Women’s Soccer ready for postseason run at a National Championship

This year’s women’s soccer squad is one of the most dominant teams in school history. Not just running the table for the second time in school history, but sweeping the GLVC Regular Season and Tournament championships.

The strength of the team was their defense, not allowing two or more goals on the entire season (outscoring their opponents 48-5 on the year including the GLVC Tournament). They came an award away from also sweeping individual awards this year with six players on All-GLVC teams; Seniors Karley Mecko (who also won Defensive Player of the Year), Emily Konior, Niekie Pellens and Sophomore Mallory Geurts all landed on First Team All-GLVC, Sophomore Jillian Hetfleisch was selected Second Team, and Freshman Bailey Reed was Third Team (also winning GLVC Freshman of the Year).

Coach Troy Fabiano picked up his fourth GLVC Coach of the Year Award, and in an interview says that the girls make him look very smart. He credited the award mostly to the girls, saying that “it is up to them to perform at the end of the day.” I asked him to reflect on the season so far and he said that the girls have pretty much accomplished every goal that they set at the beginning of the season, and then some. They aimed to not only to win their division, but to win the outright GLVC regular season championship, they emphatically accomplished that goal. They wanted to host the GLVC tournament and win it in front of their home fans, also accomplishing that. He says if it wasn’t for the senior leaders keeping the team on track and reminding them to keep their eyes on the prize day in and day out, then this season wouldn’t have been possible. Now, they prepare for their fifth straight NCAA Tournament; they are ranked third, first in the Midwest, and will host opening and second round games at Wood Road Field. Once again, the wily veteran coach didn’t take my bait in trying to get a prediction. He said that they are going to take it a game at a time because anything can happen in the tournament. They are going to stay prepared because they are now being hunted. But Rangers are never scared of a challenge.

Let’s rally behind our women’s team; they are the real deal and are about to put the country on notice once again. Their first game is Sunday Nov. 16 at 1:00pm against either Ohio Dominican University or Saginaw Valley State University. Go Rangers!

Article by Jalen Perry

The Unnecessary Ambiguity

I remember when I was a kid the movies I would watch, things that are now known as “classic Disney.” These movies, The Lion King, Pocahontas, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, ect…. were all pretty straight forward. There was a bad guy and there was a good guy; there was love and there was hate. True love conquering all was usually the moral of every story. Now-a-days, true love is still a major role in these current Disney films, but it is never as straight forward as it once was.

In today’s Disney, princes aren’t princes, princesses are not always princesses, and the line between villain and fairy godmother has been blurred by a world that believes men saving women is not a good lesson to teach our young girls. But have they taken the line too far? The idea of a woman saving herself, or even a woman saving another woman, has become a growing trend. Starting with 2010’s Tangled, moving onto 2012’s Brave, and especially into the past year it’s starting to seem as though this is taking over the children movies of today. With films like Frozen and Maleficent creating cult followings, is Disney skewing the idea of who, or what, is evil?

Taking a look at Frozen, which has actually been accused of promoting bestiality as well as homosexuality, we the viewers get two different forms of villainy: the fear of the unknown and uncontrollable, as well as the evil man. Where I am all for the idea of a strong woman being shown to the young women of the world, the way that Frozen goes about doing this seems to be the wrong way. Elsa, being strong through her powers, starts out as being portrayed as an evil villain to the people of her kingdom. She is forced into hiding in the wilderness so that she can be herself. She only becomes a ‘good guy’ after a man proves to be more evil than she is. My question is thus: does she really ever HAVE to be evil at all? True that she does have powers that accidentally injure her sister, but does she really need to be exiled then hunted down like a dog for being a strong woman? My argument is that this is actually not teaching our young girls to be strong and comfortable with who they are, because in its presentation she is only accepted after she is the lesser of two evils. So is the dualism between evil and good within her really needed? Not to mention the fact that Anna, the heroine, only becomes strong enough to save her sister after she is heartbroken by the man that she doesn’t actually even love, but that’s a whole different subject.

Months later Disney released its distorted mirror of who the villain from Sleeping Beauty was. Maleficent changes this classic villain into a misunderstood mother figure and thus making her a victim and a weak woman because of, wait for it, a man! With Maleficent’s evil stemming from a broken heart rather than simply being an evil sorceress, she turns from being a strong willed woman who knows her feelings and what she wants, to being a scorned woman licking her wounds until she learns the error of her ways by watching an infant grow up. I understand the fact that there are two sides to every story as much as the next woman, often times we do end up with our hearts broken by some “evil” man and plot revenge, but does this really need to be the morals that are taught to the world’s youth?

With the future of Disney showing women that they become villains based on having power and are made weak by evil men, it stands to show that the line between good and evil is no more. With the ambiguity of what is good and what is bad in recent Disney productions the whole idea of right and wrong has been blurred in the children’s movies of late. In reality, there are bad people in the world. Turn on the news and you’ll find that there are real-life villains out there. So why are we teaching our young women that there aren’t, that men are the source of evil (there are just as many bad women as there are men), and that bad people are simply misunderstood, hurt women based on these men? I believe that the world of film was better for the sheer sake of truth for children watching. Why try to sugarcoat it? It just causes confusion and chaos.

Article by Krista Skweres

Letter to the Editor: PIP101

I recently logged onto RateMyProfessor.com – something I have only done one other time in my three years of college, and that one other time was for the exact same reason I was logging on now. I don’t go there to see what students are saying about professors, as most of them are whining about having to use the textbook, or that there is too much homework, or that they expect you to be in class everyday – come on, get over it…THIS IS COLLEGE AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE HARD. Don’t any of them realize that this is the easiest part of their lives? Don’t any of them understand that an employer is going to expect them to be there every day, fully equipped with all the necessary tools like pen and pencil, notepaper, maybe even a book or two? I digress.

No, I go onto RateMyProfessor.com to truly give feedback on a professor that should not be allowed to teach, mold, influence, enact or any other verb as it relates to the educating of our young minds of tomorrow. I have one such professor. Feedback? None. Return email correspondence? Slim to none. Help with projects? None. Clarity in explanation of assignments? Little to none. Grades Returned? You will be lucky if you see something once a month. Really? 4 weeks to return test grades? As we are nearing the end of the semester, I am not sure if I have a D or an A. I think I have an A, but who knows?

So, as I log on to rate this specific professor, I read the other comments posted by students for this same educator. OMG – seems like I am not the only one having the same problems!

Overall Quality: 2.0

Helpfulness: 1.0

Guess what? It’s been going on for years…you would think that the University would like to have this fixed. Is this not a direct reflection on them as an educational institution of higher learning? This professor is their choice as an educator. Hmmmmm….

And don’t even get me started on the professors that do the “cut and paste syllabi” which have the wrong semester due dates on them (Spring for Fall and vice versa) or the “form letter” emails that are supposed to be personal, but aren’t, and have grammar issues as well as content issues. Are professors above checking their work before submitting or hitting ‘send’?

As a former corporate executive, if this was run like a corporate business, they would ALL be fired for their lack of attention to detail bordering on incompetence. But, since this isn’t run as a business, it is academia – I rate these behaviors an “F”. You want to turn out undergraduate professionals? Then emulate the behavior with which you have expectations of.

Article by Robin Broughton

The Future of Film Criticism: School or No?

According to a recent article by Tom Shone of The Guardian titled “Should Film Critics Care About Cinematic Technique?” there is an ongoing debate in all of cinema about the future of film criticism. This debate entails whether or not film critics for magazines, blogs, and newspapers should be required to undergo some form of formal film education in order to better understand things such as, but not limited to, camera work, the film which a movie is shot on, and direction styles. As it currently stands most critics stick to things that do not require a film-school education to critique; these are things such as the acting style and the storyline/plot of the film.

Current critics argue that if they are required to go to film school, through the understanding of the work that is put into each individual shot created by the artistic vision of the director that they may not feel comfortable criticizing as harshly on the more trivial things such as acting. This would stem from an appreciation of everything that the actor, director, and camera worker had to put into each individual frame to create the piece, despite how amazing or poorly acted this scene, let alone all the scenes, might be. Still other critics claim that they should only have the experience of seeing a movie once, without a full understanding of how everything works, because this is the experience the audience would get, and let’s face it: that is who is going to be reading these reviews.

The counter argument states that these things that are learned in a formal film education are what make up the, as said by Matt Zoller Seitz of New York Magazine, “nuts and bolts” of film. To know what goes into the making of a film is to fully understand and comprehend what it means to have that movie. In a day and age where we, as a people, are overrun with technology, we can use the internet to find out anything and everything in a plot summary of a film even before it is released. If a critic is able to tell the audience, which is a key word in both sides of the debate, what makes the cinematography of this particular film in comparison to all other films, whether good or bad, could completely change the outcome of how people see that particular piece of art.

The fact that a film is just that, a work of art, is often forgotten. This begs the question ‘would people actually care to know how a certain scene was shot?’. Unfortunately art isn’t what sells cinema. A strong line of well-known actors, whether it be for their looks or their talent, a major producer, and an at least pseudo-entertaining script is all that is required to catch the attention of the typical movie goer. So then, is it really necessary for critics to write about things such as camera angles or visual effects? Would the general public read it, or would it be another student loan that unfortunately in today’s society went unnoticed?

Article by Krista Schrader

The Milwaukee Bucks to be sold to Billionaire investors for $550 Million

The Milwaukee Bucks are set to have new ownership for the first time in nearly thirty years. Current owner and former Senator of Wisconsin, Herb Kohl, has agreed to sell the franchise to Wesley Edens and Marc Lasry, billionaire investors who vow to keep the team in the city and have already matched Kohl’s hundred million dollar donation to build a new stadium for the team. Kohl never once considered selling to investors who had plans on moving the team to another city, “My priority has always been and will continue to be keeping the Bucks in Milwaukee… This announcement reinforces that Milwaukee is and will continue to be the home of the Bucks. Wes and Marc agree, and they share my commitment to the long-term success of this franchise in Milwaukee,” said Kohl.

Steve Balmer and Chris Hansen, investors who nearly moved the Kings to Seattle, were in talks initially, but with them not planning on keeping the Bucks home here in Milwaukee, they were eliminated from contention. The BMO Harris Bradley Center is the third oldest arena in the NBA, originally opening in 1988; the only two arenas that are older are Oracle Arena (G.S. Warriors), who are planning on moving back to San Francisco, and Madison Square Garden (N.Y. Knicks), which recently underwent a billion dollar face lift. It’s very difficult to get backing and fan support for a new arena when the team hasn’t won a playoff series in almost a decade and a half, being especially poor this season, winning only 15 games (worst in the NBA, even behind the Philadelphia 76ers who went on a 26 game losing streak this season). The only bright spot for the organization is that they are nearly guaranteed a top three pick in this years NBA draft (already clinching the number one spot in the draft lottery). Hopefully a young prospect chosen in this years draft, matched with new ownership will mean a fresh start for a team in need of just that.

Article by Jalen Perry