Laura Donovan's Blog

Whether you paid $25 or $200 to see Jay-Z, the Veronicas, Third Eye Blind, and Kelly Clarkson perform at Arizona Stadium, you had the option of sitting wherever you pleased because ASUA didn’t effectively monitor seating.

Not when the first mainstream act, the Veronicas took stage, at least.

I was among the smart students to go for the best bargain, and I was immediately upgraded to sit closer to the stage. Still, my friends and I saw dozens of empty rows in the center stadium, so we decided to sit in one of the many vacant areas.

Just then, an ASUA student approached my friend and said, “I trust you, but can I see your ticket?”

He didn’t do that to anyone else, and after a few minutes, we moved closer to the stage again because there was no reason for anyone to deny us good seats that weren’t purchased.

As soon as the Veronicas came on stage, all students moved as close as they could to the front, and the audience had filled by the time this seemingly bored, indifferent girl band played their last song.

Next was Third Eye Blind, and the crowd came alive during popular songs such as “Jumper” and the new “Non-Dairy Creamer.” Everyone seemed to enjoy their performance more, as shown when they constantly sang along and began dancing.

Pretty much no one sat in their assigned seats, and the man on the loudspeaker said Kelly Clarkson would not come on stage until everyone retreated to the actual seats they bought. And nobody moved, so even though I got the cheapest ticket, I sat in seats worth $200 a month ago, and there was nothing ASUA could do to control this issue. They tried to get everyone to get what they paid for, therefore, move further away from the stage. Everyone stayed put, though, and why would ASUA have a problem with everyone moving forward if those seats weren’t sold, anyway?

Kelly Clarkson was the third act, and she probably sang the most songs out of all the performers. She mostly sang from her most popular 2004 album “Breakaway,” and then she sang her mixed-bag 2007 hit “Never Again.”

The southern American Idol seemed the most genuine out of all the performers, even though she didn’t seem nearly as excited or into the music the way she did when I saw her in 2003 (guilty). She’s been known to make awkward jokes in public, and she definitely maintained that reputation tonight when she fixed her bra and revealed to the audience, “It just snapped. Never get bras that snap in the front. The girl over there just said something about small boobs, she knows what I’m talking about! Woo, small boobs!”

“I never thought I’d tour with Jay-Z,” she went on. “I’ve got 99 problems and sometimes a bitch is one!”

After a 45-minute break, Jay-Z jumped on-stage, and somehow, the crowd went crazier than they had for the other three bands, even after hours of standing around, dancing, shouting, and trying not to fall into anyone. Weed reeked throughout the stadium, and the “no smoking” regulation didn’t stop anyone from smoking cigarettes.

Jay-Z sang “My President is Black,” a slideshow of Barack Obama playing on the background screen, and the crowd seemed to appreciate the tribute. I can say it felt a little too political, but I’m glad the president is African American. Even so, the issue is still political, and it’s kind of unfair to broadcast a political agenda onto a group of concert go-ers who do not expect to hear all about someone they did or did not vote for. But I know I’m not going to win this argument.

All the concert rules should have been communicated to consumers before they entered the stadium. No bags were allowed, including purses, and none of the women knew this beforehand. I was lucky to hear someone else screaming about it before I got in line, so I immediately stuffed my bag in my trunk. The only reason the line only took five minutes to get through was because so many women were being turned away, and they all ran back to their cars or homes to find a place to temporarily stash their purses.

It seems rather unsafe to force women to make this decision. I felt especially vulnerable only having my pockets to hold all my essentials. I left my credit and debit cards in the car and stuffed a $20 bill in my pocket. Anyone in charge of the concert should have made this rule clear earlier on because hundreds of frustrated women had to step out of line and change their plans somehow.

Overall, the only artist who seemed exceptionally jazzed was Jay-Z, who ironically got his rapper name from being “jazzy” in the past. Kelly Clarkson acted chipper but not necessarily thrilled, the Veronicas didn’t even feign enthusiasm, and Third Eye Blind behaved as if this was just another concert they’ve done. These artists could have been a lot more animated, but thankfully, the audience kind of made up for it.

I’m just glad I paid the bare minimum for my ticket because everyone ended up sitting wherever they wanted. The Desert Lamp definitely foresaw this happening. Besides the sales disappointment, ASUA pulled off a great event, and I’d like to see these kinds of concerts come to the UA every year.

College Republican, Katie Pavlich wrote a smart letter to the editor in today’s issue of the Daily Wildcat:

Preventing rich from getting rich will remove incentive to succeed

In response to Friday’s column “Rich no more ‘deserving’ of wealth than the rest of us,” I am going to present Taylor Kessinger along with the UA population of students with a simple scenario they can understand, rather than countering every point Kessinger made about the rich not being deserving of what they earn.

If Kessinger truly believes that the rich are no more deserving of the wealth they earn than the rest of us, I think he should support the statement that students with 4.0 GPAs are no more deserving than those with a lower GPAs. So why not spread the GPAs around? Those in the 3.5-4.0 range will be deducted one point, students in the 3.0-3.4 range will be deducted half a point, and those below a 3.0 will not be deducted points at all and will actually be given half a point. This way everyone can be equal and feel good about themselves; after all, those who worked hard to get those 4.0s aren’t really deserving of them right? I’m sure this will really motivate all students to do well in school. It’s only fair! Right?

This is the same situation with the “rich.” If you punish people for their success, whether it is how much money they make or what GPA they earn, it does not stimulate production. Why would someone study hard to get an “A” in all their classes when they will end up with a lower grade regardless of how much work they put in?

The students who are fine with getting “C”s will not work any harder to attain “A”s because they are automatically given half a point from the hard work of 3.5-4.0 students. Eventually, all students will end up at the same C level, no one will work hard, and no one will succeed in getting a decent GPA.

Katie Pavlich, journalism junior

The Wall Street Journal just published an article about how some colleges are being more sensitive in rejection letters.

There are always the seemingly brain-dead students who apply to all reach schools and skip out on safety universities:

Even with impressive test scores and grades, abundant extracurricular activities, good recommendations and an admission essay into which “I poured myself heart and soul,” Daniel Beresford, 18, of Fair Oaks, Calif., netted 14 rejection letters from 17 applications, he says. Among the denials: Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins and the University of Chicago. (He’s bound for one of his top choices, Pepperdine University.) When he “realized it was going to be so much harder this year,” he started calling in reinforcements, asking teachers and friends to open the rejections for him.

If he only got into three of the seventeen colleges he applied to, he made a stupid decision from the beginning to overestimate his test scores, grades, and academic background as a whole, and he paid a lot of money for the psychological damage of rejection letters. The same thing happened to a girl I knew in high school. She had an ACT score of 20 and a 3.3 GPA, and she applied to outrageously prestigious institutions such as UCLA, UCSB, and Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. When she received only three acceptance letters, all from CSU’s, she almost decided to go to community college. Parents should intervene before they pay hundreds of dollars to watch their child apply to impossible schools.

Along the way, students have made use of creative outlets to cope with their college rejection letters:

Hundreds of students at high schools from Newton, Mass., to Palo Alto, Calif., have created cathartic “Wall of Shame” or “Rejection Wall” displays of college denial letters. On message boards at CollegeConfidential.com, students critique, attack and praise missives from various schools, elevating rejection-letter reviews to a sideline sport.

One friend applied to California Institute of Technology as a “reach school,” and because he knew he didn’t have the necessary qualifications, he never opened the small envelope from CalTech when college acceptances/denial letters slipped into mailboxes all over the United States. He framed the envelope and didn’t bother reading what was most likely rejected admission. It seems kind of twisted that students would obsess over rejection so much that they’d create a shrine, but disappointment has strange effects on youth.

Sue Shellenbarger listed the different ways colleges let applicants down. Some schools are nicer than others, while many take the straight-forward “you don’t make the cut” approach:

Toughest: Bates College, Lewiston, Maine. Most rejection letters, in an effort to soften the blow, follow a pattern: We’re sorry, we had a huge applicant pool, all our applicants were terrific, we wish we could admit everyone. Bates, a competitive, 1,700-student college, expresses its regrets to rejected applicants and praises its applicant pool. But it delivers a more direct, and perhaps more honest, message: “The deans were obliged to select from among candidates who clearly could do sound work at Bates,” the letter says.

There’s nothing wrong with frankness. When thousands of students apply for hundreds of spots, there’s no perfect way to nicely explain to everyone that they were unfit to make it at the particular private liberal arts college.

One recipient, a 17-year-old high-school student from California, says it “implied that you had been rejected because you s-.”

That’s kind of an emotional interpretation to a vast rejection. If this student can’t handle a direct letter of rejection, he’s not ready for the harsh realities of college, anyway.

I’ll agree that college rejection letters can be hurtful, however. I felt particularly cheated by Emerson College, a tiny liberal arts college in Boston. My test scores were average, but I had a good GPA and dozens of published writing examples prior to the application process. The track team coach contacted me about admission and frequently sent me letters, cards, and emails about running for Emerson College the following year. I applied early and sent in five writing pieces, three letters of recommendation (one of which was from my high school guidance counselor, who I’d been close with since I was 11), and everything else required in the application packet.

Then, my application was deferred, so I knew I wasn’t Emerson’s idea of a cream-of-the-crop student. But I kept receiving letters and calls from the track team, and I sent in even more writing samples because I was applying for the writing program, but I still received my rejection letter in late March, two months after I’d been accepted and/or denied by the five other schools I’d applied to. Talk about teasing a high school student.

Kindest: Harvard College. Despite an estimated admission rate of about 7% this year, this hotly sought-after school sends a humble rejection letter.

“Past experience suggests that the particular college a student attends is far less important than what the student does to develop his or her strengths and talents over the next four years.”

Duke University, Durham N.C., also drew raves for a gracious missive emphasizing that it’s not passing judgment on individuals, but trying to put together a well-rounded class. Undergraduate admissions dean Christoph Guttentag won particular praise from students and parents for the line, “I know you will find an institution at which you will be happy; I know, too, that the school you choose will benefit from your presence.”

Then there are the admission duds who lie to applicants about admission:

Most Confusing: University of California, San Diego. Officials there rejected 29,000 candidates not once, but twice. After sending a first round of rejections, they accidentally sent all 47,000 applicants, including those who had been denied, an email invitation to an open house for admitted students: “We’re thrilled that you’ve been admitted … join us this Saturday … and get a glimpse of the powerful combination that can be you plus UC San Diego.” The errant message raised some false hopes. “It would be cool if this means they changed their decision,” one rejected applicant says he thought.

Less than two hours later came 29,000 re-rejections. “We deeply regret this mistake, because we understand the level of distress it has caused” for many, university officials wrote. “We continue to wish you success.” The admissions staff worked all night and through the next two days, making and taking calls, to straighten things out, a spokeswoman says. “We would never intentionally confuse students.”

How do you accidentally admit 29,000 people? I can’t imagine the disappointment of the students affected. There’s no excuse for this kind of mistake, it’s truly sadistic.

Even more deceptive may be Penn State, however:

Another surprise package came from Penn State, which sent the hoped-for “fat envelope” with a rejection letter inside. Applicants who receive a fat envelope assume they’ve been admitted. But Penn State sends a fat envelope to students who have been denied admission to its biggest campus, at University Park, Pa. One mother says her daughter was “so excited then … No!” She adds, “I had to pick her up off the floor.”

The envelope contains information on others among Penn State’s 20 campuses where the student is invited to enroll, with the right to transfer later to University Park, says admissions executive Anne Rohrbach. “We’ve had some people not laugh about that,” she concedes. “We don’t see them as denials,” she says, but as invitations to qualified students the university would like to enroll elsewhere.

It would be pretty hard to confuse University of Arizona applicants, who receive an envelope that says YOU’RE IN! on the envelope, so there’s no anticipation or sense of wonder before pulling out the actual letter. If only every university did this.

There are also the admissions heads who have unrepentant legacy preference:

Most Discouraging: Boston University. To students who have family ties to the university, its letter begins: “We give special attention to applicants whose families have a tradition of study at Boston University. We have extended this consideration in the evaluation of your application, but I regret to inform you that we are unable to offer you admission.” Consideration of family legacies is common practice at many universities.

Rejection is all the same at the end of the day, and no sugarcoated letter changes that.

A UA freshman wrote a sad letter to the editor in today’s issue of the Arizona Daily Wildcat. He suggested having feelings of alienation for being among the small UA student population that does not drink to have a good time, and he believes the UA should accommodate this circle of people more:

UA should reach out to students who don’t fit ‘party’ mold

When I walk around campus, I see students hanging out with groups of people and I wonder, how did they get such a large social network? An incoming freshman’s social life heavily revolves around alcohol and partying. But what about the students who don’t want to party? They are left feeling bored and lonely because the only option for socializing is something that they are not interested in. The UA should examine this group of people. What programs does the university provide for them?

Many people cannot wait to go to college and have a great time, whether it be studying the major they intend to go into or socializing. But what about students who do not really fit into that environment? Not everyone thinks the same way about college. When going to college, students realize that they have freedom that they won’t have back home. Many incoming students think that they need to party hard, smoke or even consume alcohol, but there are some people who are looking for something different.

People do not realize that there is a small population of incoming freshman that do not fit into the social and party picture, whether they are shy or they just do not like to do it. Having alcohol and other things be the iconic image of college makes the non-social students afraid and extremely lonely since they feel like they do not fit in with this environment. Giving incoming students who do not want to get involved in alcohol an alternative would help students transition better.

I would love to see a group of people who are not interested in partying or hanging out. For instance, what about university sponsored socials? What about Friday night bowling events, organized dinners, local concerts – information easily available on campus? The university needs to offer something that embraces these non-partying students. The university has a responsibility to provide students with access to experiences that are enjoyable and safe.

Steven Mikhail
undeclared freshman

He’s not looking hard enough if he thinks that the UA only caters to alcoholic students. For one, Residence Life and UA campus administrators monitor underage drinking and have rules about the amount of alcohol allowed on campus. UA officials aren’t pampering the crazy students at all. These people just congregate and create their own fun.

As someone who doesn’t drink, I know it’s still possible to make the most out of college. I go to all the same parties, I just don’t have to drink along with everyone else. I see no reason to exclude my drinking friends from my life, so he should be more open-minded about the kinds of friends he wants to have.

He can join one of the hundreds of UA clubs on campus, volunteer at Ben’s Bells on University Blvd., get a job, or go to the Campus Rec, where he can find out about all the outdoor trips planned by the UA every semester. There’s so much this campus has to offer, so he’s obviously not looking in the right places if he thinks the UA is only made up of alcoholics and programs made for partying. When I first came to the UA, I joined the Newman Center Catholic Church, where I met a bunch of nice students who also didn’t drink on the weekends. I have friends who party in all sense of the word, and that doesn’t matter to me because I don’t drop friends simply because they smoke weed and I don’t.

There are tons of interesting, great people at this university, and they’re worth getting to know if they drink or not. It’s silly to exclude the drinking population simply because you do not drink yourself. They won’t penalize you for being sober.

Republican Senator, Arlen Specter just announced that he has left the GOP to join the Democrats. Having listened to Specter speak out against the slow moving judiciary nomination system at Capital Hill last summer, I’m surprised by his decision, as are most news writers.

Veteran Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania abruptly switched parties Tuesday, a move intended to boost his re-election chances that also pushed Democrats within one seat of a 60-vote filibuster-resistant majority.

“I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans,” Specter said in a statement posted on a Web site devoted to Pennsylvania politics and confirmed by his office. Several Senate officials said a formal announcement was expected at mid-afternoon.

But even before the event took place, Specter attended a Senate subcommittee hearing on the swine flu outbreak and took a seat on the Democratic side of the dais.

He made no overt mention of his decision, but said, “Sorry I can’t stay longer, but this is a complicated day for me.”

President Barack Obama called Specter almost immediately after he was informed of the switch to say the Democratic Party was “thrilled to have you,” according to a White House official.

Well, isn’t that cute. Now he’s on Obama’s good side.

Specter, 79, has been a conservative since 1965, so I find it hard to believe that he suddenly changed his political ideologies. Other columnists and writers agree that Specter’s choice was probably motivated by political ambition and not sincerity. He faces a difficult re-election, so he did what he had to in order to keep his senatorial position.

As recently as late winter, he was asked by a reporter why he had not taken Democrats up on past offers to switch parties.

“Because I am a Republican,” he said at the time.

That says it all.

Us Weekly just confirmed that Slumdog Millionaire stars, Dev Patel (19) and Freida Pinto (24) are dating.

So why were they so quiet about it earlier this year during Oscar season?:

Both Patel and Pinto denied dating rumors earlier this year while they promoted “Slumdog Millionaire,” which won the Oscar for Best Picture.

“No, no, no,” Patel told Ryan Seacrest at the Academy Awards.

Their relationship is not the media’s business, but I see no reason to be so quiet about it. The press figures everything out eventually. It always perplexes me when celebrities act offended and insulted when asked about their personal lives. The same question can irritate me as well, but I’m not an actress, and if I were, I wouldn’t lie about a trivial inquisition.

Maybe the five-year age gap prompted the couple to remain hush-hush. You can argue that they shouldn’t have to tell the world about their love lives, but they invited the world into their personal space when they got involved in Hollywood.

Read my second column in the Daily Wildcat this week.

The Associated Press just reported:

Seventeen-year-olds will be able to buy the “morning-after” emergency contraceptive without a doctor’s prescription, a decision that conservatives denounced as a blow to parental supervision of teens but that women’s groups said represents sound science.

Women’s groups said the FDA’s action was long overdue, since the agency’s own medical reviewers had initially recommended that the contraceptive be made available without any age restrictions.

Korman ordered the FDA to let 17-year-olds get the birth control pills. He also directed the agency to evaluate clinical data to determine whether all age restrictions should be lifted.

The FDA’s latest action does not mean that Plan B will be immediately available to 17-year-olds.The manufacturer must first submit a request.

I’m pro-choice, but my only objection is that this new freedom is available to minors. The morning after pill will help prevent teen pregnancies in that case, but I can’t get past the fact that an exception has been made for girls who haven’t yet reached adulthood. They can end a potential pregnancy, but can’t buy cigarettes, vote, gamble, and in some states, legally have sex (though that doesn’t mean much of anything). Why are minors given this new right?

“It’s a good indication that the agency will move expeditiously to ensure its policy on Plan B is based solely on science,” said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit.

Conservatives said politics drove the decision.

“Parents should be furious at the FDA’s complete disregard of parental rights and the safety of minors,” said Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America.

Plan B is emergency contraception that contains a high dose of birth control drugs and will not interfere with an established pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation or fertilization. In medical terms, pregnancy begins when a fertilized egg attaches itself to the wall of the uterus.

If taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, it can reduce a woman’s chances of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent.

Critics of the contraceptive say Plan B is the equivalent of an abortion pill because it can prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus. Recent research suggests that’s possible but not likely.

I’d much rather see a teenage girl prevent her own pregnancy than have an unwanted child or undergo the emotional stress of an abortion, but there are already so many contraceptives readily available to minors. Teenage girls can stock up on free condoms and birth control pills at Planned Parenthood as long as they don’t mind waiting in long lines and venturing around cities to find the well hidden building. Health education teachers at most public schools supply condoms even though they are told to promote abstinence. In today’s world, it’s easy to have safe sex, it’s just easier for some people to be lazy and irresponsible, too.

I’m not entirely in favor of making Plan B readily available for minors, especially since there are so many other effective birth control methods out in the world. Why encourage girls to have unprotected sex now? They can just buy the morning after pill, so why worry about wearing a condom or taking the birth control pill? This new availability will discourage girls from using condoms during sex, and STD’s will spread easier. This doesn’t take into account the bad side effects of the Plan B pill:

Temporary disruption of the menstrual cycle is also commonly experienced. If taken before ovulation, the high doses of progestogen in levonorgestrel treatments may induce progestogen withdrawal bleeding a few days after the pills are taken. One study found that about half of women who used levonorgestrel ECPs experienced bleeding within 7 days of taking the pills.

That’s healthy…Get ready for an increase in STD contraction.

According to an Associated Press report, a 49-year-old postal worker will face up to ten years in jail if she is found guilty of stealing two items from the mail. She allegedly took a $25 gift card and Greg Behrendt’s New York Times Bestselling self-help book, It’s Called a Break-Up Because it’s Broken.

I actually read the Break-up bestseller out of pure amusement. It was written by the same author of He’s Just Not That Into You, and both books are not worth purchase, much less 10 years in jail.

Two weeks ago, “Britain’s Got Talent’s” goofy, overweight contestant, Susan Boyle surprised Simon Cowell and millions of viewers with her strong singing voice, and now she has a record deal in the bag, likely with Simon Cowell. Before Boyle began to sing, the audience and judges squinted and laughed as she gyrated her robust figure, danced without reason, and said she wanted to be a huge star. Everyone clearly underestimated what she was capable of based on her unusual appearance and uncouth personality.

Her voice brought judges and audience members to tears, and the Youtube video of Boyle instantly flooded news websites and email inboxes all over the world. If there was ever a Cinderella story, Susan Boyle is living it, especially since the 47-year-old woman told news sources that she has never been kissed and that she was bullied as a child for having a mental disability.

Now bloggers are digging for reasons to trash Boyle’s new success. The “never been kissed” story was apparently false, and Cafe Arjun has called Boyle out for it. I would rather that it was a lie for Boyle’s own sake, and even if she said it for attention, as many believe, her statement wasn’t terribly hard to believe, and it’s clear that she’s endured a lot in her life, anyway.

A Yahoo! Music Blog shared the reactions of other websites:

Popwrap.com branded her a “one-trick pony,” while NowPublic.com was more understanding: “Do you think a peck on the cheek counts for being kissed?” the site asked.

Why does the American public have to tear down everyone who makes it in the entertainment industry? Boyle’s story is inspirational, and critics either make fun of her or make her out to be a bad person:

British fan D.E. Atkins wrote: “The makeover squad should leave Susan Boyle alone. It is her singing and simplicity that people love. Once they start trying to change Susan’s image they will spoil her.”

But is it too late? Is overnight stardom already threatening to change Susan Boyle?

Since her first audition, the local council has built a fence around her home to discourage autograph-hunters. Boyle has also hired a hunky live-in bodyguard, been seen sporting an expensive leather jacket, and has agreed to go on a date with one of the judges.

Who cares if she wants to be spoiled and pampered? Maybe she can feel amazing about her appearance for the first time in her 47 years on earth. There’s nothing wrong with finally attaining happiness, and so what if she goes on a date, wants an attractive bodyguard, and buys nice clothing?

There’s so much jealousy in this world. I can’t even understand why people bash gorgeous actors and actresses like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie, but I know for a fact that any mincing words result from envy. And these same people can’t even be happy that Susan Boyle, a commoner who struggled in all senses of the word, is doing well and making a name for herself. If anyone, Susan Boyle deserves to be arrogant, chased after, and confident after all she’s had to face.