Halloween used to be an all-day event, but along with age comes the loss of excitement for certain holidays. College student still look forward to All Hallows Eve, but our enthusiasm is now geared towards how “trampy-and-trashed” we can get. Girls prance around in freezing cold weather wearing less than they sleep in. Each year, less layers and more skin is shown. Boys’ expectations for costumes increase; testosterone overrules the instinct to generically dress as superman or an astronaut. They compete to win the best costume.

Apathy though is not merely limited to Halloween. We receive less presents on Christmas, the Easter Bunny stops hiding eggs, and you no longer look forward to getting older on your birthday. Sure, some of us still carve pumpkins, go to corn mazes, and ceremonially dress up in costumes, but instead of being the greedy child that needs candy; we now look forward to the experience of the entire night spent with our friends. It is the event, not what you get.

This altered taste for Halloween may not be such as good thing. We no longer expect to fall asleep in a sugar coma, but there is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps if we revisit our youth, it will help to inspire a stress free Halloween. If not, at least you get to be someone else for a night.

Apparently, it’s very easy being green. Everyone from computer manufacturers to television companies to tire companies is “going green,” and all the companies really want everyone to know it.

We’ve all seen them. It’s practically impossible to watch a commercial segment these days without seeing some kind of advertisement where someone sneaks in a mention of how the company is enviro-friendly. Televisions are “energy efficient,” computers are “Energy Star certified,” tires are “less resistant” (and therefore require less engine power to roll). The reasons companies give can range from the believable to the absurd, but my irritation with them is becoming more and more about how many there are, as opposed to their accuracy.

It seems like every public relations company has returned to middle school; one of the cool kids starts using a phrase and people pick it up in hopes of being cool themselves. The meme spreads until everyone in the school is saying it. Finally, we reach the point where we’re sick of that particular phrase, and for the sake of our sanity we never say it again.

This tactic of spending more money on telling people how green you are instead of spending that money on actually doing something environmentally friendly has come to be known as “greenwashing.” The phrase greenwashing was coined by Jay Westerveld in an essay that scathingly responded to the New York City hotel industry’s practice of requesting that customers reuse towels to save the environment. Unfortunately, these measures by New York’s hotels failed to cut down waste generation and failed to recycle more efficiently. Westerveld determined the hotel claims were only made for the profits they would reap from people eager to stay in a “green hotel.”

In essence, greenwashing is the PR equivalent of putting a bumper sticker on your gas-guzzling SUV talking about how much you love the environment.

It is unfortunate this fate has befallen environmentalism. However, unlike “uber” or “bootylicious,” “going green” is a phrase that needs to stick around. The enviro-friendly cause is an honorable one that should be pursued. It’d just be nice if every company in the world didn’t brag about it. 

Environmental concern exploded with the success of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth.” Immediately, companies jumped on the “go green” bandwagon. 

And then it got worse. Suddenly, car companies wanted to be cool, too. It began slowly: The first spot I can remember was from Honda, that for all intents and purposes said, “hydrogen cars,” and showed a Honda driving by a lake. All of a sudden, greenwashing went from annoying to downright hilarious. It’s fine to be in favor of hydrogen cars, but anyone can just say they like them. Honda has the chance to actually do something.

Next came the ads that made you want to cry, such as Esurance’s blatant attempt at pandering to environmentalists by having its spokes-toon yell “Quick, jump in the hybrid!” during one of its commercials.

And it didn’t stop. Subsequently, the oil and coal companies talked about how clean energy was so important to them and how they were researching new technologies to cut down on emissions. This is all well and good, but where are the results? These people have made record profits throughout the last decade. Are they seriously expecting us to believe they can’t make any progress past researching?

Still, this is but only tip of the iceberg. According to a recent article in Time magazine, the fall season of television is set for a massive info-dump of green commercials. If you’re afraid you’re the only one tired of it, fear not, you are far from alone. Just this month, the Advertising Standards Authority in Britain banned ExxonMobil’s ad claiming liquefied natural gas is one of the world’s cleanest fuels, and the ASA said it was intentionally misleading. Norway banned all car commercials from using the phrases “green,” “environmentally friendly” or “clean,” claiming that cars cannot do anything good for the environment.

In the end, it simply comes down to putting your money – literally – where your mouth is. If all these companies put half the money they sink into advertising with appealing phrases into programs that would actually help, we might actually see some beneficial results. As it stands, all we’ve gained is one more thing to hate about TV and a dilution of a vitally important movement in society.

People, I have had enough. My frustration has been growing for some time and the straw that broke the camel’s back has finally snapped. On the one hand, I have begrudging respect for John McCain for carrying this race as far as he has. But on the other, I am becoming more and more upset about the increasing falsehood that is coming from his campaign.

At the campaign’s beginning, I was feeling pretty good about the Democrats’ chances. After a presidency that will not be remembered fondly, it looked like the GOP’s chances of success in the election were slim. When Barack Obama was picked as the Democratic nominee, I was ecstatic. I felt fortunate to live in a time where it was possible for a man who could bring significant change to actually reach a position of power and influence.

Barack Obama’s followers quickly rallied around his message of change in Washington, a message of reform and doing away with “politics-as-usual” that resonated with Americans after eight long years of the same. 

But things started to get weird when Obama and McCain became the two nominees. Our choice has not been easy: One candidate has the charisma and eloquence to promise us a way out of the mess we’re in, and he has the record and the ability to actually deliver on that promise. The other represents the exact same thing we’ve seen for eight years, but he has mastered the art of spin control. 

If you read the promise on his Web site, voting for John McCain is akin to casting a vote for utopia. “Under a McCain presidency the United States will experience robust economic growth, and Americans will again have confidence in their economic future,” it reads. He does not detail his plans to accomplish these promises, but then, President George Bush never explained how exactly he’d accomplish his mission, either. 

McCain describes solutions to American issues such as “independence from foreign sources of oil,” and says he’ll “end the war in Iraq with victory and bring our troops home with honor.” Boy, that’s a tough ticket to run against. 

In late-August even McCain seemed to no longer believe his own hype because his campaign took a drastic shift. All of a sudden, McCain, too, was an agent of change, as was his brand new vice-presidential candidate, Sarah “New Girl From Alaska” Palin.

Sure, she’s got next-to-no experience with only two years as a governor under her belt, but that’s fine. The GOP must not think experience is that much of an issue – after all, it only calls Obama out on his lack of experience every other day. Never mind that as vice president Palin would be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there. Whereas Obama wants to invest in alternative energy and use limited offshore drilling until we can be entirely free of oil, McCain has voted to reduce funding for alternative energy and lift existing bans on offshore drilling. Truly, he represents the exact kind of forward-thinking the 21st century United States needs.

As McCain will be so quick to remind us, he and his team of “mavericks” are completely detached from the “cronyism”-plagued Bush administration. Nevermind Palin’s abuse of powers scandal, in which the Alaska Legislature’s investigation concluded that she had abused her powers in office. According to the report, she “knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissable pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda.” Other than that, they’re both squeaky clean and scandal free. 

McCain also follows the classic Republican virtue of sticking to his guns, as evidenced by his maintaining the opinion that less regulation in the market is a good thing, except when the market takes its worst nose dive since the Great Depression. Suddenly, McCain’s all about regulation. As quoted in a Washington Post article: “In my administration, we’re going to hold people on Wall Street responsible. And we’re going to enact and enforce reforms to make sure that these outrages never happen in the first place.” 

Now, I’m not sure, but that sounds an awful lot like the oh-so-dreaded “flip-flopping” that made John Kerry famous in the 2004 election. Maybe it’s only flip-flopping when Democrats do it.

I honestly cannot comprehend how McCain has kept such hardcore support for as long as he has. It sometimes feels like he’s trying to sabotage himself, what with ripping off Obama’s slogan, hiring Palin in a blatant attempt at calling Hillary Clinton supporters to his side, or any other attempts at pandering that he’s been accused of.

In the end, it may surprise you to learn that I don’t actually hate the man. In fact, I have great respect for the service he has shown this nation, and I believe he genuinely wants to do right by this country. But he needs to stop trying to be something he’s not. Maybe at another time, he would be the right person for the job. But in this election, at this time in history, that job belongs to another.

Perhaps the article that ran last Tuesday ["Downloaders beware," ODE Oct. 14, 2008] struck a chord because I’m such an Internet junkie. It could also be that my Info Hell subject indirectly relates to this very issue. Either way, I feel I have to get this off my chest, if only for some peace of mind.

Piracy is among the premier issues needing to be dealt with as we finish our turbulent entry into the Internet age. Around the time the mp3 became a household term and new artists were gaining popularity just by posting MySpace accounts, the world of music dramatically shifted. Suddenly, CDs were no longer necessary for listening to music. Soon we had music Web sites that gave you a file rather than a disk. Just like that, record companies became obsolete because we didn’t need records. Hell, we could make our own CDs!

Really, I think this is the core of the issue. The recording industry has realized that its period of usefulness is coming to an end. Now people can freely buy instruments, equipment, and even song recording and editing software that work with home computers. Many of today’s artists got their big breaks from posting mixtapes online and then communicating via word of mouth. 

This recent bout of lawsuits on our campus is a good example of the record industry lashing out to halt the inevitable. In its furor, the Recording Industry Association of America managed to hit the least-viable target. How does the RIAA expect college students to pay $3,000 to $4,000 in fines when we’re already taking out bank loans to cover tuition fees as high as the sky? Forget the fact that none of us have that kind of money. These people are being hauled to court over the illegal downloading of 10 songs; it is like chopping off someone’s arm because they stole an apple.

In the interest of fairness, however, I must say that until something is changed in piracy laws, Internet piracy is like any other crime: If you commit it, you do so knowing the risks involved and the consequences therein. If you don’t, ignorance is no excuse. 

As the immediacy and the prevalence of music availability on the Internet continues to grow, the RIAA or the Motion Picture Association of America will not easily be able to stop downloading, unless they plan on taking half the country to court. Perhaps in the future, these various industries will have an awakening and adopt new policies to work with, rather than against the Internet. It cannot be denied that there is no going back now that the Internet has become such a mainstay of our society. Until then, those who download do so at their own peril. If you can’t pay the fine, don’t commit the crime.