Category Archives: Opinion


By Joe Zajac / Staff Writer

Ponder for a moment, if you will, the level of responsibility and resources it takes to raise one child. Think back, perhaps you have experience in babysitting or have children of your own. Now, increase that number to fourteen, and consider the state of mind an individual would be possessed of to even consider it, much less go through with it.

Enter Nadya “Octomom” Suleman, who in January, gave birth to a litter of eight children. Clearly this event must be reserved for some third world dystopia, but alas, as backward as California is, it would just barely qualify as the second world.

Rather than registering as a moment of joy, the birth has only aroused the fury of a populace stricken by economic calamity, and galvanized political opportunists to demonize her for their own political gain. Suleman, at 33, is the proud single mother of fourteen children. Absent are both the father and any semblance of financial security.

Suleman lives in a tiny house with her mother and lives on a combination of money from a decade old worker’s compensation claim and disability for her two “autistic” children. Despite her squalor, she has discovered the finances to afford plastic surgery and has recently shown interest in a $1.3 million house. She has furthermore been on other public assistance programs in the past.

A peculiar situation like Suleman’s would, ideally, force a semblance of humbleness upon her but she has thus far proven ravenous for every sort of fame and publicity. Countless stories and interviews with her since the birth and she, blessed with attention, tells a perturbed public about her desperate plight, soliciting donations.

Perhaps her collagen-bloated lips could be put to better use than decrying the misery of her condition. She has made the rounds gorging herself on every manner of pop culture outlet to further her own exposure.

But Suleman has no one to blame but herself. Her abnormal pregnancy, brought on by In-vitro Fertilization, was entirely optional; she had the option of “selective termination”. But she, knowing full well the extent of her financial situation, went ahead regardless.

As of March 1, she has rejected an offer by the nonprofit group Angels in Waiting to provide free medical care for all of her children, permanent nurses and a free house because this nonprofit group nixed the idea of a reality show involving the children, citing concerns over the their health.

She has, in addition rejected a generous $1 million offer by Vivid Entertainment to finally get the attention she has so longed for…albeit by starring in her own porno. She would have done well to accept that offer, as no man, after her fame has dissipated, would pay a dime to view that ravaged mess of an orifice.

Her situation has galvanized the conservative sector into action, as she perfectly fits with the Limbaugh-ideal of welfare queen. She is a huge drain on society, an idea especially insulting considering her nigh-bankrupt state of California must pay roughly $3 million over the course of the seven month post-birth care for all eight children.

She has not earned a legitimate income for over a decade, and has forced her 67 year-old father to go back to work in Iraq to help support her. What backlash will come of this is unclear but already lawmakers in Georgia have introduced a bill restricting In-vitro Fertilization, which came with the usual fluff, like the establishment of legal rights for embryos. Way to go, Octo. She is a caricature and nothing more whose case will only sour more people on the idea of the “welfare state”.

It would be futile to find a shred of humanity in Octomom, for she has clearly sold that out long ago.

Spring Break to Mexico Not Worth the Risk

By Shauna Simeone / Asst. Opinion Editor

Spring break is just around the corner and many CCSU students are planning for relaxing activities or are preparing for exciting vacation destinations.

Mexico is a hot spot for many spring break travelers, but considering the recent violence and unrest taking place there right now, students should reconsider going to our neighbor to the south for their fill of the spring break experience. Mexico is an attractive vacation spot for a lot of students because of the warm weather, gorgeous beaches and the lower drinking age. Tourist areas are a vacationer’s dream, but outside of the seeming paradise there is a lot of violence and serious issues taking place.

As of Feb. 20, the State Department issued a warning to U.S. citizens going into Mexico. Part of the statement said, “U.S. citizens traveling throughout Mexico should exercise caution in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Mexican and foreign bystanders have been injured or killed in violent attacks in cities across the country, demonstrating the heightened risk of violence in public places.”

The warning emphasizes that most of the problem areas are along the border, which is far away from Cancun, a popular spring break destination. Regardless, the risk of traveling to Mexico for spring break may not be worth the reward.

Take the story of Yvette Martinez, which was brought to light by TV host Glenn Beck. Martinez crossed the border with a friend to go to a concert as a birthday celebration, but never made it back. Martinez’s step-father later found her car abandoned and missing valuables like the stereo and battery.

Stories like this are occurring more frequently with the escalation of wars between rival drug cartels. America’s Most Wanted posted the following statement, “Mexico’s lawlessness – an outbreak of kidnappings for ransom, brutal gunfights among rival drug cartels and escalating violence – has now crossed the border and touched many American families.” According to AMW, 31 Americans have been reported as kidnapped across the Mexican border.

Traveling into Mexico at a time like this requires heavy precautions to be taken. It does not seem sensible to go there as a vacation spot when there are plenty of wonderful tourist spots right here in the United States such as Miami. Areas in Florida have the warm weather, and the spring break atmosphere. The only thing that is missing for some people is the availability of alcohol. But honestly, attaining alcohol doesn’t seem to be a huge problem for most college students. It makes sense to travel to a destination inside of the United States where the worry of violence is minimized and you can pump some money into the economy while you are at it!

Other universities are catching on to the probable violence and schools such as Winona State University are sending warnings to their students who are planning to travel across the border for their breaks.

It is important to fully understand the violent climate that is taking place in parts of Mexico right now before you decide to travel there for vacation. If you are planning on traveling to Mexico for your spring break make sure you ask yourself: is it worth the risk?


As students of a public university, which is directly tied to the success or financial demise of the state, we expect that sometimes our needs will come second.

We understand that during the current economic climate, departments around campus are probably expecting pressure for staff cuts, budget cuts and pulling back on services. Consequently the secondary goals of the higher education system will probably take a back seat to the singular purpose of graduating students from CCSU.

Many of the CCSU students are non-traditional and most are attending because, frankly, CCSU is a less expensive option for college in the area; the average student commutes, has a part time job, or two, and most save money to pay for their own education.

CCSU is a university by which students have become complacent with a lack of organization. The students simply accept that receiving student loans from the Bursar’s office takes more time than seemingly plausible, obtaining graded papers is near impossible within the time zone of a week and ResLife, who seem adamant on securing students’ housing deposits within strict deadlines are seemingly unorganized when students move into halls.

Yet CCSU has little to no reserve about doling out late fees if students miss a tuition payment by a day and that apparently should simply be acceptable. But why should students meet the demands of the university, when the university does not meet the demands and needs of the student?

A university, which is notoriously lax in providing anything to its students in a timely fashion, should not simply have the right to continue to hold numbers such as 15, 20 or even 30 percent over our heads in tuition hikes.

Firstly, in today’s economic situation, how can a university that is dominated by students who are financially strained in the best of times, expect students to keep their heads above water when ridiculous late fees are added to accounts?

Secondly, if the Bursar’s office is openly adding late fees to accounts, can students therefore start ‘punishing’ other aspects of CCSU – surely ResLife would love to be charged for the amount of hours students waste gaining the correct keys and room information on move in day.

On the other hand as student we would like to at least be informed and be prepared when, for example, the Bursar’s office cannot organize itself to create individual payment plans for students who are having a similarly difficult time keeping financially afloat.

It’s not that students won’t sympathize with a Bursar’s office that may be struggling to keep staff around to provide their usual level of service and care; it’s just that students are not aware of the situation – if there even is a situation.

When major budget cuts threaten to increase tuition or decrease the normal level of service provided to students, we need to know about it – if students are not making payments on time, the Bursar’s office would ask questions – we as students are simply asking questions in the same respect – why has the service and communication taken a turn for the worse at CCSU?

Better lines of communication between the administration, the faculty and the students need to be established, especially when each party is suffering equally under the weight of a deteriorating economy.

The school cannot expect students to stand idly by while the cost of their education continues to be pushed higher and higher with no end in sight.

Speculation does not help the self-sustaining student prepare for the economic rigors that await them in the coming months and years.

Students naturally will bite the bullet; most have little or no choice. But we do deserve the right and courtesy of knowing how much it is going to hurt.

EDITORIAL: The Fairness Doctrine

Talk radio has been significantly dominated by conservative voices in recent years, and with Democrats now in power of Congress and the Oval Office, talks of reinstituting the Fairness Doctrine have been floating around Capitol Hill.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy implemented by the FCC in 1949 in order to ensure that radio hosts presented both sides of controversial issues of public importance. In 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine, which has since prompted discussion about instituting Congressional legislation of the same nature.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Fairness Doctrine, and its potential violation of First Amendment rights. Opponents of the doctrine claim that setting restrictions on material that is discussed on radio shows is an infringement on free speech. In a 1969 Supreme Court case, Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, the court unanimously upheld the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine stating that since there is only a limited radio spectrum, the material of speakers could be regulated in order to maintain and uphold openness.

Many prominent democrats such as John Kerry, Bill Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, have expressed support for the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine, but recently Barack Obama stated publicly that he was against reinstating the policy and we support him.

There is a general consensus among top conservatives that the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt by Democrats to regulate their views on the airwaves. Rush Limbaugh, host of the most-listened-to radio show in the country, has been publicly outspoken about his fear and discontent that congress may attempt to put policies in place to regulate content on the radio.

According to the standards of the free market, and the way in which material on the airwaves should, in fact compete for listeners, the Fairness Doctrine is an infringement on the First Amendment. Essentially, the Fairness Doctrine would be the Title IX of the radio in guaranteeing certain amounts of time or space to opposing views, regardless of quality or listenership.

When a radio show gets a large amount of listeners, then they will stay on the air since the demand for that show is high. It just so happens that conservative talk shows generally get more listeners, and therefore are entitled to continue what they are doing in order to bring in ratings. This involves spreading their opinions. If a law were imposed to guarantee airtime to alternative views, this would not serve the viewers who have clearly expressed a preference for conservative talking heads.

Just because liberals’ views are our there and can be given adequate time on the air doesn’t mean it should. What the government would be doing if they reinstalled the Fairness Doctrine is endorsing a side so that liberalism would rival radio’s conservatives. Frankly, liberal media doesn’t need the help and shouldn’t receive extra attention to spite its conservative counterparts.

Another side of the controversy is providing listeners with adequate and fair reporting on important issues. In journalism, Americans have come to value and strive for objectivity, but some have lost sight of its meaning. At times, it had represented a mathematical formula or prercentage determined in order to give fair share to different, opposing sides.

In actuality, a journalist knows when to give each side their space, but is smart enough to know accurate reporting transcends space and time. Whether it is a talking head on a radio show or a print journalist, people who consume this media are owed the truth and should be able to see through the mandated veil of balance.

The radio should not be treated differently than any other facet of the media. As stated in the First Amendment, Congress has no right to abridge freedom of speech, or of the press. Mandating that hosts discuss all sides of controversial issues is demanding that their opinions must be downplayed in the name of fairness. Reinstating the Fairness Doctrine would wrongly allow the government to regulate broadcasted content, and this would be a gross violation of the First Amendment that is essential to maintaining the open discussion that is relevant to the needs of its citizens.


-The Recorder’s Editorial Board

University Should Implement a New System to Reach Students

My part-time job at the computer lab provides several things that average students may not be privy to: free printing, for example, or dominion over a vast array of computers, for another.

But one of the things I am most cognizant of and most excited to be witness to is the amalgam of personalities and ideas that come in.

I get to hear what they are talking about, and as a person of (wholly transparent) authority, I am often the first person they go to when they have a CCSU-related question. After one and a half semesters of listening, I am certain of one fact: Central students don’t have a clue as to what is going on with this university.

And more importantly, I really don’t think it’s their fault.

Central has a very curious system set up called “Today@CCSU”. In theory, it is very tech-forward. It is parable, archivable, and can even have a limited export function. In your Central Pipeline account you can register for things you think you might be interested in and have them appear on that page.

You can also just go to today@ccsu, found at http://today., and search via interest. The reality of this is that the limitation, while seemingly willing to jive with some interesting tech, fails at several key points. The limited exportability onto a knowable interface means that these cool, interesting speakers and events get thrown on a page that students check twice a year for class registration.

The Today@ CCSU interface is confusing to a newcomer, and is ultimately too awkward to use intuitively. Even worse, actual need-to-know information is very often lost in transmission; I stopped counting how many times people asked about parking bans during snow storms, early dismissals – little details that are supposed to be sent through email. And I don’t doubt they are – but they are sent to places that students do not check, and CCSU’s exhaustive notification system becomes tantamount to yelling in the wind.

It’s time for a revamp. My suggestion is not even really that complicated; it’s a shift in paradigm to accept new technology.

First, you need to reevaluate the Today@CCSU calendar system (keep the calendar, sure, whatever, that’s not important). Increase its operability to be downloaded as a general RSS feed so that you can publish it as a calendar on… the CCSU facebook account!

Yes, we have a group, but you can only do so much with a group. A full-fledged account would allow us so much more in the way of disseminating information. An RSS-ed calendar would be great for taking that weird Today@CCSU interface and putting it somewhere popular and knowable. In fact, the next step is to drop Today@CCSU all together. Actually, I misspoke. Not the whole thing, just the “Today”.

Creating a Twitter account, “@CCSU”, does two important things: one, it allows Central (heh) Pipeline (heh heh) to post all information regarding incoming events. It also allows itself to be ported to the CCSU Facebook account, as well as providing a 100 percent free text-messaging system to all students – you don’t even need a formal Twitter account to follow someone via almost any mobile device.

Suddenly, Central will find itself with a very simple method of information dissemination. Students would be connected the way they want to be connected, not the way CCSU imagines it. The school could become a little bit more solid, and with a little bit less of that “commuter school” reputation. It is absolutely possible, and immediately implement-able, all at the cost of, perhaps, a student intern to manage the system.

I think I might know someone perfect for the job.


-Alex Jarvis, Special to The Recorder

One Shot Too Many

Political cartoons have been a unique part of American history. Last week, a cartoonist for the New York Post walked a tight rope that has drawn national attention.

Sean Delonas illustrated two current events together, one being the chimpanzee attack in Stamford, Conn. and the other, the recently- approved economic stimulus package.

As you may have seen, a picture tells a thousand words. The cartoon shows two police officers with their weapons drawn and a recently shotdead monkey, with one cop commenting, “They’ll have to find someone else to write our next stimulus bill.”

What would possess a person to have that published? This picture draws a fine line between racism and a political ploy. During an economic crisis like the one this country is facing today combined with an unfortunate wild animal attack could there be a real message behind this illustration.

The newspaper has stood by the columnist entirely. They even went as far as calling out the outspoken African-American activist Al Sharpton who was outraged by this cartoon. The fact that Mr. Obama is part African- American and is the President of this country spells out public backlash – all they had to do was compare him to a monkey and mention his stimulus package.

This controversy has raised new questions of racism in our world. The media is a very powerful tool and when people say or draw whatever they want it can be dangerous. People are going to have their own opinions and interpretations, but linking the President of the United States to his ethnic background in a derogatory way is indeed one shot too many, even if it wasn’t intentional. A dark cloud will certainly loom over the head of this cartoonist because of his lack of judgment and inability to relate to current events in an appropriate way.

His defense was that Congress is on a wild spending spree, and it has become an animal that has gone out of control. It does relate exactly to the mauling by a chimpanzee in Connecticut, but that doesn’t make it justified. In a nation that has overcome the extremes of segregation and Jim Crow laws, no one in their right mind should draw the comparisons in such a manner that was done last Wednesday.

Obviously the right decision wasn’t made and the public has been critical in a lot of ways. The satirical approach to political cartons has been deeply diminished over time. There have been wide debates on this issue and the involvement of race relations in itself is a risk.

The repercussions of this drawing are yet to be seen. Whatever they are, they can’t change the damage already done. This cartoon has offended a wide variety of people on many different levels. Hopefully this will be a lesson learned in moving forward.

Whether you’re a freelance writer, cartoonist, a professional or citizen journalist, always think about the content of the words and pictures intended for publication. The challenges and problems facing this country are real.

There’s no need for cartoonists to put in their two cents in a way that is sure to spark outrage.


-Dan Dinunzio, Special to The Recorder

Sexting is Stupid, but Not Criminal

Six Massachusetts middle school students are facing possible child pornography charges after sending a nude photo of a female classmate on their cell phones. If convicted, they would be forced to register as sex offenders.

One of the boys, age 13, took a nude picture of his girlfriend and then proceeded to send it to his friends. When school officials became aware of what was going on, the boys were immediately reported to the principal, who then confiscated the cell phones and then reported the incident to the police.

The six boys will now be forced to attend a hearing to determine if they should be charged with possessing, distributing and exhibiting child pornography. These boys acted distastefully and immaturely, but should they be branded as sex offenders for the rest of their lives?

The intent of child pornography laws is to prevent perverted adults from exploiting children, and these boys were clearly not attempting to do this. As it is, the girlfriend allowed the boy to take a picture of her.

Occasionally the legal system loses sight of common sense. That explains why robbers are able to sue you if they get hurt when stealing something from inside of your home. Americans need to take a step back and use some common sense in this situation. These boys are not sex offenders or child pornographers but products of an overly sexual society, who simply decided to ogle over a classmate.

Unfortunately this phenomena known as “sexting” has become somewhat of an epidemic. According to a national survey conducted by the National Campaign to Support Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy, about 20 percent of teens admitted to participating in “sexting”.

The survey also found that 22 percent of teen girls have taken part in “sexting”. As evidenced by this recent case, girls need to realize that “sexted” images often get distributed to a much wider audience than the intended viewers. This statistic is somewhat troubling as well as telling of the culture that we live in.

It is time to smarten up. An underdeveloped frontal lobe is not excuse to abandon all foresight. In the age of the Internet, these types of pictures will remain in circulation forever.

Unless you plan on becoming the next Paris Hilton, or feel that your future boss seeing you naked will help increase your chances of being hired, take the smart route and don’t give naked pictures of yourself to anyone. Boyfriends can become ex-boyfriends quickly, and many times break-ups can cause people to do nasty things like revealing personal pictures that were meant to be private.

As college students, we are the leaders of our generation. We cannot let promiscuity define us and we cannot allow explicitly sexual behavior to appear at such early ages. Legally, there should be no consequences for such actions, but we must reevaluate what defines appropriate behavior as our cultural standards of decency continue to decline.

-Shauna Simeone, Asst. Opinion Editor

New Britain Could Provide Perfect Space for Art

According to a front-page article in the New Britain Herald earlier this month, post-industrial New Britain has an art scene “surprisingly robust for a city of 70,000 people.” The mayor, a business owner and New Britain’s commissioner for the arts all agreed, and were quoted in the article throwing around words like “culture,” “imperative,” “opportunity” and “unique.”

Unfortunately, the article failed to quote any actual artists or CCSU art students. Had it, the piece would have probably have been littered with words and phrases like “cheap”, “better facilities” and “what art scene?”

The idea that the town, or state, has been at all hospitable toward local artists is ridiculous.

Last year, when Central art students began their “art needs space” campaign, in which about a dozen CCSU students fought for studio space for students to work, the school gave them two ill-equipped rooms on the third floor of the
ITBD building – an off-campus conference center for local businesses.

Before professors stopped bringing classes over to the space because of its inadequacies, whenever the petty professionals that work in the building walked by the “studios” – one of which had walls constructed out of glass – students
were given the impression they were sitting in a fish tank. In at least one instance, a man in a tie actually rapped his knuckles against the glass to get the students attention for some unknown purpose.

The best part of this story is probably the fact that the Herald’s article featured a map of downtown, including the ITBD building, but never labeled the studio space that the school toted as progress for the arts. It did point out, however, sites like Central Park – a glorified road median, where “Musicians play during summer lunchtimes.” The entire piece ignored the actual events taking place in the area, like last week’s AVIARY opening, in favor of mentioning some vague “art programs” at Central, or stating that City Hall counts as an art gallery.

The reader is given the impression that the two contributing writers had a theory, in which New Britain was an “arts mecca” instead of a collection of abandoned buildings, and
sought out to prove it at all costs. Now, that isn’t to say that this postage stamp of a city doesn’t have potential.

The fact that most of New Britain seems to be made up of abandoned buildings might actually make it the ideal candidate for an arts rebirth – and the creeping economic depression might finally force politicians to begin funding the arts

Industrialization isn’t coming back to Connecticut. This, it seems, we may have already accepted. But why not try something new? Hartford has insurance and New Haven has the ports—so when will Connecticut get an arts city? If the town were to purchase a cluster of buildings relatively near each other (buildings that can be purchased, between the location and the bust real estate market, for nearly nothing) and give them as nearly rent-free space to artists, with yearly solo exhibitions as part of the lease contract?

What about other abandoned spaces around town? CCSU is the only school in the country with a mural painting program; New Britain High School has an art teacher who has painted murals not only all over the state, but internationally. Why not actually give the schools the resources – and the space – to make art a community experience? There are guaranteed more than enough talented street artists and storeowners that would be willing to work together in order to make something that would benefit both themselves and the entire town.

Following the 1929 economic collapse our country saw the state hire muralists to both create jobs and use public art to propagate ideas of the wealth that was promised to come. Why not hire any of the number of qualified sculptures,
painters or designers graduating from Central every semester to both ensure jobs and foster a creative culture?

Arts means culture and, more importantly to tax payers, it means commerce. It means restaurants, the buying and selling of paintings, jazz cafes, bars and an actual reason to read the Herald. It would mean a new reason for students to attend Central, and offer them something that no other state school can—a real art program with a high success rate for graduating art students.

New Britain has a long way to come in not only art, but in every way. What city officials, as well as CCSU administrators need to think about is how, in a failing business climate, to invest money in new and more creative ways.

-Marissa Blaszko, Opinion Editor:

EDITORIAL: Taking Advantage of the Opportunity to Change Minds

Riflery and Marksmanship Club Could Promote Rosier Outlook On Guns

Although gun control has been a highly disputed topic, it certainly isn’t as hot button as it was just a few years ago, when the second George Bush ran for re-election. Still, with this year’s founding of the Riflery and Marksmanship club on campus around the two-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shooting and the first of the Northern Illinois University shooting, the topic may once again resurface on the Central campus.

One of the challenges facing the students in Riflery and Marksmanship will be shaking the image that guns, on or off campus, seem to have. In the news, weapons only seem to surface as an issue when a standoffish student brings one onto campus; in movies, guns are used for only serious violence or slapstick humor, which usually involves some violence. Gun owners are portrayed as aggressors – never as hobbyists or citizens concerned with protecting themselves.

Gun ownership, as most citizens know, is a basic right; whether it’s to protect ourselves from a burglar or an unruly government, guns have been an important staple in both present and historical America. It wasn’t until fairly recently – the last 50 years or so – that they became debated. The question at CCSU is no longer whether or not we should have a gun club on campus, but how the new club will affect students’ thoughts about firearms. It will take more than responsibility
and good aim to win some converts within the student body.

Besides working on their own improvement, Riflery and Marksmanship should work on reaching out to new, undecided students through events and education, just like any other club. The importance of finding not only new members, but new supporters should be self-evident. With the Democrats, who for good or bad now control Washington, pledging for harsher gun control laws; the existence of not only the club but the rights of gun owners hangs in the balance of forces
between two opposing sides. It will be the majority of people that feel indifference on the issue that will need to be won over to one side or the other in order to bring some level of closure to the debate.

Whether gun enthusiasts at Central know it or not, they play a part in the future of gun control. The problem will, of course, be the same one that any other alternative viewpoint club has; there will be students who are not only opposed to your club’s existence on campus, but will probably try to take a stand against it.

But starting a rifle club on campus was a chance in itself; now, Riflery and Marksmanship needs to take a leadership role at CCSU in order to defend not only its rights, but the rights of all citizens to protect themselves.

-Editorial Board, The Recorder