Valentine’s Day is sexist. Now, everyone knows that Valentine’s Day is a commercialized holiday, but this commercialism seems to be aimed at women.
The interplay between words is a lot like sex ... take out one of your favorite poems and read it. Why do you like it? How does it work?
A few days ago, I was enjoying my fourth pre-noon Tandem Bagel when the person at the table next to me brought up a holiday that I had all but forgotten about: Valentine’s Day.
Happy Valentine’s Day! I bet you just groaned as you read over that sentence. This is the day we all dread.
“I am, I am, I am.” These lovely words by Sylvia Plath have drummed through my head many times, specifically when I am trying to go to bed. Specifically when I’m feeling a little bit lonely.
This past week, one of our beloved (but comps-ing) editors-in-chief decided to take a sabbatical and for who knows what reason, perhaps insanity, entrusted me to fill in for her, working alongside the stellar J.M. Hanley, for the rest of the term.
The Boundary Waters are the reason I chose to enroll at Carleton, 45 years ago. I went canoeing there every year I was a student and have been back many times since. Living here for the past decade, I have also come to know and love the whole North Shore.
Last Friday, the State Department released a report which stated that the Keystone XL pipeline, if constructed, would not have a major impact on CO2 emissions.
“You’re offended? So what? No, really. So what?” Even without the context of this line, it sounds intimidating, verging on blunt dismissal. This is from commentator Charles Sykes’ “50 Rules Kids Won’t Learn in School.”
I find that there’s a breed of revelation that’s not so much a new groundbreaking piece of knowledge as a sort of coming-to-be whereby one realizes explicitly (and sometimes abashedly) something fairly obvious that has been fermenting under one’s nose for quite a while.
We all know the feeling. You desperately want to spend time with them, but are running out of excuses.
The January 17th editorial in the Carletonian criticized CSA spending practices, but ignored the steps CSA has taken to fix those very practices. At the heart of the editorial was a failure to understand the structure of the CSA account.