Just moved

VOMIT ON THE PAGE HAS MOVED TO WORDPRESS. CHECK ME OUT HERE.

My CNN Ramble

Currently, I’m watching CNN, one of the few that still do and I would like to make a few suggestions:

CNN needs a new personality. Is it possible to get this personality without punditry? I think so. We don’t need comedians and we certainly don’t need poorly mimicked Jon Stewart impersonators. We need newsmen. CNN has to hire people who are not satisfied with quoting the nebulous group of “some people” (i.e. “Some people say…”). I want a reporter who isn’t contented with using the banal buzz-phrases like “the American people” or “those on the right (or left or wherever) think…”

It is my experience that people want and need a reliable broadcast news station; the market is there, so to speak. CNN is uniquely placed to tap into a whole demographic of intelligent, moderate viewers disillusioned with the MSNBC/Fox wars.

It’s discouraging to observe the cable news state and equally frustrating that CNN (or any network for that matter) won’t step up to the challenge of integrity.

Confessions of a Bandwagon Fan

Admittedly, I am a bandwagon fan. Two years ago, I couldn’t name a single Blackhawks skater, nor could I tell you who my favorite US soccer player was. I never played hockey, and soccer was nothing more than a summer beach amusement. But this hockey season I got hooked (many months before the playoffs) on the graceful violence that is a hockey game, and now I’

m committed to the franchise that was previously absent to my generation in Chicago. The other day, I watched the entirety of the USA vs. England soccer match, something I would not have done if the US were still the international farce of soccer.

So yes, I confess. If these teams were not successful, I probably would not have become a fan. But to all the die-hard sports snobs out there, I promise you, I’m here to stay.

The bandwagon fan is only truly despised when he or she makes the transition to the fair-weather fan—i.e. the fan that is more infatuated with the success and popularity rather than the team and the sport. White Sox fans know who I’m talking about and Cubs fans, well we have our own problems when it comes to faux fans. It’s easy and understandable for dedicated fans to be protective of their teams: Fair-weather fans call into question the authenticity of the entire population of supporters and should be frowned upon. But with bandwagon fans, patience and temperance are important; long-time, hardcore fans should do their best to be welcoming and accommodating.

In reality, bandwagon fans really are just new fans, and everybody is a new fan at some point. But when someone ditches their team during a rough year, then by all means ostracize that person out of town.

Hockey and soccer are both examples of burgeoning sports in Chicago. Their popularity is rising and fans of all ages and demographics are flocking to the stadiums, rinks and bars to support their newfound passions. Hopefully, someday track and field will catch on with the same fervor.

Blackhawks Stanley Cup Parade and Rally!

What a showing. I'll keep the words minimum and the pictures plenty. I don't think it can be understated how much the Stanley Cup means to this town at this moment. It's more than a championship title, it's a resurrection of a sport this town has missed. The pictures speak it all, and the Blackhawks have solidified an entire generation of die-hard fans. Though the Stanley Cup will be here only temporarily, thememory of this season, the thrill, and an entire city hungry for more damn good hockey will have lasting effects for decades.

Now for pictures:

Running is not cool

Running is not like surfing. Surfing is a cool, hip blend of nature’s tidal offerings and the human play instinct. No football coach has ever told a fumbling halfback to surf a lap; no basketball coach has ever made a player hit the waves for missing free throws. Surfers are immortalized in outstanding pictures of off-angle poses underneath crystal blue crescents. Runners make ugly faces of pain, and many of them. Surfers talk about wave heights and board tricks, and people react with amazement. They’re impressed. Runners talk about mileage and PR’s, but people feign amazement. What they really feel is fear born out of pity. You run how many miles?! Why would you do that?

Rarely people begin running because they enjoy it. Unless you’ve amassed a certain aerobic capacity, it is definitely not fun. I suspect that most people begin running out of some sort of compelling duty. Maybe a New Year’s resolution to lose weight, or beach season is around the corner and you feel the summer’s seduction to become naked. At my high school, the advanced honors program required that their students joined any sport for at least one season. Chess team filled up quickly, but cross-country always had plenty of room for those who still never learned to catch or throw. It could also be a social status thing. Nowadays everybody is training for the marathon. Aren’t you? Your neighbor is. Your coworker is. Shit, your best friend is doing a triathlon. Maybe one of your parents is a runner and you’re obligated to make the best use of those delightful genes they’ve bestowed. (I’d like to get my hands on some of those.)

Nobody joins the sport because it’s alluring and glamorous—certainly not because it’s cool like surfing.

Eventually, some of those who fulfill their duty’s obligations find that running has more to offer, and it’s not the faux-spiritual, commercial Zen crap perpetuated by the Runner’s World crowd. Siddhartha never logged a seventy-mile week, and Lao Tzu sure as hell never did mile repeats in 90-degree weather. Running can be pensive and peaceful, trotting along scenic trails and observing beautiful sunsets and sunrises. All of which, I would like to point out are enjoyed much more thoroughly standing still than in the middle of a 12-miler.

But running is a violent, abusive sport—against our bodies, against the elements, and against our competitors—and we have a love/hate relationship with it. Ask anyone who has lined up next to 300 of their closest friends for a grueling 10k; ask the twelve runners cutting in at the end of a one-turn stagger; ask the runner watching his race from the stands as he nurses the stress fracture on his inner left tibia, after he stretched, iced, heated, took calcium pills, changed his shoes, took days off, did everything right from the start but for some godforsaken reason he’s fated to sit instead of run. Make no mistake, running is pure carnage.

No, running is far from the blithe, sunburned images of the salty surf scene.

How do you drink?

In a February issue of the New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell explored the cultural impact on how we drink. He titled his essay, "Drinking Games: How much people drink may matter less than how they drink it." His conclusions about the external influences on alcoholism yield some thought-provoking questions about how we formulate alcohol-related policies.

At the outset, Gladwell describes the experience of anthropologist Dwight Heath in mid-twentieth century Bolivia. Heath, an "old-fashioned" ethnographer, fully immersed himself into the cultural undertakings of the local tribe, the Camba. Each weekend, the Camba gathered as a community and socially drank a natively brewed rum, frequently inviting Heath and his wife along. Upon his return to the New Haven, Connecticut, a colleague of his at Yale's Center of Alcohol Studies persuaded him to write a journal article detailing the drinking habits of Camba. The rum, as it turns out, was an astonishing 180 proof, nearly that of laboratory alcohol.

But Gladwell and Heath note that the Camba had not exhibited any signs of alcoholism and its degenerative effects. In fact, despite binge drinking industrial grade alcohol every weekend, the Camba showed incredible social stability:

A dozen or so people would show up on Saturdaynight, and the party would proceed--often until everyone went back to work on Monday morning... They did not drink alone. They did not drink on work nights. And they only drank within the structure of this elaborate ritual.

Drinking did not invade their productive lives, nor did it result in the violence and depression so frequently associated alcoholism.

So where does drunken rowdiness come from? Gladwell's answer suggests that we take signals from our environment. He highlights two competing theories about how we understand drunkenness. The first is disinhibition, which "suggests that the drinker is increasingly insensitive to his environment--that he is in the grip of an autonomous physiological process."

The alternative theory, and more persuasive I think, is the myopia theory. This concept postulates that "the drinker is, in some respects, increasingly sensitive to his environment: he is at the mercy of whatever is in front of him." In other words, a drinker responds to the immediate signals of his surroundings, or as Gladwell puts it, "by the pulsing music, by the crush of people, by the countless movies and televisions shows and general cultural expectations that say young men in a bar with pulsing music on a Friday night have permission to be loud and rowdy."

If Gladwell is right, then we have glaring holes in our national policies on alcohol. Nobody would or should expect the government to create safe controlled havens for drinkers. Such an idea would be ineffectual and impossible. But the effect of current alcohol policy is one that enables the negative environments in which we drink--primarily the environments that facilitate drinking underage. The prohibition of alcohol for drinkers under the age of 21 has pushed consumption into dangerous, unsupervised locales like the basements of fraternity houses. Here, drinkers follow the example of their surroundings, drinking as much as they can as quickly as they can, in secret. Drinkers trying to not be found.

In the futile attempt to prohibit the consumption of alcohol, our current alcohol policy has ignored the crucial elements needed to treat the current epidemic of alcoholism, education and example. Education is not solely dispensed in the classroom, but also done by cultural example. It is on this point that Gladwell argues best:

There is something about the cultural dimension of social problems that eludes us. When confronted with the rowdy youth in the bar, we are happy to raise his drinking age, to tax his beer, to punish him if he drives under the influence, and to push him into treatment if his habit becomes an addiction. But we are reluctant to provide him with a positive and constructive example of how to drink. The consequences of that failure are considerable, because, in the end, culture is a more powerful tool in dealing with drinking than medicine, economics, or the law... Nowhere in the multitude of of messages and signals sent by popular culture is there any consensus about what drinking is supposed to mean.

Without a positive and affirmative example of how to drink, prohibitions and danger warnings will not succeed. We need less messages concerning how not to drink and more messages concerning how to drink. Our policies only enable and cultivate the bad environments which we try to prevent. That is what needs to change.

Campus Smoking Ban Fails Its Purpose

Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on April 16, 2010.

There is no penalty for smoking penalty cigarettes on campus. Though the university administration has “banned” tobacco from campus, the lack of enforcement has rendered the policy shallow and unflattering to the university’s integrity. The administration should repeal the smoking ban on campus and replace it with comprehensive addiction-fighting programs.

Imagine this scenario: An Ambassador in Admissions guides a tour around campus, showing prospective students and parents the university’s wonderful infrastructure. Walking through the Valparaiso University Center for the Arts, the guide strolls along the asphalt path backwards, talking at length about our academic accolades. Suddenly, dense cloud of burning cigarettes engulfs the tour group; two students stand smoking near the doorway. Mother coughs violently.

“I thought this was a tobacco-free campus,” she says, recovering from the smoke’s violent invasion into her lungs.

“It's supposed to be,” the AIA says.

The ban on smoking has failed its purpose; we have not achieved a smoke-free campus. Simply declaring cigarette smoking a prohibited activity is about as effective as telling an open wound to stop bleeding.

We need more.

Instead of a ban, the university should engage in more proactive measures to help students quit. The Health Center could sponsor students to group together and kick the habit together. The cafe could sell nicotine patches and other tools for combating the cigarette crave. If the university could foster an environment where students felt encouraged to quit smoking, a ban would be unnecessary.

Even Residence Life policies aren’t hospitable to students trying to quit. They’ve banned electronic cigarettes from the residence halls. These mechanisms satisfy the nicotine craving while only emitting water vapor. There is no smoke involved, and yet they’ve been barred. Instead of disallowing a harmless substitution for a cigarette, maybe Residence Life should do more to address the inherent issues facing students who smoke. Where are the support groups? Where are the information sessions? Where is anything other than an ineffective “no smoking” sign?

In the place of positive results, our current smoking policy has stigmatized smokers as a separate class of students. Ostracizing people for poor health habits achieves nothing. Have no doubt, vitriolic attitudes toward smokers not only exist, but have manifested in direct confrontations. Walking toward the entrance of Brandt Hall, I witnessed a student enduring harassment while standing outside near the benches. From one of the windows, someone felt it necessary to shout venomous expletives down at this student for smoking.

This is not the atmosphere the university wishes to cultivate.

Breaking addiction requires education, support and will power; two-thirds of this formula is currently missing on campus. Students who wish to quit smoking have the will power, now they need the university to fulfill its duty to educate and support its students – all students.

Currently, the ban is a hollow rule that yields no positive effects and numerous negative ones. It’s a lazy policy and students - both smokers and non-smokers - deserve more.

Liberal Farts Education

Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on April 9, 2010.

Last Wednesday, I sat in Grinders Cafe attempting to explain deconstructionist literary theory to a friend of mine. Graciously, she listened. Clearly excited about the topic, I rambled on for quite some time. Whenever I talk about my major (English), most people usually ask, “What are you planning to do with that major?” It’s so common I expect it nowadays.

My friend, in step with her predecessors, followed up with that same stale, albeit warranted question. And I answered her with my usual reply - that I plan to

write one day for some publication. Learning to read properly, I told her in more or less words, is essential to learning to writer properly. Fumbling my words, I managed to somehow articulate a vague argument about the importance of a liberal arts education. I told her of all my plans, contingent on so many unforeseeable variables.

In my experience, most people tune out and wonder why I chose such a useless major.

They ask themselves, “What is the practical application of a English major?”

As it turns out, my friend is not one of those people; she understands. She’s a double major in music and psychology. Confessedly, she’s not really sure about how any of her studies will manifest in employment. Admirably, she’s courageous enough to pursue music academically; if there is a major stigmatized for its practicality, it’s music and art.

Applying a collegiate education to the work world is no new struggle, but recently this very problem reached a boiling point. Last Monday, Nancy Cook of Newsweek wrote, “(T)here's no denying that the fight between the cerebral B.A. vs. the practical B.S. is heating up. For now, practicality is the frontrunner, especially as the recession continues to hack into the budgets of both students and the schools they attend.”

The statistics she reports are astonishing. A 2009 survey showed that nearly 56 percent of incoming freshmen said it was “very important” to find a college whose students found solid, reliable employment. Colleges are feeling the pressure to cut back on programs such as philosophy and performing arts. Newsweek reports that Centenary College in Louisiana felt pressured to remove 44 of its majors - all liberal arts majors.

But thinking that practicality is the future of education is manifestly wrong. As graduate programs increase enrollment, the conventional wisdom that majoring in business increases your chance of getting into an MBA program is not as accurate as one might think. Only one-fifth of students accepted into the Yale School of Management were business majors, equivalent to the number of those who majored in the humanities. The admissions counselor responsible for that class, Bruce DelMonico said, “It's not a question of, ‘Do you have the particular classes,’ but it’s “Do you have the mindset, the temperament, the intellectual horsepower to succeed?’”

To be fair, this argument shouldn’t be misunderstood as a case for more philosophy and literature classes. The pendulum swings both ways. Every music major should understand the science behind why their instruments make certain sounds. Each member of each of our choirs should understand the anatomy of the throat and voice. A painter must know how the chemicals in various pigments and mediums affect colors and text.

For a true liberal arts education to occur, the pedagogical binaries of science versus art, math versus poetry and so on, must cease to exist. In truth, advanced physics requires creativity, ethical philosophy requires the scientific method, and musical notation requires numerical comprehension.

Fortunately for this university, President Heckler seems to have an understanding of this concept. The second draft of the Strategic Plan encourages “rigorous interdisciplinary innovation” and emphasizes the need for “experiential” learning.

The recent draft of the Strategic Plan demonstrates an understanding that employers and graduate schools are looking for skills and not necessarily content. While it may not be crucial for an engineer to know the relevant metaphors in Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” it is vital that they know to read analytically. It may not be essential for a business major to know the manner in which various ions bond together, but it is important that they know how to form and test a hypothesis.

There is no easy way to predict how one’s major will manifest in employment. Even those with very specific and narrow paths ahead, jobs in this tumultuous market are hard to come by. For now, it is in every student’s interest to squeeze every ounce of experience and knowledge out of this university. After all, it surely isn’t cheap.

Social Justice and Religious Identity

Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on April 1, 2010.

Social justice made its appearance on cable news last week. Fox News commentator Glenn Beck ignited a fierce debate on his radio show when he advised listeners to leave their churches if they found the words “social justice or economic justice” on the church’s Web site. For full context, Mr. Beck was warning his audience of these phrases allegedly being used as code words to advance Marxist propaganda.

Though I’d rather not drag myself into debates on Mr. Beck’s paranoia, his comments provoke us to think about how closely we integrate social justice into our lives as students of a faith-based university. Social justice (for the sake of this argument, we’ll use its Marxism-free definition) plays a defining role in the character of Valparaiso University and the moral fiber of its students.

In the recently updated second draft of the Strategic Plan, University President Mark Heckler strove to define more closely the Lutheran identity for the university. One the most impressive and admirable qualities of this institution is the level at which students are involved in charitable and philanthropic endeavors - evidenced in the actions of the Social Action Leadership Team. Just recently, the campus wide project “Valpo Has a Heart for Haiti” project met its $15,000 goal.

But when I interviewed University Pastor James Wetzstein, the mentor for the Social Action Leadership Team, he wanted to make sure an important distinction is made.

“In SALT we distinguish between social justice and charity... Charity is understood as one-time gifts in the occasion of crisis; fundraising for meals and shelter for earthquake-devastated Haiti is charity. Social justice is asking larger questions like, ‘How come when an earthquake happens in Haiti hundreds of thousands of people die, but when even stronger earthquake happens in Chile, [only] hundreds of people die? What’s going on? What’s the difference in those situations?’”

Wetzstein’s distinction is important. The world’s response to the devastation in Haiti far exceeds any other disaster fundraising in history, in dollars and speed. Ultimately, this response is only an act of charity, albeit a very important one. The real troubles that face Haiti demand more than just disaster treatment. Social justice requires us to examine the systemic problems that infect our world - issues that aren’t confined to catastrophe. According to Wetzstein, we can’t just move “from the next new thing to the next new thing, because then it all becomes a media event where it’s about finding what kind of crisis can create the most buzz.” It becomes a question of, “Do the kids in Darfur look more desperate than the kids in Haiti?”

The religious arguments for our commitment to social justice transcend any one faith or dogma. Though the mission of social justice is an integral part of the Lutheran theology, morality and the quest for justice is widespread amongst all faiths. The evidence is in the multi-cultural participation for SALT initiatives. “We’ve had Muslims hang out at SALT and get involved in the World Relief Campaign,” Wetzstein said. “The thing that we had in common was not faith or theological background; the thing we had in common was what was happening to impoverished kids on the streets of Jakarta.”

Finding and fixing social injustices in the world is a calling for human beings at large, which is why the recent revisions in the Strategic Plan are crucial to how social justice plays a part on campus. The second goal of the Strategic Plan aims to advance the “vision of being a Lutheran university constituted by people of many and various beliefs and backgrounds, where faith, ethical character, and a sense of vocation are all nurtured in a community of freedom and a dialogue in the common pursuit of truth.”

The rewriting of the second goal allows Valparaiso University to empower the virtues of all faiths, leading to a promotion of social justice. Wetzstein teaches students “to examine their own motivations. If you’re a Roman Catholic student or an evangelical student or a Lutheran student, pay attention to where you’re tradition is and what it teaches.” It’s a lesson we can all accept.

Universally, what social justice demands of us is an assessment of our own morality and whether we can accept the wrongdoings in the world. It does not require taking on all the evils at once; but if each person focused whatever specifically calls upon them, then the odds don’t seem so insurmountable.

For those aspiring to change the world, Wetzstein has advice. “So find the issues that you’re passionate about, focus on them deeply and do them really well. Stay with them for the long haul.”

At last, I opine about health care

Originally published in the Valparaiso University student newspaper, The Torch, on March 26, 2010.

Apparently this Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is a “big (expletive) deal,” or so my vice president tells me. However, the political repercussions have yet to manifest, and substantively, this act accomplishes very little reform. At its best, it is only a baby step to true health care reform and a homemade victory flag for Democrats.

This act has some good points to it, most of which were necessary reforms supported by both parties. PPACA virtually eliminates discriminatory practices that deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, gender, claims experience, genetic information and some other health-related issues. Insurance companies are now required to cover certain preventive health services; these procedures not only reduce the cost of treating a disease or condition, but also save lives by catching symptoms early.

Most importantly, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that together with the Senate’s pending reconciliation bill, this legislation will reduce the national deficit by $118 billion over the next decade.

Closer to Valparaiso University, though, PPACA will have a profound effect on students. Nursing students should be glad to hear that this act provides for massive investment in health work education. Part of this law modifies, expands and cheapens the loan and scholarship programs for nursing students.

But as passed, PPACA is far from true health care reform. The first drawback is the mandate. Though the CBO has determined that 94 percent of Americans will be covered, the government achieves this by requiring people by law to buy insurance. Such a statistic should not be paraded as an accomplishment. Essentially, students have to buy health care if they are not provided for under their parents’ plan; but now, fortunately, dependent coverage has been extended to age 26. A mandate would work if the structures to implement one were, at this time in history, feasible.

With the job market for college graduates looking grim, and without substantial evidence that health care premiums will lower, mandating the uninsured to buy health care places a huge segment of the population (we, the college students) in a fiscal predicament. Such a predicament, I might add, would be avoided if there were a bare-bones, inexpensive public option.

Oh, and there are taxes, too. But the taxes (a 0.9 percent increase) only apply to gargantuan, “Cadillac” health care plans belonging to individuals making over $200,000 a year and families making over $250,000 a year.

The other tax that will most definitely affect a large population on campus is a 10 percent tax levied against indoor tanning salons. Sorry, orange people: Effective July 1 this year, you may want to consider going outside to tan.

But PPACA ultimately fails at managing health costs; namely, it fails to address how and why Americans are so unhealthy. Trite health campaigns, like those proposed by First Lady Michelle Obama, achieve very little without actual legislation to provide the means and incentives to live healthier lives. One would think that health and longevity would be enough incentive for their own sakes, but maybe our culture needs more than that.

As a whole, PPACA must be evaluated by what it doesn’t do. Though the impact of malpractice and tort reform (a solution proposed by Republicans) has been deemed minimal in comparison to other proposed measures, no solution should be excluded. President Obama has expressed his support for tort reform, and yet Democrats shunned the idea.

Most significantly, the bill lacks a public option. The popular arguments against the public option are inherently and logically flawed. Opponents warn of a full government takeover of health care, but this is nothing more than the slippery slope fallacy. There are plenty of government programs that exist without a complete takeover of the industry. Education is an example; public schools exist and yet private schools, in many cases, out-perform their government run counterparts.

Aside from the slippery slope, challengers of the public option claim that it would run health insurance companies out of business. These are the same individuals who decry government’s inefficiency and incapability to run any sort of program.

Which is it? Is the government so inefficient and incapable that it would actually run insurance companies out of business? Such an argument seems contradictory.

Though PPACA is a step forward for the health care cause, it is a far cry from the historic victory that democrats claim it to be. Politically, this law brings Obama back to level ground. He stood more to lose from this legislation failing than he did to gain from it passing - he just needed some kind of health care bill to pass. That may be the biggest problem this bill poses: It has consumed so much political capital that the next steps in actual health care reform will have to go to the end of the line and wait its turn.

But maybe that’s not that bad. I could use some time and effort elsewhere, for a change.

Tuition Too Much? Blame your high school

My tuition rises every year. The president of my university drafted his entire strategic outlook for the next five years around ‘financial sustainability.’ In the midst of economically tumultuous times, institutions of higher education across the nation feel the fiscal squeeze as endowments erode.

Experts in the field of higher education (of which I am not one) have postulated a multitude of theories as to why the cost of higher education seems to be rapidly rising out of control. From growth in demand for basic undergraduate education to the outdated business models upon which education institutions rely, there is a whole menu of issues that every university or college must address if they wish their education to remain an affordable commodity.

At the core of the higher education’s rapid cost growth is the new paradigm shift in the nature of the institution. Colleges and universities are expected to now provide more than the standard fare as extensive meal plans and elaborate housing set-ups become part of the collegiate arms race.

But there is one way our high schools contribute to the cost of higher education, and fortunately, a subsequent way to bring that cost down. Universities and colleges have to accept students to make money; simultaneously they must turn out a top-notch graduate to employers. If students are entering college less equipped each year to handle the rigors of the college workload, then all institutions have to devote more resources to courses that should’ve been taught in high school. Essentially, the shortcomings of high schools across the nation drive up tuitions by expecting colleges to make up the difference.

Time to step it up, high schools.

War on Work

Mike Rowe is an everyman.

I've never been one to embrace the glorious merits of manual labor, but he's convinced me.

Hot Air

Here's a fun quip I found on the whole Internet machine thingy:

A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She lowered her altitude and spotted a man in a boat below. She shouted to him, "Excuse me, can you help me? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am."

The man consulted his portable GPS and replied, "You're in a hot air balloon, approximately 30 feet above ground elevation of 2,346 feet above sea level. You are at 31 degrees, 14.97 minutes north latitude and 100 degrees, 49.09 minutes west longitude.”

"She rolled her eyes and said, "You must be an Obama Democrat."

"I am," replied the man. "How did you know?"

"Well," answered the balloonist, "everything you told me is technically correct. But I have no idea what to do with your information and I'm still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help to me."

The man smiled and responded, "You must be a Republican."

"I am," replied the balloonist. "How did you know?"

"Well," said the man, "you don't know where you are or where you are going. You've risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise you have no idea how to keep, and you expect me to solve your problem. You're in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but somehow, now it's my fault."

The Crescendo on Concert Prices

Enjoy the $3 tickets for Owl City; tickets elsewhere will now become even more expensive.

For the past year, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission have been deliberating on the merger between Ticketmaster and Live Nation Entertainment. Ticketmaster already controls roughly 80 percent of all concert ticket sales - imagine if we add data from other events like sports or theater. This merger would give Ticketmaster a virtual monopoly on all aspects of music concerts and festivals.

Live Nation exclusively owns or operates 139 of the nation’s largest venues and promotes nearly 150 top musical artists. Since record sales are about half of what they were in 2000 and the vast majority of online music is stolen (according to The New Yorker), artists rely on performances as their primary stream of revenue. Live Nation and the very few other promoters gain little from actual ticket sales; on average, 90 percent of ticket sales go to the artist. Revenue for Live Nation primarily comes from ancillary services of a concert - namely parking, concessions and merchandise.

So when combined, Ticketmaster and Live Nation form a behemoth conglomeration that controls all aspects of the concert experience. A single authoritarian corporation providing the consumer with the performer, the venue, the parking, the food and drinks, the T-shirts, the posters, everything. Ticketmaster provides the last piece of the puzzle for Live Nation: Ticket sales.

The actions of Ticketmaster are what economists and businessmen call “vertical integration.” This is the process in which companies, consumers and suppliers will consolidate into a few or single entity, therefore controlling all aspects of an industry. This is a style of business that Ticketmaster has truly embraced. Before deciding to merge with Live Nation, Ticketmaster acquired Front Line Management - a promoting group that works with over 200 artists.

We should not be so comfortable with these business practices. As a Feb. 8 New York Times editorial points out, there are “perils that arise from the emergence of a company that will operate on every level of its business.”

Though this case of vertical integration doesn’t perfectly match the textbook definition of monopoly, the effects on the consumer are the same - exorbitant prices. There are crucial examples in other industries where anti-competitive business practices have strangled a market and led to increases in price.

In a similar antitrust case, the Supreme Court will review a case involving the National Football League; American sports leagues have always proved fickle for antitrust regulators. After the NFL licensed Reebok to make all team-branded clothing, “The Economist” reports that the price of team jerseys promptly rose 40 percent and, team hats rose 50 percent.

Rival merchandiser to Reebok, American Needle filed an antitrust suit because they were getting squeezed out of their market. The NFL contends that they’re not a single entity but instead 32 separate clubs acting as one. Though licensing merchandise itself may not be an act of monopolization, the NFL has asked the Supreme Court to expand the ruling of previous courts to allow them to vertically integrate all aspects of their business.

The NFL scenario is one of many instances where anti-competitive behavior resulted in unnecessary price hikes. Our markets are rife with non-competitive business practices. For example, the health insurance industry is notorious for overwhelming market shares. To their credit, Republicans have been very critical of anti-competitive health insurance practices, arguing for legislation that would allow companies to sell insurance across state lines. According to the Center for American Progress, Blue Cross Blue Shield controls 83 percent of the market share in Alabama; the next largest competitor has only five percent. Maine, Rhode Island and Hawaii have companies that control over 78 percent of their respective market shares.

The price of health care is so extortionate that, according to a 2007 study by the “American Journal of Medicine,” nearly 70 percent of those who filed for medical bankruptcy were paying off insurance premiums.

In both of these cases - the NFL and health care - we can almost surely expect the result to be similar with the Ticketmaster and Live Nation consolidation.

The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice are setting a dangerous precedent by allowing Ticketmaster and Live Nation to merge - even if they are just vertically integrating. Understandably, they do not have an easy decision to make, and the arguments in favor of vertical integration are strong ones. Though vertical integration can be seen as monopolistic behavior - like this writer contends - many proponents argue that it makes businesses more efficient and it keeps costs down. The result, they claim, will be lower prices for the consumer. I would only point to the two previous cases where, clearly, this result did not happen.

Besides, it is not the place of the government to protect the business practices of corporations; instead, government must protect the interests and general welfare of its people - we the consumers. Rising ticket prices, and the slew of fees that come with buying them through Ticketmaster, will ultimately make music more exclusive. This exclusivity will only perpetuate the existing problem of music piracy, as consumers will feel the pressure to find the music they enjoy as cheap as possible.

In its already desperate and fragile health, the music industry, specifically the realm of live performance, has taken a huge blow. Congress should challenge these anticompetitive practices of Ticketmaster and Live Nation to preserve the sanctity of music for the fans - as I hope it would in all cases of noncompetition in all industries.