Columnist essays

My contact information is as follows:

Shanti Kelemen UNI ’06 Box 3556 610 Beacon St (617)352-3045

I won’t be here this weekend until Sunday afternoon.

And here are my lovely essays.

Trumped! (796 words) By Shanti Kelemen (an argumentative/satire written for a writing class)

Commentator #1: “The audience waits in suspense for [place name here] to make his decision. The hopes of the people of [place country here] rest on his shoulders.” Commentator #2: “His partner has set him up nicely. It’s up to him to bring it home.” Commentator #1: “He’s ready to go.” Commentator #2: “He’s throwing it down with flair! It’s the Queen of Hearts!” Sadly, this could be the future of one of the sports world’s most treasured events, the Olympic Games. The World Bridge Federation is campaigning, with mild success to date, for bridge to become an official Olympic sport. In the name of preserving the integrity of the Olympics, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) needs to draw a firm line between what is a sport and what is not. Much damage has already been done. The IOC declared bridge a sport in June 1995. In 1998 then IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch declared, “bridge is a sport and, as such, its place is [in the Olympic Museum] like all other sports.” And in June 1999 the IOC officially recognized the World Bridge Federation as an “International Federation.” Yeah, right. Bridge is a sport? I went down to my local library (with an open mind) to learn a bit more about bridge. At first glance I was blown away by the plethora of titles available. Included were The Education of a Bridge Player, The Joy of Bridge, Introduction to Defensive Bidding, Better Bridge for Better Players, and my personal favorite, Competitive Bidding for the 21st Century. (A sport on the cutting edge, eh? Wait did I just say “sport?”) Maybe there was more to bridge than I thought. I settled down with a copy of Bridge for Dummies. The author, two-time world champion Eddie Kantar, starts out by pompously stating, “Bridge, quite simply, is the best card game ever. No other game even comes close.” Wow. I’m sold. He goes on to tell me that bridge is a social game that is challenging, psychological and fun. No mention of athletic. But do sports need to have athletic components? Webster’s II New Riverside Dictionary defines a sport as (1) an amusing or interesting pastime or (2) a physical activity, especially one with a set form and body of rules. By the first definition bridge certainly qualifies, but the first definition is not implicitly defined by the events already contested in the Olympics. Bridge is a difficult game to win, but sports should require some physical fitness. In Getting Started: How to Play Bridge Freddie North says, “Bridge has the potential to break down social and ethnic barriers and to keep the wheels of the brain turning in both the old and young.” I’m all for breaking social and ethnic barriers, but do we really want to break the age barrier at the Olympics? Do we want fat 50 year- old men and frail gray-haired grandmothers to be able to make the same Olympic team as marathon runners and wrestlers? All would have to be placed in the same category: the world’s greatest athletes. Athletes? Even if you call bridge a sport, how can you call its players athletes? Wouldn’t that imply they have some athletic ability? Another problem: some bridge players would have difficulty passing drug tests. As the players are somewhat older, many take over-the-counter medications that contain substances banned by the IOC. Yes, grandpa may have to lay off his heart medication so he can be eligible for the Olympic team. Large amounts of caffeine, which bridge players typically ingest so they can stay alert during long tournaments, would not be allowed under IOC rules either. If bridge became an Olympic sport it could open a floodgate of other un-sports-like sports clamoring to become part of the Olympics as well. Billiards, rugby, golf, parachuting, bowling, karate, roller-skating, water- skiing, squash and racquetball are all trying for Olympic sport status. Trampoline made it into the Sydney 2000 games, and curling has been a fixture since 1998. What next, shovel racing? (Actually, a movement to include shovel racing has already started.) Why canÅft people just keep on enjoying this wonderful game without it being declared a sport? A world championship competition is already held each year. Perhaps bridge players are looking for recognition from the rest of the world of their skills and talents. The Olympics are a time for the world to come together to celebrate the worldÅfs greatest athletes. Bridge does not need to be an Olympic sport to gain the worldÅfs respect. Neither does ballroom dancing or curling. And neither does running, speed skating, or basketball. Regardless of their status, activities gain respect by simply being what they are, not by trying to reach for publicity. And thatÅfs my trump card.

Who says superpowers need friends? (775 words) By Shanti Kelemen (published in my high school newspaper last spring)

“Out of these troubled times our objective—a new world order—can emerge… [The new world order will bring] new ways of working with other nations, … peaceful settlement of disputes, solidarity of aggression … and just treatment of all peoples.” Sounds a lot like President George Bush’s post-Sept. 11 rhetoric, doesn’t it? Actually, those words were spoken by then President George H. Bush to Congress in Sept. 1990, a few weeks after Iraq invaded Kuwait, in regard to the changes that would supposedly come about in the world after military action was taken. With the global coalition created in the wake of Sept. 11, for a few months it seemed like the U. S. was listening to the opinions and concerns of other nations. As time passed, though, any hope of the U. S. government taking a multilateral approach to world affairs seems to have disappeared. Sorry, government is not the correct noun. After all, congress didn’t champion the phrase “axis of evil” or shoot down the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty; those were the actions of President Bush. In his Jan. 29 State of the Union address to Congress Bush found time to comment on regulation of big business, the “evil” nations of Iran, Iraq and North Korea, the economy and American efforts abroad in response to Sept. 11, but barely mentioned the U. S.’s allies in the war on terror. The U. S. appears to be ignoring NATO’s decision that “an attack on one is an attack on all” holds true in this situation. By definition this is not the U.S.’s war on terror, but NATO’s. European Union officials are unhappy with some of the declarations bordering on threats made by President Bush. Christopher Patten, foreign affairs commissioner for the EU, said the US is in “unilateralist overdrive.” “Europe knows that, in the end, its security depends on our strength and our protection. Europeans are the ultimate free-riders on American power,” wrote Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthhammer. He neglects to consider, though, that to succeed in the war on terrorism the US needs the support of other countries. It will need to make sure that across the globe countries are working to stop terrorist activities within their borders, even if those countries are not prevalent targets of terrorists. What motivation would those countries have to take action against terrorists, to help the US, if they are ignored by US foreign policy? “From a narrow military perspective, Bush might be wise to go it alone. But if the broader goal is to create a world in which countries are permanently safeguarded from terror, especially from weapons of mass destruction, then a more comprehensive solution will be needed,” wrote Newsday columnist James Pinkerton. The US needs to consider the entire world and should not be taking action in the war on terror only to prevent disasters that could befall American citizens. The US’s isolationist stance hasn’t only been since Sept. 11. In recent years the US has refused to sign a number of worldwide treaties. Last July the US pulled out of the United Nations accord to enforce the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention after seven years of negotiations, saying that nation security would be put at risk. Wouldn’t the risk be lower if there were fewer biological weapons in the world? In March 2001 the Bush administration scrapped the Kyoto Protocol, which was designed in 1997 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, saying the standards were too low for developing countries. For the 178 other countries who signed the treaty, the standards were high enough. The US even refused to adhere to the international ban on land minds, saying they were needed in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. The problem here is one of differing perceptions. US officials may truly believe that what’s good for the US is good for the world. And that may be true—in some cases. What matters, though, is not whether or not US officials believe this, but whether or not other countries perceive this to be their belief. Bush may think he has a vision of the “new world order” that doesn’t leave his European allies or the Muslim world behind. But if the rest of the world thinks otherwise, it doesn’t matter. The US should hold itself to the same standards as the rest of the world when it comes to biological weapons, pollution and land mines. If it doesn’t set the example, how can the US expect other countries to follow? The US may be a superpower, but that’s no excuse for forgetting the rest of the world.

My 15 year-old sister and Islamic extremists: We declare jihad on hair! (398 words) by Shanti Kelemen (just written for fun) Can you declare jihad on the hairs in your bathroom sink? Regardless of the technicalities, my sister, Miss Skyler Kelemen, did just that recently. It’s a holy war of annihilation. She won’t stop until the opposition has been completely destroyed—at least for the time being. Yes, I can say it. The bathroom Skyler and I share is dirty. We try to keep it clean, sometimes even without excessive urging from our parents, simply because we like having a nice, clean, white sink to spit our toothpaste froth into. But, alas, I have long brown, curly hair. Skyler has medium-short red curly hair. We like to brush our hair. In the bathroom. Our hair falls out. Simple logic. Alas, the sink is defiled by strands of hair. Skyler was exasperated. “I declared jihad on the hairs in the bathroom sink,” she announced triumphantly at 9:13 p.m. Monday night. “What does this jihad entail?” I inquired. Maybe this meant she was going to don something less revealing than her bathrobe on successive nights. That could be a good thing. Although, I certainly didn’t want her going full-jihad, with a chador. “I will clean the bathroom sink.” That’s a good start. “I will rid the bathroom sink of these hairs with a mighty baby wipe.” Great. It wasn’t until the next day that the irony struck me. Skyler was declaring jihad against the hairs that had fallen out into our bathroom sink. Islamics have declared jihad on the actually hairs on womens’ heads, forcing them to not let even a wisp be seen in public. Two brands of jihad, so similar, yet so very different. So, how’s the jihad going? Our bathroom sink still gets dirty with a few hairs every so often. Then Skyler bravely corrects the universe and wipes them away. (Ahhh… now the world isn’t ending. I can go to school today!) As for our Islamic friends, winning their war may mean the end of the world—for them. I declare jihad on extremism! Oops, sorry. That doesn’t really work, now does it? I… uh I… Jihad just isn’t for me. And maybe it’s not meant for my fellow human beings, either. Elimination of hair on the bathroom sink, I can tolerate. Elimination of human rights and freedom of hair, I can’t.