PAGE 2
YALE DAILY NEWS · TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011 · yaledailynews.com
OPINION
.COMMENT “In the future we’ll restrict all political discussion to the topics of Justin yaledailynews.com/opinion
Bieber and the Jonas Brothers.”
‘RIVER_TAM’ ON ‘CPAC SMITTEN BY MITT, MARCO’
Sex in space: the Freedom in the modern state final frontier T
P
ity the columnist forced to publish on Valentine’s Day. My loyal readers don’t usually expect insightful commentary on love and related matters; after all, my true love is science policy, which is generally a lousy turn-on. Perhaps a compromise exists: sex in space. In fact, human spaceflight is on a collision course with virtually every flashpoint of modern sexual politics. Early astronauts were straightlaced representatives of civilized America. They attended church regularly with their happy wives and children and otherwise embodied the Right Stuff, at least as far as the public knew. Starting with Project Mercury and continuing through the space shuttle program, missions were tightly choreographed affairs with popular perception as prized as any technical goal. But the marketing of the astronaut as paladin cannot last. When people are working in space for years — or shorter stays just for fun — they will want to have sex. So far, with their missions in mind, astronauts have resisted the urge. With longer missions being planned, however, Congress must eventually appropriate taxpayer dollars for NASA to accommodate sexuality. But the first people to have sex in space will likely pay their own way. Robert Bigelow, who owns the Budget Suites of America hotel chain, founded Bigelow Aerospace in 1998 to feed the emerging demand for expandable spacecraft and space stations. Their current production mode can to host up to six people in spacious luxury with better protection from radiation and micrometeorites than the International Space Station. Prototype spacecraft have been orbiting Earth since 2006, and Bigelow hopes to begin charging rent as soon as 2016. Most of Bigelow’s clients will be researchers and national space agencies, but tourists will eventually flock to space. Soon, people will be doing the sorts of things they do in Bigelow’s budget hotels. Something about altitude is an aphrodisiac, and an inflated space habitat is more comfortable and exotic than, say, an airliner lavatory. People might shrug off the canoodling of playboy space tourists, but everyone will scrutinize the amorous adventures of astronauts on the federal payroll. For long-duration space missions, sex cannot simply be treated with a wink and a nod; it must be either nonexistent or dealt with openly, beginning with the initial spacecraft designs. Either alternative requires unpleasant decisions. While astronauts are able to abstain from sex during sixmonth jaunts to the space station, the thought of withdrawing from this basic human activity for years is unbearable. NASA could invest in drugs that would prevent debilitating levels of arousal. After all, some birth control and antidepressant medications suppress libido. However, dosing people
with enough chemicals to suppress an urge as fundamental as hunger reads like a dystopian novel. We might as JOSEPH launch O’ROURKE well robots with human faces. Space Cadet But what if we sought to facilitate sex instead of preventing it? Sex is straightforward on Earth, at least physically, but satisfying earthly urges in space requires specialized hardware. Newton’s third law of motion says that if you exert a force on a person, then the person will exert an equal and opposite force on you — isn’t physics fun? Now, Earth’s gravity normally resists this reactionary force. Space is not as kind, leaving two options: have lame sex or strap yourself in something like a two-person Snuggie. The need for sex is thus a design requirement calling for the attention of engineers and mission planners. Bringing even a strap — not to mention a multi-year supply of contraceptives — to space requires building storage and inventing specialized procedures. Ironically, astronauts would need to be very professional about managing the need for sexual release without compromising interpersonal relations and common trust. Imagine training for that! On a more serious note, medical necessities for women on long-duration spaceflights are straight out of Rick Santorum’s nightmares. Many female astronauts rely on various forms of contraception to avoid disrupting training and to suppress menstruation in space. For voyages on which returning quickly to Earth is impossible, astronauts must have the capacity to perform medical abortions. Pregnancies in space would be unacceptably hazardous. Everything from an ectopic pregnancy to many common complications could be fatal. Conception would still be unwise in a spacecraft equipped with modern obstetrics and neonatal facilities because preliminary research indicates that microgravity increases the risks of birth defects. Human spaceflight would require enshrining abortion in federal policy with federal funding for the first time. Only in space does the messiness of human interaction meet humorless engineering and keen public attention. Matters that are normally dealt with in private are judged by the public and voted on by Congress. Although these policies would only directly affect the lucky few who travel the cosmos, a frank discussion of these issues would benefit us all. JOSEPH O’ROURKE is a senior in Silliman College. His column runs on alternate Tuesdays. Contact him at joseph.orourke@yale.edu .
YALE DAILY NEWS PUBLISHING CO., INC. 202 York Street, New Haven, CT 06511 (203) 432-2400 Editorial: (203) 432-2418 editor@yaledailynews.com Business: (203) 432-2424 business@yaledailynews.com EDITOR IN CHIEF Max de La Bruyère MANAGING EDITORS Alon Harish Drew Henderson ONLINE EDITOR Daniel Serna OPINION Julia Fisher DEPUTY OPINION Jack Newsham NEWS David Burt Alison Griswold CITY Everett Rosenfeld Emily Wanger FEATURES Emily Foxhall CULTURE Eliza Brooke
SCI. TECH Eli Markham SPORTS Zoe Gorman Sarah Scott ARTS & LIVING Nikita Lalwani Brenna Hughes Neghaiwi Chase Niesner Erin Vanderhoof MULTIMEDIA Christopher Peak Baobao Zhang MAGAZINE Eliana Dockterman Molly Hensley-Clancy Nicole Levy PHOTOGRAPHY Zoe Gorman Kamaria Greenfield Victor Kang
PRODUCTION & DESIGN Sophie Alsheimer Mona Cao Raahil Kajani Mason Kroll Cora Ormseth Lindsay Paterson Yoonji Woo
PUBLISHER Preetha Nandi
COPY Illyana Green Nathalie Levine
BUSINESS DEV. Lily Mu
LEAD WEB DEV. Mike DiScala
DIR. FINANCE Albert Chang DIR. PRINT ADV. Matthew Hoffer-Hawlik
DIR. ONLINE BUSINESS Max Cho
ILLUSTRATIONS David Yu
PRINT ADV. MANAGER Sophia Jia NATIONAL ADV. MANAGER Julie Kim ONL. DEV. MANAGER Devon Balicki ONLINE PRODUCT MGR. Gwendoline Tilghman SPECIALTY MARKETING MGR. Gabriel Botelho
ASSOCIATE EDITOR Sam Greenberg INSIDER’S GUIDE Hai Pham
THIS ISSUE COPY STAFF: Maggie Brown PRODUCTION ASSISTANTS: Jake Allen CROSS CAMPUS: Antonia Woodford EDITORIALS & ADS
The News’ View represents the opinion of the majority of the members of the Yale Daily News Managing Board of 2013. Other content on this page with bylines represents the opinions of those authors and not necessarily those of the Managing Board. Opinions set forth in ads do not necessarily reflect the views of the Managing Board. We reserve the right to refuse any ad for any reason and to delete or change any copy we consider objectionable, false or in poor taste. We do not verify the contents of any ad. The Yale Daily News Publishing Co., Inc. and its officers, employees and agents disclaim any responsibility for all liabilities, injuries or damages arising from any ad. The Yale Daily News Publishing Co. ISSN 0890-2240
NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT
SUBMISSIONS
All letters submitted for publication must include the author’s name, phone number and description of Yale University affiliation. Please limit letters to 250 words and guest columns to 750. The Yale Daily News reserves the right to edit letters and columns before publication. E-mail is the preferred method of submission. Direct all letters, columns, artwork and inquiries to: Julia Fisher, Opinion Editor, Yale Daily News http://www.yaledailynews.com/contact opinion@yaledailynews.com
COPYRIGHT 2012 — VOL. CXXXIV, NO. 91
he political brouhaha over a government mandate for coverage of contraception continues. On Friday, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected President Obama’s compromise proposal, arguing that pregnancy is not a disease and that those with moral or religious objections to various forms of birth control should not be compelled to sacrifice their principles. The administration counters that contraception is a vital element of medical care that patients have a right to expect from their health care providers. Furthermore, they insist that religious coercion is not at issue here. After all, religious organizations may still practice however they please; only religious organizations that wish to receive government funding to perform public charitable work must play by the government’s rules. Underlying the conflict is a deeper question: What does freedom mean in the context of the modern welfare state? This may seem like a silly question. Whenever libertarian crazies like Ron Paul or Grover Norquist ascend their soapboxes to preach that big government is a gargantuan beast that crowds out our liberties with its sheer size, I roll my eyes. What does size of government have to do with personal freedom? Good governments protect liberties; bad governments violate them. Size doesn’t factor in. I never understood how anyone could object to money for social wel-
fare programs, schools and medical care. R e c e n t events have demonstrated precisely where the problem lies. YISHAI modern SCHWARTZ The welfare state has created The Gadfly a new zerosum game between public values and personal freedoms. A government that played no role in health care could remain neutral with regard to contraception. But when taxpayer dollars are a central source of support for the nation’s health care and the government uses the power of its purse to maintain basic standards and protect consumers, the state cannot help but take a stand. It must either fund these groups or deliberately reject them. There is something twisted about a state that collects taxes from Catholics and shuts down Catholic hospitals because they practice medicine in accordance with the dictates of Catholicism. Surely governments need not employ Christian Scientist doctors who refuse to practice medicine altogether, but to gut hospitals that provide state-ofthe-art care and simply do not provide contraceptives seems absurd. In displaying inflexibility on the peripheral aspects of a job rather than focusing on the substantive core, the state unjustifi-
ably violates the liberty and conscience of providers. At the same time, if government fails to mandate coverage for birth control, a service the vast majority of the American public sees as a necessary feature of health care, it fails to protect consumers. Nor is this a unique occurrence. In Illinois, Massachusetts and elsewhere, Catholic adoption agencies have shut down rather than cave to the government’s demand that they tacitly endorse same-sex marriages and child-rearing. In England last year, a high court decision that found Jewish day schools in violation of nondiscrimination regulations (the schools define Jewishness traditionally, by lineage and formal conversion rather than faith and practice) threatens to destroy an entire community’s school system. For libertarians, the solution to this catch-22 is as simple as it is fanciful: scale back the size of government to 18th-century levels. If governments don’t fund adoption agencies, health care or education at all, then they have far less regulatory power. Ta-da — no more problem! But most of us realize this sort of far-sweeping solution is both untenable and undesirable. Government-created programs are entrenched in citizens’ expectations and corporate strategies, and no one has the political capital to work against this widespread public support. But even if we could shift these expectations, would we want to? State
safety nets protect those who are most vulnerable, and the patchwork of private charities that operate in the absence of government lack the resources and the organizational reach to offer comparable services. In the face of this conflict, most people have simply given up. They have resigned themselves to the necessity of government arbitrarily drawing a line where religious freedom must give way to public interest. But throwing up our hands ultimately betrays limited thinking and a woeful political laziness. We need not choose between women’s easy access to contraception and religious freedom of genuine believers. The real solution lies in government working to supplement existing programs, allowing citizens access to the services they need while institutions continue to offer only the services they can faithfully provide. We need not compel Catholic charities to do as we wish; we simply must ensure that alternative options exist. Let new programs provide contraception, and let the Catholic hospitals get on with the good work that fills 99 percent of the public’s health care expectations. Government should view its role as filling in gaps, not engineering changes in believers’ practice. YISHAI SCHWARTZ is a junior in Branford College. His column runs on Tuesdays. Contact him at yishai.schwartz@yale.edu .
S TA F F I L L U S T R AT O R K A R E N T I A N
Meme Family Night
G U E S T C O L U M N I S T D AV I S N G U Y E N
Matchmaking on Valentine’s Day A
year ago, my girlfriend and I drove to the base of Stone Mountain in Georgia. We spent two hours hiking up the three-mile trail to the mountain’s peak. At the top, we set up a picnic and shared a meal as we watched the sun set. In the fall, we would head in different directions. She would stay in Georgia; I would not. College brought opportunities to meet new people. We agreed that a long-distance relationship would not be in our best interests, but that at the end of that summer we would still be close friends and still have countless memories, and if we were truly meant to be, it would work itself out. Since coming to Yale, I have had a few dates, but there is no one at the moment I could say is ma petite amie or mi novia. For those of us who will not be giving or receiving love letters, kisses or singing Valentines today, Valentine’s Day could seem like Single Awareness Day. But being single isn’t as bad as my favorite movie genre might have you believe. The name Valentine comes from the Latin valens, which means “worthy, strong, pow-
erful.” People who are single exhibit those traits every day. I realize that being single has given me more time to explore new hobbies and develop old ones. Since my last relationship, I have picked up a few new hobbies like learning card tricks, experimenting with chiromancy and even joining a dance group. When I do find that special someone, I will know new activities for us to enjoy together. When you are single, you discover what makes you happy. You are free to meet new people and date freely if you wish. In your spare time, do you want to have movie nights with friends, take random trips to New York or even indulge in “The Hunger Games”? If you can’t be happy about yourself, can you really expect to be happy in a relationship? While my grandmother would say it is way too early to think about marriage or my love life, I must admit that, sometimes, I do wish I had someone special to spend a Friday night watching “50 First Dates” with, someone to read the little love notes I leave under her pillow or someone who I could tell about
my day, goals and worries. Of course, I have my friends, but it’s just not the same. For those who are still hoping to find love or someone close at Yale, realize that even if you have not found a close friend, hope is not lost. Two weeks ago, I was still frantically searching for screw dates for three of my friends. After hours of failed phone calls and text messages, I turned to Facebook. With a simple post, I was blasted, in just under an hour, with about 40 offers, each describing roommates’, suitemates’ or even the poster’s personalities, pastimes and preferences. I created a Google Doc and sent it out to the whole freshman class. I would help others in my position find screw dates. When I closed the application two days later, I had over 140 requests. Five of my friends and I read through each response, and we were amazed at how diverse everyone’s interests were. But even more amazing was the number of people with similar interests who did not even know each other. We paired them together.
We put the poster who wrote, “I am a girl taking two physics classes, looking for someone who loves math and science,” with the “Guy taking multiple 300-level math courses. Looking for person who likes to talk about math and science.” The one who said, “My suitemate loves dance and theater” went to screw with “My roommate is a dancer.” While the pairings my friends and I made are not in any way soul matches, we realize that there are plenty of Yalies out there who would be instant friends if they ever knew the other existed. So to the Yalies who post on YaleFML looking for a hookup, a boyfriend or even a close friend, please know that there are people out there who feel the same way, and even if you do not find what you are looking for here, you have the rest of your life to look. Today, show that you are worthy, strong and powerful. DAVIS NGUYEN is a freshman in Berkeley College. Contact him at davis.nguyen@yale.edu .