an interview.  He filled out his presidential bracket which they deemed "Barack-otology" a play on words of the famous myth science of the tournament; brackettology. 

 At the time Obama caught a lot of slack from critics and the GOP because they wondered if he was sending the right message with all the terror going on in the world.  Personally I think it was the right move.  He has done it every other year that he's been president.  It's a major part of American society to fill out a bracket.  Even if your not a fan you fill out a bracket.  To be honest, Obama definetly appeared to me as if he rushed through it just to finish and get to more pressing issues.  He picked the top 4 teams by ranking to make it to the final four and arguably the best team KANSAS to win.

Now the president can ball. He loves basketball, he renovated the white house to add a full court, he even keeps former Duke Blue Devil and NCAA champion Reggie Love as his assitant.  He's played all his life and is an avid Chicago Bulls Fan.  That is why it is no suprise that his bracket started off on fire.

He picked 29 of 32 games correctly in the first few rounds.  For perspective, "Only 491 of the 5.9 million brackets had more correct picks".  This sucess had the president in the top 99.9 percentile of results.  In short he was balling.  Then it all came crashing down.

He still had four of the remaning eight teams heading into the weekend.  He picked everygame of this round wrong.  He didn't pick one of the final four teams correctly and his national champion Kansas was upset by Cinderella VCU (Virginia Common Wealth).  It's safe to say he's no longer in that top percentiles, but he still did very well.

What I'm wondering is if a paralell can be made between Baracks bracket sucess this year and his entire tenure presedential sucess.  To me they are similar.  He started off well in the bracket just as he started off well as president.  Everyone was excited to see an African American elected to president for the first time ever.  People were ready to see this "Change" that he constantly spoke of and there was just a general buzz of hope around america.  Then we got to where we are now.  We have gone through tough economic times, a weak solution to the healthcare problem, and unemployment at historic highs.  Were seeing everyone around us soar above in education.  Our armor as the worlds most powerful nation is starting to rust.  Of course not everything should be blamed on one main but ultimately it will.


It remains to be seen how President Obama finishes his tenure.  Perhaps he will deliver us out of this mess and point us in the right direction moving forward so we can truly "win the future".  Or maybe it will follow the brakcet pattern and everything will blow up in his face.  If that's the case then we could have our first one term president since 1993.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-president-obamas-ncaa-bracket-2011-3#ixzz1Huka9boE

OP-ED Shaking up LA's plans

Although Japan's devastating earthquake was 5742 miles away, a simple thought must resonate in the mind of every Los Angeleno;  we must prepare for this to happen to us.

While Japan's current situation is a tragedy that in no way should be taken lightly, if the people of LA don't learn from this true horror then everyone lost will be even more in vain.

Every Angeleno knows that the area is prone to earthquakes, but not everyone realizes that Southern California is long overdue for a gargantuan high magnitude earthquake to relieve the pressure on the San Andres fault.Not to fear for two reasons:  California/America is more prepare d to handle the ramifications of a monster quake and the natural factors play to our advantage.

To start with, it should be mentioned that I am no expert on earthquakes.  I did, however, take a class at a Los Angeles college about the science of earthquakes. It's safe to say I know more than the average person.  Either way it doesn't take an expert to see just how horrible the aftermath of an earthquake can be.

Just look at Japan for example.  This site exemplifies just how much damage can be done by providing before and after pictures from the quake.  To be honest, there's was no way to avoid what happened there, but Los Angeles is a different case.

Its not a matter of if an earthquake will happen in Southern California but when.  Through studies of the seismology over the past few centuries scientists found that in LA, "strong earthquakes shook the area every 45-144 years". Finding out that the last major,  "earthquake struck southern California in 1857, or 153 years ago, scientists believe the next "Big One" could happen at any time."   Eventually the built up pressure will have to release.

With this there will be catastrophic damage.  The same scientists predict that, "With 37 million people living in southern California, chiefly in the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and Anaheim, a major earthquake could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 people and cause billions of dollars in damage."  There's no way to prevent all of this, but knowledge and proper preparation could at least limit the devastation.

First off the natural factors of a quake make California/America more prepared for the earthquake than Japan.  Really there's almost nothing Japan could have done to prepare for what happened.  The 9.0 magnitude quake, which is one of the largest recorded since society started documenting them, isn't what caused the catastrophic damage.

While the quake caused its own issues, the main source of the problems was the killer tsunami that ravaged the country. The danger of a tsunami isn't the Hollywood version of a giant 30 foot wave.  The real danger is it's a small wave only a few feet high, but moving at insanely fast speed and extremely long, gushing hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and destroying anything in its path.  Tsunami's are caused by offshore earthquakes that raise or lower the earth's tectonic plates resulting an the creation of the forceful wave.  Its what caused the damage in 2004 in Indonesia and its what caused the damage in Japan last week.  Luckily for Angelenos, the pending earthquake won't cause a tsunami. The future earthquake will be land based because the tectonic plates of the San Andres fault lie a few hundred miles inland of Los Angeles.  While the damage will undoubtedly be great the lack of tsunami plays into the hands of people that will be affected by the incident.

America/ California's infrastructure is far more prepared to handle the aftermath of a large earthquake than Japan.  First off America is a much larger country.  When the earthquake happens the U.S government will be able to evacuate people to the east towards the center of the country.  Plus the government can import supplies from the rest of the country to help the survivors.  Japan's small size led to the whole country's affect of the earthquake and not just a small region.  Our sheer size will help.  Secondly another fallout from the quake is the nuclear power plant issues that Japan's dealing with.   While this could happen in a socal quake it's not as likely.  Our plants are built to withstand magnitude 7.5 quakes.  Seeing as the larget quake on the San Andres fault was a 7.9, coupled with the low risk of a tsunami, a nuclear power plant failure to rival japan is not likely.

Personally I have nothing to worry about for the future great quake.  No, I'm not invincible and no, I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to predict when the incident will happen, but I just may have lady luck on my side.  You see, I've lived here in Los Angeles for three years and not once have I ever been around during a significant earthquake.  In some fate-based trend I have travelled out of the state each and every time a notable earthquake has occurred.  A few plane rides and one bus to Vegas have allowed me to miss these unpredictable phenomenon.  And where was I when the great Japan quake happened?  That's right, on a plane out of California.  Unfortunately, my luck won't help the 37 million people left behind.  That is why we must prepare now.

OP-ED Taco Bell's not "meating" standards

It's been 27 years and the question on fast food customer's minds is still the same; WHERE'S THE BEEF? Only this time instead of a mock grandma from a Wendy's hamburger commercial the question is formed by a group of Alabama lawyers filing a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell. The claim is that the meat served at Taco Bell is less than 35% beef.  Taco Bell's meat make-up shouldn't be the only issue examined, but broadened to measure the level of quality of all fast food.

To start off this lawsuit should widen it's view to the whole taco.  This typical taco sells for 99 cents.  For Taco Bell to turn a profit that taco has to cost them at most 75 cents to make.  Assuming they spend the most on meat, let's say 50 cents, that leaves them 25 cents to spend on the cheapest surrounding ingredients.  The cornmeal to make the the shell that's slightly more quality than cardboard. A minimal amount of lettuce that's only marginally above what they feed cows on a farm. Finally they shave a few cents by opting for pseudo Velveeta cheese.  To sum it up, there's nothing of healthy high quality substance in that taco, or on the taco bell menu at all for that matter.   

When a salad, which should be the healthiest item on the menu, packs in 900 calories and 57 grams of fat you know the restaurants not a healthy stop.  Guess that's better than getting the volcano nachos, "Weighing in at 1,000 calories, 62 grams of fat and 1,930 milligrams of sodium, this nacho "snack" has all the makings of a nutritional disaster."    Not to mention these nachos cost only $3.49 which one can assume doesn't buy the best ingredients.  Taco Bell may be the only restaurant currently under the public microscope, but don't be fooled in thinking that all fast food restaurants aren't pulling the wool over your eyes.

Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger king: No matter which character brands the bag the food inside it is all of the same poor quality.  McDonald's issues are well documented in Morgan Spurlock's documentary Super Size Me.  The results are in this video and included: 24.5 pounds gained, a 7% increase in body fat, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease/failure, and massive cravings that were followed by headaches if he didn't eat McDonald's.   This is an experiment in a vacuum, but the results prove that McDonald's food product cannot be high quality and consequently healthy.  Don't tell professional NFL player Chad Ochocinco, who claims his diet consists of Mickey D's daily, but the reason for McDonald's unhealthy tag is that they cut corners in food quality to provide meals at such low cost to consumers.

The list goes on an on.  Burgerking has a line of XXL meals that average 900 calories and sixty grams of fat per sandwich.  Chic-fil-a's chicken is loaded with controversial chemical MSG.  Jack in the box had a salmonella scare that nearly ruined the franchise.  There are continuous examples of fast food restaurants using fillers, preservatives, and simply sacrificing quality in the concern of lowering cost.  However there is a small sample of healthy fast food options.

There's only two restaurants that come to mind that provide fresh high quality ingredients; Subway and In-n-Out.  It's surprising and relieving to learn that Subway has just passed McDonald's for most restaurants worldwide.  Be that as it may it is less hope inspiring when you look at the nutrition facts. Subway provides fresh cheap sandwich's with a barrage of fresh vegetables to pile on free of charge.  However Subway isn't what they appear.  One nutritionist claims,

"Don't be fooled by the Subway "health halo." This sandwich delivers 9 grams of fat, not to mention nearly 800 calories. On top of that, you'll be getting more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium with your sub. Most adults should consume less than 2,300 milligrams per day."

In-n-Out is a different story.  It's their  philosophy to not open a franchise that's more than one day's truck ride from their privately owned farms. They provide the freshest ingredients possible with no freezing and no microwaves.  Yet that doesn't stop the American public from ordering their burgers extra large with extra cheese such as this 100x100 delicious monstrosity.  That raises the final question if the fast food restaurants are really the only one's to blame.

It's clear that Taco Bell, McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants are cutting corners in food quality in order to continue lowering their prices.  This recent lawsuit of Taco Bell only highlights a small part of a massively growing problem that will end in nationwide U.S obesity. However how much of the blame should be placed on the restaurants and how much should be place on consumers themselves?  The consumer is the one that continues to eat at these restaurants on a weekly, and in some cases daily basis.  Americans love fast food so much that in 2006 they spent $142 Billion at fast food restaurants.  That amount has only increased.  With the continued growing knowledge that this food is low quality and bad for us, perhaps the question should be changed from "Where's the beef?"  to "Where's our common sense?"

PUBLIC SQUARE: Urban Pideon Racing: Pilot.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.