I first met the vuvuzela walking along the streets of Accra, Ghana. Often unwarned, the plastic horns boomed out relentlessly, hitting my ears from every direction. Like the unsynchronized car horns of Manhattan, they were only a minor disturbance in a loud city. I knew these horns would be plentiful in South Africa, but I didn’t realize they would be as loud and suffocating as the diesel-fueled Ghanaian tro-tros that owned the streets of Accra.

It wasn’t until I saw the first game of the World Cup that I began to really loath this plastic beast. My friends and I didn’t have game tickets until June 19, eight days after the opening celebrations in Johannesburg. Until then, we watched from bars and hostel living rooms with strangers, sharing our complaints over the incessant buzz that was riling a whole world of sports fans. Goodbye to the chants and songs of distinguished national histories; hello to the monotone vibrations only thousands of plastic horns could create. Soccer bloggers sneezed criticism all over World Cup director Danny Jordaan for allowing such a cacophony to continue. In his response, Jordaan said he would “enforce a ban if he was forced to do so.” He eventually urged the world to embrace South African culture and support the county’s unique norm surrounding soccer. I was unhappy, my friends were unhappy, and nearly every other World Cup fan I met was unhappy.

But this all changed on June 19.  As we sat for two hours in traffic on the drive to Royal Bafokeng stadium in Rustenburg, vuvuzelas announced the event like Depression-era paperboys. From the shanty houses and shops on the sides of the roads children blew their vuvuzelas in excitement; their vigor matched by the flag-bearing fans leaning out of their rental car windows. Ghana and Australia were there with vuvus in their hands and smiles on their faces. Somewhere along the grueling crawl of traffic the four of us exchanged 40 rand (about 6 US dollars) out our own windows to satisfy the growing horniness within us. And yet, when I took my first blow on the keyless trumpet, I failed to produce the notorious boom I heard all around me. Instead it was more of an embarrassing whimper, an attempt one might expect from a fan with emphysema. Perhaps it was going to take me a while to become a true Vuvu Master.  Nonetheless, I was a convert of this raging phenomenon.

Inside the stadium the horns were amplified, but unlike the consistent noise heard through television speakers, the vuvuzela frequency was vacillating–moving with the momentum of the game and the drunken spunk of the musicians sitting in my proximity. It was fun. We had adapted, our perceptions renovated by personal experience. It was an amazing feeling to have our negative expectations flipped upside down and supported by our World Cup peers. Like when a kid realizes the opposite sex (or same) does not have cooties, us Light-Skinned Black Stars found in one sunny South African afternoon the pleasure and communal joy the vuvuzela offered to the World Cup and its fans.

Despite the awkwardness of backpacking with meter-long horns, we brought our vuvuzelas with us everywhere in South Africa, always privy to join impromptu anthems, prepared for times when cafés or markets might explode in celebration. In one truly amazing moment during the South Africa v. France match, Kai and Moose initiated a stadium wide vuvu chant, an acomplishment worth the FIFA Fan Badge, if only it existed.

This summer South Africa introduced me, my fellow travelers, and the world to vuvuzelas, an instrument that will continue to disgruntle the critic that has never had the satisfaction of drowning the air in deafening merriment, changing the sound of stadiums forever.

(I did finally figure out how to blow the vuvuzela. It’s more about the lips than the lungs.)

Send in your summer story here. We will be publishing the best submissions over the next two weeks. After all have been published, students will be able to vote for their favorite submission. There will be a prize for the highest vote getter.

(Photo Credit: Rush Jagoe) Oil workers' bar in Louisiana.

Living in the South for this past summer has made one thing clear—  the Gulf Coastal states feel marginalized, and perhaps rightfully so, considering that Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama are among the poorest states in our nation. A human development study conducted by Oxfam comparing states in matters of health, education, and income concluded “that people in last-ranked Mississippi are living 30 years behind those in first-ranked Connecticut.” Similar results are shown for other coastal states. Revenues from offshore oil royalties would supply more than enough resources to develop schools, hospitals and other institutions.  Yet the 37.5 percent of shares allotted to the states in 2006, including $650 million per year to Louisiana alone, are not to begin until 2017.  Until then, the coastal states will feel the effects, yet none of the benefits, of offshore oil drilling. With the fishing industry crippled, a moratorium on oil drilling and BP’s lag with paying clean-up volunteers, too many have lost their sources of income. Residents’ reactions range from outrage to apocalyptic hysteria. Their very livelihoods have been destroyed by the largest marine water oil spill ever.

As the summer of disaster winds to a close, locals are concerned with more than simply making ends meet.   Hurricane season threatens to shake up the damaged region yet again, and human development has worn away at the coastal wetlands that naturally provide flood control.

Coastal wetlands act as ‘horizontal levees’ by weakening a hurricane as it makes its way towards inland cities. Ultimately, these natural storm buffers are the best and most effective method of hurricane protection. However, the coastal land loss in Louisiana alone is staggering. As described in a story by National Geographic, “despite nearly half a billion dollars spent over the past decade to stem the tide, the state continues to lose about 25 square miles (64.7 square kilometers) of land each year, roughly one acre (4,000 square meters) every 33 minutes.”

Since canal digging began nearly 60 years ago, for petroleum exploration and ship traffic, a dangerous doze of salt water has been introduced into the fresh water marshes. In native vegetation such as cypress trees, roots are unable to hold onto soil in salt water, which leads to erosion. Fresh layers of river sediment are no longer deposited from the Mississippi to replenish this loss. Levees are the culprits. They force sediment past soil starved marshes into deep ocean waters.  These same levees, that exist to protect the city of New Orleans, were deemed by a national panel of experts as  ‘designed to fail’ and responsible for most of the $81 billion worth in damages associated with Hurricane Katrina.

The BP oil spill isn’t good news for anyone. This spill will doubtlessly echo for many more years in its impacts on our environment, energy and seafood cravings. However, the people living in this mess are the ones who suffer and will suffer the most.  But is it a coincidence that the poor, less educated of the world, in this case the United States, are stuck bearing the environmental injustices of natural resource exploitation? Are natural resources coincidentally found only in the poorest of the world’s regions, or are there other factors guiding the decision of drilling in one place versus another?

Admittedly, the Gulf of Mexico makes up the largest chunk of the 115.1 billion barrels of total untapped crude oil available on Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) territory. However, in the same surveys done by the Mineral Management Service (MMS) and United States Geological Survey (USGS), it was found that the Los Angeles area contains sizable onshore and offshore oil fields. To be more specific, the southern California coast reserves are comparable to that of western coastal Florida oil fields in the Gulf of Mexico, not too far from the location Deepwater Horizon was operating. In addition, the New England coastline sports an equally promising potential sites for offshore drilling. What are the chances that companies would start drilling on those sites once the Gulf of Mexico is drained of petroleum? I can post this question another way— is it just as easy to exploit wealthier and more well-educated states as it is the poorest in our nation?

To kick it off, sophomore Libby Friede from Philadelphia hits on the sensitive topic of the infamous high school sweetheart.

Dear Freshman,

If you’ve ever seen the movie Annie Hall you are familiar with a basic premise: boy meets girl, they fall in love, girl moves across the country. There are two potential ends to the story:
Boy and Girl realize someone needs to move so they can be together
Boy and Girl go their separate ways. Both have a hard time, and then they move on.

When I was a freshman, I moved from Pennsylvania to California. My boyfriend moved to  New York City. (The exact locations NYC and LA parallel the movie to perfection.) We watched Annie Hall and realized the Woody Allen-Diane Keaton conundrum was only a few weeks away from reality. After endless nights of talking about it and not talking about it, we decided to make it work. After all, we had technology on our side. How hard could it be with Skype, e-mail, Facebook, and cell phones? I arrived in California nervous and lonely. I didn’t know a single person, and it was so much easier to log onto Skype than open my  door and meet new people.

For three weeks we attempted a game of long distance ping-pong. He called, but I couldn’t pick up because of orientation. I called, and he had just started dinner. It was frustrating and isolating. I skipped out on so many parties and invitations to fro-yo because we had a Skype date, or I was on the phone. I was technically in Claremont but I was in this strange limbo-land, equal parts Philadelphia, New York, and Claremont. Finally, there was the fateful call: “this isn’t working.” At first, I felt even more alone. Then someone invited me to a Friday night performance of Without a Box (so good!). I almost said no out of habit, but I realized I didn’t have a phone call coming, so I went out. And then I had fun. Little by little, I went to more parties and more club meetings. I met more people and got out of my room and out of my shell.

I don’t write this letter of advice saying don’t have a long distance significant other. There are some people who do it; there are some people who can make it work. There are also plenty of people (freshman mostly) with a significant other across the country or around the world. They will probably say things like “we’re practically married” or “the distance makes us closer.” Hate to break it to you, but for a lot of you in this boat, the break-up wave is coming and it’s okay. It’s really hard to give 100% to making new friends and living in a new place when you feel so connected to somewhere else.

Break-ups are always tough, but they are even harder when you’re a million miles from home. Instead of making a playlist of sad songs, find someone in your hall to talk about it with. Chances are you are not the only one in the same situation.  Talking about your break-up is not only free therapy, you’ll probably get a really good friend out of it.

For those of you who do stay with your far-off significant other, make sure you give Claremont a shot. Try to get out there and make new friends. Whether you’re an alternative Allie or a preppy Pam, you can find your people here; you just have to go out and look for them. From classes to clubs to TNC, get out and meet people! I know this is advice that you’ve probably heard a million times but it’s true. If your mind’s tied to a lover across the country, your eyes on computer screen, and your ear glued to a phone, there’s a lot less room and a lot less time to meet people here that will become your Claremont family.

Peace, Love,  and Cheesesteaks,

Libby Friede

Staff writers Kelsey Brown and Caroline Nyce contributed to this article.

So now you’ve taken your first few picks (after reading the previous rules #1 and #2) and you’re feeling pretty confident. But you realize you don’t know what to do now that you are in the middle of the draft. You see that Yahoo! has the unstoppable New York Jets Defense and Special Teams Unit ranked as the next best pick. Should you choose a D/ST in the 6^th round? Or should you pad your bench? But the bench doesn’t contribute. There’s only 10 seconds left! What do you do? Breathe. Relax. Take a sip of Matty Ice. Don’t worry. I’m here for you.

Rule #3: Wait on drafting a Defense/Special Teams (D/ST). This is probably one of the biggest mistakes most fantasy managers make. D/ST don’t need to be drafted until the last few rounds. Personally, I tend to wait until the last two rounds to take my kicker and D/ST (more on the kicker in upcoming Rule #5). The New York Jets Defense/Special Teams is pretty much the consensus number one pick among D/ST even though arguably the best cornerback in the league, Darrelle Revis, who is so vital to the Jets’ shutdown defense, is holding out with no end in sight. Regardless of the Revis holdout, the Jets D/ST is being picked in Yahoo! leagues with the 56.4 selection, on average, roughly in the middle of the 6^th round of an 8-10 team league. The Jets pick sounds fine and dandy until I tell you that, according to ESPN Fantasy Football expert Chris Harris, “Of the five pre-draft consensus No. 1 fantasy defenses in the past five seasons, exactly one finished among the top 10 defenses by season’s end.” Only one has finished among the top 10!

That one team would the 2006 Chicago Bears, which finished 2^nd in ESPN leagues. The Bears had dominated on defense the year before, but were immensely helped in 2006 by the 3 punt return TDs, and 2 kickoff return TDs, of Devin Hester. These 5 TDs added an additional 50 fantasy points (standard leagues award 10 points per special teams TD), or FP. Special Teams TDs are very difficult to predict, especially when the returner is a rookie (like Hester was). Do you know how many return TDs Hester has had in the past two seasons?  None. This isn’t entirely surprising as teams have been kicking away from Hester for the past two seasons. But why didn’t they do that in his second season, when he racked up an additional 6 return TDs?

Will Revis return? And can the Jets deliver with or without him?

Now, if are in your standard ten team league, you could be wasting a sixth round pick on the worst starting defense and special teams unit in the fantasy league! If you are taking a D/ST in the 6^th or7^th round, assuming that the league plays with two RBs, two WRs, and 1 Flex, you have not yet finished filling your starting skill position slots before drafting a D/ST! This is absurd. Last season, according to ESPN, the difference between the best D/ST unit, the San Francisco 49ers, and the last starting unit (which would be the tenth best starting unit), the Minnesota Vikings, was a measly 41 points (167 to 126). The 16^th best, or the middle of the pack, D/ST, claimed 111 FP, a difference of 66 points. This may sound like a lot of points, but the difference between the best running back, Chris Johnson, and the 20th running back, or the last starter, if everyone were to only draft running backs, was 186 FP, more than quadruple that of the point differential of the best and worst starting D/ST. While the difference for the other positions is smaller, it is still much greater than that of the D/ST. I will elaborate on this idea in a coming piece.

In the worst case, you will have to go to the free agency pool and stream defenses against terrible offenses. There are always very bad offenses that don’t score points and turn the ball over a lot. Last year’s four teams that scored fewer than 16.0 points per game were the Tampa Buccaneers and Cleveland Browns (15.3),  Oakland Raiders (12.3), and St. Louis Rams (10.9). In the past ten seasons, only twice have there been only two teams that scored under 16 points per game. So this seems like a trend that will continue. With this stat in mind, there are roughly ten to fifteen teams that can be picked up from free agency in a given week that will perform average-to-great in a given week  Drafting a defense and special teams unit in the mid-level rounds is just crazy.

Still not convinced? Let’s take a look at some of the players being drafted with later picks: From a quick glance at a list of the top 200 players’ average draft position (ADP), I saw 7 RBs including Lions RB Jahvid Best (a “stud” rookie taking over the starting role from, successful fantasy sleeper, Kevin Smith. Last season, Smith scored 131 FP in only 13.5 games), LeSean McCoy (a younger version of Brian Westbrook, in the same west-coast offense. Westbrook used to average among the top-ten RBs in), and Ronnie Brown (118 FP in only 9 games and one of the leagues most dominant RBs when healthy); 9 WRs, two of which are guys I am very, very high on: Donald Driver (135 FP last season) and Wes Welker (155 FP last season); 6 TEs including one of the most consistent ends in the past decade in Tony Gonzalez; and 7 QBs I wouldn’t mind taking with a late pick, my favorites being Matt Ryan (217 FP in 13 games. A healthy season should see his numbers back up around 265)  and Joe Flacco (240 FP last season and 2 great receiving corps additions in Anquan Boldin and the just injured Donte’ Stallworth to increase Flacco’s production). This comes to a total of 29 players! And that was from just a quick glance. There are so many more players I would rather take a flier on than a D/ST.

The problem with these defenses is the high-risk and low-reward of using a top-10 round pick. ESPN Fantasy Football’s Christopher Harris’ analysis of last year’s D/ST draft results indicates the difficulty in predicting even a top-ten D/ST unit. Four of the top ten D/ST from last season’s ESPN leagues were either drafted outside of the top ten, or not drafted at all. So the chance of snagging a starting unit after everyone else has theirs is almost 50%!

Clearly, from my list, there is a plethora of talented players, who are more likely to succeed but would be passed up if a D/ST is taken so high. As tempting as Patrick Willis makes the 49ers defense look, give your team a chance. Pass on the defense and draft a player with plenty of upside that could separate your team from the next.

Contact: If you have a fantasy football question, comment, insult, or compliment for Dr. Z, send it to Nightcapkspc@gmail.com or call in to The Nightcap on KSPC Mondays 8-10 PM at (909) 626-KSPC. No inquiry is too big or small. It might even be featured in Dr. Z’s next column! Please include your first name and from which city you are writing.

Editor’s Note: This sports column is a regular feature from “The Nightcap” crew, a group of 5Cers who air a weekly radio sports talk show on KSPC. You can listen in online at KSPCstream.com or KSPC.org (click “Hear us Online via Live365”) every Monday from 8-10 PM. Want to join the radio show this year? We are looking for new people! Email us at nightcapKSPC@gmail.com!

We at the Forum hate to compound the problem but the thing is… everyone really wants to know. So please take a second and tell us what you’ve been up doing. Keep in mind, we would like to hear your best story from break rather than a dull summer summary. Keep it less than 800 words. Photos are strongly encouraged.

We will be publishing the best submissions over the next two weeks. After all have been published, students will be able to vote for their favorite submission. There will be a prize for the highest vote getter.

Okay, now you know how the league works and you won’t get stuck wondering why Matt Forte was taken 40 spots earlier than you expected (you can read about this explanation in Dr. Z’s Rule #1). So what do you in the first few rounds?

Rule #2: In the early rounds, don’t draft above value. This is one of the toughest rules to keep. The best way to catch yourself before falling off the deep-end is by grouping your players, according to position, into tiers of value before you draft. Group players by position according to how many fantasy points you think they will accrue throughout the season. If you believe that the points of a group of, say, five running backs will be comparable, then you group them together into a tier. Unless you are in love with a wide receiver in your third tier, don’t draft him if most of the receivers in tier 2 are still available. In this case I would question why that player is in tier three and not tier two.

If you aren’t sure how to create a tier system, a quick Google of “Fantasy Football Tier” brings up a few good places to start. The first few rounds are the most important picks of the draft because this is when the top performers are usually picked. There are a few choices: The stable, elite players, who have been there, done that, year after year: the Andre Johnsons, Adrian Petersons, and Chris Johnsons of the league; and the elite players “of new” who have had “breakout” seasons, phenomenal catches, and exciting runs: the Rashard Mendenhalls and DesSean Jacksons. Although I had Jackson on my team last year (as a mid-round addition mind you), I wouldn’t bet on him in the first two rounds, where I have seen him taken too many times this year. It is crucial to pick players who will stabilize your team (more on consistency in an upcoming column). You don’t want to rock the boat by taking a guy who could flame out. If you’re taking him because of two seasons, or fewer, of elite success, you should be questioning the pick and seriously considering someone else. It’s easy to fall into the trap and draft on hype and excitement instead of performance and value. Young “studs” like Philadelphia Eagles WR DeSean Jackson, and rookie “phenoms” like San Diego Chargers RB Ryan Mathews, tend to get a lot of hype that, in my opinion, they don’t deserve. I’m not saying that they won’t have stellar, or even elite, years. But they have not earned the high pick of a first or second rounder. There are just too many question marks.

Chris Johnson is only two seasons into his NFL career yet he has already established himself as a top RB.

Last season, the Chargers had the 22nd best (read: 10thworst) run offensive line according to profootballfocus.com’s film analysis. This is not surprising given the stats. The Chargers ranked second to last in yards per game (only the Colts were worse). Their 19^th most rushing attempts per game of 26.7 averaged them 88.7 yards per game. Their only saving grace for fantasy owners was LaDainian Tomlinson’s 12 TDs, which was a result of the strong passing game. That comes out to a league worst 3.3 yards per carry. And this is with the speedy Darren Sproles and the elusive, yet aging, LT. Why would rookie Mathews fare better, at least enough to grant him a late first round or early second round pick?

As for DeSean Jackson, the man is a serious deep threat with killer speed. But his numbers are much more than likely to regress. I seriously question if he is worth the value of a first or second round pick. Reggie Wayne, Andre Johnson, Steven Jackson, and Adrian Peterson: these are the type of guys to draft early. It’s okay if you draft three wide receivers in a row before draft a running back, just as long as the guys are solid and consistent. Being flexible with the positions you draft early while sticking to value is key.

I’ve told you what to do in the pre-draft (know everything about your league!) and what to do in the first few rounds (draft based on proven production, not hype). Look out for the next in the series in which I tell you what to do next.

Contact: If you have a fantasy football question, comment, insult, or compliment for Dr. Z, send it to Nightcapkspc@gmail.com or call in to The Nightcap on KSPC Mondays 8-10 PM at (909) 626-KSPC. No inquiry is too big or small. It might even be featured in Dr. Z’s next column! Please include your first name and from which city you are writing.

Editor’s Note: This sports column is a regular feature from “The Nightcap” crew, a group of 5Cers who air a weekly radio sports talk show on KSPC. You can listen in online at KSPCstream.com or KSPC.org (click “Hear us Online via Live365”) every Monday from 8-10 PM. Want to join the radio show this year? We are looking for new people! Email us at nightcapKSPC@gmail.com!

Disclaimer: Dr. Z claims in no way to be a medical, dental, or any other type of physician in any way. He has also never received a doctorate. He is only considered a “doctor” in the sense that he writes to remedy your fantasy football qualms, afflictions, and maladies.

Every January, as the fantasy football season wraps up, my friends and foes always ask me, “Dr. Z, what’s your secret? How do you do it? Tell me what you know.” Ok. Maybe not. But perhaps they should. As much as I love baseball, it’s never been my forte, although I have to say I’m quite proud of my fantasy team, “Ron’s Rehab Center” which currently sits 2^nd out of 12 teams. But I’m glad that football season is finally here! And lucky for you, I’ve decided to let you in on my strategies that have consistently kept me in striking range of my league trophy year after year. I’m hoping that “Albert’s Fitness Center” can follow in the footsteps of “Donte’s Driving School” and lead me to the championship for the second straight year in my annual “Bye Bye Brett” league.

Rule #1: Know your league. If you don’t know the scoring and roster setup, then most of what I, or anyone else, tell you is practically worthless. It is extremely important to know if your roster needs 3 Wide Receivers, a second Quarterback, and possibly even a Defensive player or a flex, etc. Does your team credit receptions and rushing attempts? Or just yards and touchdowns? Do you get bonus points for touchdowns scored from longer yardage plays?

Before two-back systems became the norm, rushers dominated fantasy leagues, racking up yards and touchdowns. In 2002, ten RBs scored 10 or more TDs, with eight of the ten scoring more than 10. In the same year, eight receivers accomplished this feet. But only three of these receivers exceeded 10 TDs. The league high in rushing TDs was 27 (Kansas City Chiefs RB Priest Holmes) while the league high in receiving TDs was 17 (WR Randy Moss, playing for the Minnesota Vikings at the time). You get the point. Running backs dominated the league.

The Points Per Reception (PPR) league scoring format was created to try to keep the value of the positions balanced by adding extra value to receivers and tight ends. The scoring was exactly the same as a standard league except that each reception would be worth a certain number of points, hence the name, “Points Per Reception.” In some leagues, the added value can be as low as 0.1 ppr, but it is usually posted at 1 ppr. Now, with rushers coming out of the backfield to make catches more frequently, the added value is extended not just to the receivers and tight ends, but to the running backs as well. Running backs such as Matt Forte of the Chicago Bears, who was third in the league last season with 57 receptions for 471, is currently being drafted in standard Yahoo! Leagues at 81.8, which is roughly in the beginning of the 9^th round. But in Yahoo! PPR leagues, his average draft position (ADP) is 42.8, roughly three-and-a-half-rounds (4.8) higher!

Matt Forte's pass-catching ability increases his value in PPR formats by roughly four rounds!

But it’s not as if Forte is the only RB to catch the ball out of the backfield. Why is his value that much higher in PPR leagues? Let’s compare him to Carolina Panthers RB Jonathan Stewart (64.2 ADP) and Denver Broncos RB Knowshon Moreno (70.6 ADP). Stewart rushed for 1133 yards and 10 TDs, and caught 18 passes for 139 yards and 1 score for an estimated 198 fantasy points, FP, in standard leagues. Moreno rushed for 947 yards and 7 scores, and had 28 catches for 213 yards and 2 TDs for an estimated 169 FP in standard leagues. Forte ran for 929 yards and 4 end zone appearances, while catching 57 passes for 471 yards and no touchdowns for an estimated 163 FP in standard leagues. As we can see, Forte has the lowest fantasy numbers of the three. But in PPR leagues that award 1 point per reception, Forte gains 57 points, Stewart an additional 18, and Moreno 28 points, giving Forte the edge with 220 FP to Stewart’s 210 and Moreno’s 197. Need I say more?

It takes only a few minutes but just looking into what positions you need to draft to fill out your roster, how the points are scored, and even how many other teams are in the league, can make the difference between drafting Matt Forte in the 4^th round and wondering why he did not fall to you in the 8^th round like you were expecting.

Contact: If you have a fantasy football question, comment, insult, or compliment for Dr. Z, send it to Nightcapkspc@gmail.com or call in to The Nightcap on KSPC Mondays 8-10 PM at (909) 626-KSPC. No inquiry is too big or small. It might even be featured in Dr. Z’s next column! Please include your first name and from which city you are writing.

Editor’s Note: This sports column is a regular feature from “The Nightcap” crew, a group of 5Cers who air a weekly radio sports talk show on KSPC. You can listen in online at KSPCstream.com or KSPC.org (click “Hear us Online via Live365”) every Monday from 8-10 PM. Want to join the radio show this year? We are looking for new people! Email us at nightcapKSPC@gmail.com!

On November 3^rd, 2010, Barack H. Obama will still reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but offices at the other end of that particular street might begin to move. Recently White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs let forth the earth shattering notion that Democrats might not control both chambers of Congress after the election. Not particularly surprising to anyone who has been paying attention…but rather poorly received by House Democrats. Indeed Speaker Pelosi (yikes!) lambasted Gibbs in a meeting with her Democratic colleagues.

No matter your current level of interest, I am here to tell you that the midterm elections should be of interest to you. What follows (hopefully) will be a persuasive argument as to why you should turn on (TV, internets, radio, twitters), how you should tune into House races, and why this all matters.

What about the Senate? For a variety of reasons (which I am happy, even eager, to discuss elsewhere) the Senate Majority Leader has no where near the control over his fellow members, legislative calendar, or policy, as the Speaker of the House does. Individual Senators and Committees, by practice and procedure, have much greater power in the upper chamber than in the lower. As a result, I would submit it is the Speaker of the House that is the second most powerful office in the land.

And it’s up for grabs. As Gibbs noted (despite his rather unsurprising ‘walking back’) the House is up for grabs. “Speaker Boehner” is a phrase which sends chills up the spines of Democrats everywhere, much as the mere utterance of the words “Speaker Pelosi” cause the average Republican to fret and avoid eating for some time.

So what should you pay attention to? There are, broadly speaking, two schools of thought. The first, and easier to track, is national indicators. The state of the economy, the unemployment rate, the ‘national mood,’ and other metrics are all fair rough metrics of what is likely to happen. The alternative is to predict on a race by race basis how elections are likely to turn out and tally those predictions. (For those of you reading this to waste time and are really looking for an excuse not to get stuff done, you can read this piece or this one on forecasting).

So where to tune? The Cook Political Report is an invaluable source as a guide to which races are competitive and how they compare. His House Race charts can be found here. For those of you looking for a bit more content, and World Cup references, The Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza is a must read. For those of your truly addicted, there are many more resources but a new one that I am quite fond of is a twitter feed @FECTweets run by Reid Wilson at National Journal’s Hotline. The feed just broadcasts the quarterly fundraising results (2Q were due July 15) so less useful now, but good to have in the future.

There’s also the option to drop out. I’m not necessarily advocating you leave CMC for a semester to work on a campaign, though you could do worse things. You can phone bank from anywhere with Skype or a cell phone, and you can always write a check. If you do plan to go the cash route, I will not use this space to tell you who to send money to, but I will say this: go small or go home. Money you send to a House race in Idaho (Democrat/Republican) will go a lot further than dollars you spend to Illinois (Democrat/Republican).

Why does it matter that Nancy and Robert couldn’t play nice? It matters a great deal because the Speaker of the House is the second most powerful person in the nation and the White House Press Secretary is the public voice of the President.

Now you might retort ‘No, Jesse. I learned in Govt. 20 that it goes President, Vice President, Speaker of the House….’ Well, simply put, that’s just not true. The Vice Presidency of the United States of America, august title and all, is just not that important. Vice President Garner once said the Vice Presidency was “not worth a bucket of warm piss,” hardly the description of an all powerful office.

There are two principle reasons why this is true: a) the Vice President has no natural area of responsibility, except for those given to him by the President, and b) the Vice President has no vote (except in rare Senate ties) and has no natural power base or constituency to call upon.

Given our age, I am sure the comments section would fill with comments about Dick Cheney, was he not powerful? First it is worth noting that Cheney is the exception far more than the rule. Second, and more substantively, Cheney’s power within the Bush administration derived from his close, almost Chief of Staff-like relationship with the President. All politicians have close aids and allies who have their ear, and whose judgment the principal trusts. Vice President Cheney filled that role for President Bush, but unlike most advisors, his name was also on the ballot.

What is the point of this tangent? If we accept that the Vice President is not all that important, there is a vacancy in the number two slot…meet the Speaker of the House. The Speaker consolidates the powers of the House of Representatives in large measure in the Speaker’s office, has direct (if not de facto) control over what bills come to the floor, and just as importantly which bills do not. The Speaker can exercise an effective veto over legislation, and has a greater power, more than any other single member of Congress, to effect policy and political changes. This power is amplified when the Speaker is of a different party than the President as the Speaker also becomes in effect the voice of the ‘out’ party (see Gingrich, Newt).

Bottom line: November’s election matters a great deal. Control of a very powerful position is up for grabs, and this will have significant implications for the rest of President Obama’s term, for the course of the nation, and for national politics for the next few years. If that is something that interests you, there are a number of ways to get information. If you want to do more than read passively, you can get involved in a meaningful way.

Decisions are made by those who show up, will you?

OBVIOUS BIAS ALERT: The author of this post worked in the Fall of 20o9 and this summer for House Republican Leader John Boehner. Notwithstanding this fact, this article contains useful advice ensconced in a whimsical and yet powerful writing style.

In addition to the new flatscreens, which will feature live updates from CMC’s finest internet publication, the computer labs have seen a few other upgrades. Poppa’s nasty old flooring and plastic sheets have been torn up and replaced with new carpeting. The chairs have also been upgraded to seats with some sick new technology — armrests! Awesome. And, if you’re a lab junky like me, you’ll be most excited for this last detail: Poppa is now ALL double screens. That’s right. No more arguing with growling seniors for those prized PCs during thesis time.

Some of the other changes students will see on campus include: flat-screens in Collins (and some huge fruit posters?), new wide-screen monitors in Ryal, and, even though you loved the Hub’s old-church-basement feel, it’s received a makeover, too. Those old love seats have been swapped for plush new leather furniture and the carpet has been completely replaced. The Kravis Center workers are still slaving away, but the construction has ended on the new pathway from CMC to Scripps. Now, there are a few new places to sit and a few less steps on the way to that delicious Scripps brunch.

Princeton Review

The Princeton Review released its college rankings list August 1 and CMC took top spots in flattering categories, including Happiest Students (#2), Best Quality of Life ( #4), Best Career Services (#7) and School Runs Like Butter (#7).  The full lists are available here.

The Princeton Review book, which profiles the best 300+ colleges in its yearly publication, is a trusted staple for helicopter parents, prospective students, and college administrators.   But the unscientific methods used to create the venerated lists suggest our adoration may be misplaced.

The rankings are calculated by current student surveys.  Here’s Princeton Review’s official word on methodology:

“Most questions offer an answer choice on a five-point scale: students fill in one of five boxes on a grid with headers varying by topic (e.g. a range from “Excellent” to “Awful”). All of our 62 ranking lists tallies are based on students’ answers to one or more of these questions with a five-point answer scale. Some questions on the survey are open-ended and offer students the opportunity to answer with narrative responses.

Once the surveys have been completed and the responses stored in our database, we tally the results. Our methodology and the math by which we calculate our ranking results are quite simple. Each college is given a score (similar to a GPA) for its students’ answers to each multiple-choice question. These scores enable us to compare student opinion from college to college. They are the sole factors that determine which schools make it onto our 62 ranking lists.”

Of course, a rank near the bottom or the top of the pack has some truth to it.  Yes, our professors are accessible, perhaps too accessible when they wander through North Quad on a Thursday night.  But we’re #5 in “Lots of Beer” and UC Santa Barbara is #20?  Is our standing meant to imply that there is more beer consumed per capita at CMC than Santa Barbara? Anyone who believes that, to speak proverbially, clearly has had too much to drink.  That’s up from #13 since last year, but our alcohol policy has only become more restrictive.

CMC, at #8, outranked Scripps in the “Dorms Like Palaces” category.  If the category was “A Dorm is Like a Palace,” then perhaps CMC’s Claremont Hall could give Scripps’ GJW a run for its money.  But no one would doubt CMC’s founding fathers had utility, not luxury, in mind when designing North and Mid Quads.  Save a few hinges, the dorms could have been tipped on their sides and hosed down after a keg tap gone wrong.  Compare this to Scripps, where the sheer number of clinging vines may be enough to qualify it for a feature piece in Martha Stewart Living. The dorms also boast stained glass windows, coincidentally the window material favored by those who live in… palaces.

Forbes

CMC ranks between Harvard and Yale in the Forbes ranking.

The new Forbes Magazine college rankings were released on August 11 and soon became linked and liked all over Facebook.   The Forbes rankings system is its infancy–it’s only three years old–and the magazine is admittedly still working out flaws in methodology, which may explain dramatic year-to-year changes.  CMC moved from #27 in the “Best Colleges” list to #9 in the span of one year, placing it between Harvard (#8) and Yale (#10).

The rankings here are compiled from a combination of student opinions, including 17.5% from RateMyProfessors.com, and objective data, including alumni salaries from Payscale.com.

But the factors included range in legitimacy. Under “Postgraduate Success” is the outright absurd measure of listing of alumni in Who’s Who in America, featured only ten years earlier in the same magazine as “The Hall of Lame” for containing “a lot of relatively unaccomplished people who simply nominated themselves.”  This makes up 10% of a college’s score.

Since last year, they’ve dropped faculty awards altogether from consideration.  Previously, faculty awards made up 8.33% of the rankings.  They’ve included new variables to measure alumni success and default rates on loans.

U.S. News & World Report

The only rankings to get a school-wide email shout-out from President Gann, the U.S. News Rankings released yesterday are the gold standard in college rankings.  They’re also the most methodologically rigorous, incorporating objective measurements as well as subjective evaluations by students, peer institutions, and high school counselors.

The much-anticipated rankings varied only slightly from last year, despite changes in methodology that diminished the influence of ratings by peer institutions’ college presidents that attempted to quantify the reputation of the school.  In 2010, Claremont McKenna was ranked #11 on the list of best liberal arts colleges, a position shared with Vassar College.  In 2011, CMC retained its spot at #11 but has edged ahead of Vassar.   Pomona College, #6 last year, also remains at #6, suggesting to consumers that the methodological changes were not as dramatic as expected.

In 2011 the magazine placed more weight on graduation rates, increasing the measure’s weight from 5 percent to 7.5 percent of the final score.  High school counselors are now given a say and college officials’ opinions will receive less weight to accommodate them.

High honors or cheap sales?

“Top” liberal arts colleges formalized their objections to college rankings by circulating a petition in September 2007 agreeing not to use rankings in promotional material. Notable signatories included the presidents of Amherst, Carleton, Haverford, Wellesley and Pomona Colleges.

In a wide-ranging interview conducted last year by Forum Editor-in-Chief Michael Wilner, Pomona President David Oxtoby discussed his position on college rankings. Although he does think rankings in general have helped all liberal colleges by placing them among larger, well known schools including Ivies and public universities, he wished colleges and prospective students would place less faith in them.

“They have absurd claims to being scientific, which is really frustrating,” Oxtoby said. “On the other hand, the idea of protesting is a waste of time.  So I did not agree to the boycott. I think the reputational rankings are probably more valid that the rest of the survey components.”

He added, “I think we’re under-ranked. We should be higher.  In different ways, the other [Claremont] colleges may be under-ranked as well.”

President Gann had a different approach to the boycott, which she articulated in an interview with Inside Higher Ed.  Gann claimed that CMC only makes “very limited use” of rankings in promotional material, and that her objection to the boycott was the fundamental fissure it would create with the college’s core philosophy.   “Claremont McKenna College is very committed to free markets and individual choice,” she was quoted, “For-profit publications and rankings are what they are in our free-market economy.”

Staff Writer Sara Birkenthal and Editor-in-Chief Michael Wilner contributed to this article.