There was something disturbing about the sight of self-professed patriots cheering as Chicago was ruled out as an Olympic host city. Yet their malicious glee was hardly unpredictable. Indeed, given their history, it should come as no surprise that these same individuals, who short years ago could reify patriotism in the figure of the president, would now decry presidential success as a mockery of the world and of the country.

Yet the fact that we expect such knee-jerk vitriol from the Right neither justifies nor excuses such juvenile and distasteful behavior as the dismissal of Obama’s receipt of the Nobel Peace Prize as “affirmative action,” or the suggestion that McCain should have won the prize because he pushed through the surge in Iraq. Conservatives too may find solace in Obama’s award. Immediately following the announcement of Obama’s selection, William Kristol wrote, “Mikhail Gorbachev won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990. A year later, he was out of power and the Soviet Union had dissolved.”

Indeed the explosion of conservative spleen, dubbed “Obama Reaction Syndrome” by Rachel Maddow, provided a striking juxtaposition with the way Obama himself handled the situation. In calm tones, the president noted his personal surprise and humility, while expressing his belief that the prize represented a ‘call to action’ and a further mandate for international cooperation.

In short, the president spoke solemnly and with a degree of grace that was utterly lacking in the blind vituperations of conservative beltway pundits. Yet disbelief and doubt over Obama’s right to the prize were symptomatic in many segments of American society immediately following the announcement. While a degree of skepticism is understandable, and unbiased analysis a positive addition to a national dialogue, that Americans had such trouble accepting the world’s praise merely reaffirms the importance of choosing Obama as Nobel Laureate.

In 2003, when George W. Bush landed on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln and declared “mission accomplished,” a great part of America cheered along with the media, celebrating what was even then apparent as an artificial, contrived milestone in our foreign affairs. Yet this month, when our president was honored by a neutral, external board of review, Americans and American media, far from donning party hats, raised their eyebrows or their piercing voices of dissent.

Perhaps, as a nation, we became so acculturated to the unilateral militarism that characterized the Bush-Cheney years that we are no longer as able to understand the significance a president who actively engages and cooperates with the rest of the world. It was not so long ago that Americans blacklisted the Dixie Chicks, and followed the lead of congressmen like Republican Bob Ney (now in prison) in replacing “French fries” with “Freedom fries” in a wave of irrational Francophobia. Those were the days of calling sovereign nations “axes of evil,” the days of United Nations ambassador John Bolton, the man who dismissed the significance of the UN entirely.

The purpose of this article is not to designate President Obama as the “right” pick for the Nobel Peace Prize, but merely to point out that choosing him was not an outrageous leap. At the time of his nomination, Obama had demonstrated not only his commitment to such peaceful enterprises as talks with Iran, nuclear disarmament, and the shuttering of Guantanamo Bay, but had also demonstrated his ability to garner the support of the American people for such enterprises. Obama’s openness and pledged cooperation were particularly striking and moving given their contrast with his predecessor’s modus operandi governing international relations.

In response to those critics who assert that President Obama has not yet definitively accomplished enough to merit this level of international distinction, it is important to remember that the Nobel Peace Prize is awarded for efforts undertaken and not necessarily results achieved. Jimmy Carter never actually brought peace to the Middle East. Desmond Tutu received the prize in 1984 for working towards toppling the Apartheid government in South Africa, but only ten years later, in 1994, did the Apartheid regime collapse.

Therefore, Obama strikes the right chord when he calls the prize a call to action. At best, the honor will provide the president with more diplomatic and political capital with which he can further his efforts. At the very least, it publically rewards the promise and ideal of cooperation and diplomatic maturity. The Nobel Peace Prize has always rewarded actions that follow a valued ideal. This year’s prize was no exception. The award is a remarkable piece of symbolism, bestowed upon Obama in recognition that he is undeniably on the right track. Whether or not we are skeptical that Obama was the most appropriate choice for this year’s honor, we must recognize the prize as an honor and an indication that the international community has again accepted the United States as a reliable member of a greater community of nations.

The tragedy is that throughout this debate, we have been having the wrong conversations. Obviously, national time is wasted when government-funded end-of-life care gets demagogued as “death panels,” or when vicious xenophobia leads nativist Congressmen to interrupt presidential speeches. But even the controversy over including a Medicare-style “public option” open to all Americans has distracted from the other, more important, reforms included in almost every health care reform package being discussed. These reforms are just as, if not more, important, and must not be overshadowed by their more controversial counterparts.

Take, for instance, the “guaranteed issue” provision of Senate Finance Committee chairman Max Baucus’s health care reform plan, the stingiest proposal being considered. Currently, health insurers can and do refuse to cover patients with preexisting conditions or those who are deemed too old. Under the Baucus plan, insurance companies would be required to offer an insurance policy to any customer, regardless of their health status, age, or geographic location, to give a few examples.

But insurance companies do not only discriminate against less healthy or older patients by denying them policies. Currently, they are allowed to vary their pricing wildly based on age, whether the patient has a preexisting condition, and so on. Baucus’ plan includes a “modified community rating,” which means that insurers would be required to offer the same policies at the same price to all customers, with adjustments allowed on account on age, tobacco use, and the size of one’s family. The more liberal House and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee proposals do not even allow these adjustments, only allowing a slight change on account of age. Regardless of which bill is passed, all of the current proposals are sure to ban insurers from charging, say, a known diabetic more than a non-diabetic, to give one of many possible examples.

Insurance companies also currently are allowed to cancel coverage by claiming that a patient misled them, most commonly by failing to inform them of a preexisting condition. This practice—known as “rescission”—can leave families without coverage for enormous medical bills that they must then foot single-handedly. Because it tends to occur when a patient becomes seriously ill, the practice hurts those who can bear it least. The Baucus plan, along with every other proposal being considered, will ban rescission.

The existing health care system is perhaps least fair to those who are insured individually. While those who receive coverage through their employer have lower costs due to risk-pooling throughout their workplace, the individually insured often face with catastrophically higher rates. To solve this problem, the Baucus plan establishes state-level exchanges, in which individuals and small groups can come together to buy insurance as one large group, driving down costs dramatically. Indeed, the AARP estimates that an individual could save as much as $4,000 to $6,000 a year through such exchanges. A national, as opposed to state, exchange in which those currently insured through their employer could participate would be even better, as there would be a still greater risk pool. However, any type of exchange is a real improvement that will provide substantial savings to many Americans. Some exchange is in every bill currently being debated.

Even with these reforms, care will probably remain too costly for many Americans. Thankfully, even the Baucus plan provides fairly generous subsidies for the uninsured. Families making up to 300 percent of the poverty line—that is, those making $65,000 a year–would receive tax credits to pay for coverage. Those at the poverty line would never be forced to pay more than three percent of their income in premiums, and those at three times the poverty line would never have to pay more than thirteen percent. For non-premium, out-of-pocket expenses such as copayments, additional government subsidies would set a firm limit on what poor and middle-class families would need to pay per year. In addition, Medicaid would be expanded dramatically to cover those making up to 133 percent of the poverty line–$29,326 a year for a family of four–and encompassing all adults. By contrast, the current Medicaid program is limited to parents and childless disabled persons. These are benefits that help a wide cross-section of America. Note that those making up to $65,000 will benefit, while the average American makes only $50,000 a year. To be sure, these subsidies should be expanded even further, but the fact remains that most Americans would see greatly increased federal assistance in paying for their health care under Baucus’ plan.

This is not to say that liberal activists should stop lobbying for a more aggressive reform package, including a public option. Quite the contrary; having people like Congressman Anthony Weiner and Senator Tom Harkin force the House and Senate leadership to take the views of the left into consideration alongside those of centrists like Ben Nelson is immensely productive, and sets a great precedent. A bill with a public option–and a stronger health exchange, and more generous subsidies, and a stricter ban on insurer price discrimination–would indeed be a better bill, and we applaud Weiner, Harkin, and other liberals for fighting for it.

Where we part ways is with Weiner’s refusal to vote for a bill lacking a public option. To do so would be to deny Americans the right to buy health insurance, to not be charged more for having a chronic disease, to have affordable coverage if individually insured, and to have government assistance if they cannot pay their own way. Simply put, almost any health care bill currently plausible is far better than the status quo. It is the responsibility of the left not just to make the bill as good as possible, but to help pass it as well. The stakes are just too great to fall short.

With the onset of the economic crisis, Harvard has justified layoffs by describing its commitment to its employees as a secondary responsibility. Last week, as he addressed faculty, staff and student leaders in Sanders Theater, FAS Dean Michael D. Smith suggested that some FAS jobs may no longer be “necessary” in light of Harvard’s growing need to cut its budget. The understanding that some Harvard workers are unnecessary to our community is echoed by recent Harvard Crimson editorials, one of which stated, “Harvard is under no obligation to keep employees it does not need”. Both the official justification of the layoffs and the stance offered by the Harvard Crimson suggests that Harvard’s commitment to its workers is contingent on the favorableness of the economic climate.

This view is flawed in its failure to recognize Harvard’s influential role in the lives of thousands of workers and their families. By virtue of the sheer size of its staff, Harvard offers itself not only as a major source of income but also as a community to thousands of low-wage employees. Dismissing the lowest paid workers deprives many families of their only source of income and health insurance. Indeed, in a recent video aired by SLAM on YouTube, Bedardo Sola, a current worker at Harvard, said that losing his job could even have endangered the life of his daughter, whose healthcare costs depended on his salary from Harvard. Now reinstated in his former position as a result of SLAM’s advocacy, Sola need not fear for his family’s wellbeing; this, however, is not likely the case for the 30-40% of contracted workers who were recently cut from Harvard’s payroll.

Layoffs disrupt and may even ruin the lives of Harvard workers. Of course, sacrifices are inevitable in this economic climate, but through its recent budgetary decisions, Harvard has failed to give appropriate weight to the burden it is placing on its workers, many of whom need their jobs to sustain an livable conditions for their families. Yardfest, ice cream socials, extravagant faculty dinners at Annenberg, the thousands of pens and fliers from Advising Fortnight have all, among other extravagances, been prioritized over the livelihood of our staff. Moreover, as of yet, Harvard has not complied with the Cambridge City Council’s request that Harvard make cuts in the wages of high-paid academic staff and professors instead of laying off lower-wage workers, even though paying faculty at Stanford University’s rates rather than Harvard’s would save roughly $4.5 million. Though recent cuts in house budgets bode well for more equality in Harvard’s fiscal scheme, remaining extravagant practices send a clear message that in an unfavorable economic climate, low-wage workers are the first part of our community to go—even before the truly unnecessary luxuries we continue to enjoy.

To justify this backward fiscal scheme, defenders of Harvard’s budget cuts argue that the university’s primary goal is education, not job generation. We respond that in laying off workers while continuing to finance Yardfest and other indulgences, Harvard is acting irresponsibly not only as an employer, but also as an educational institution. As one Harvard Crimson editorialist observes, “our natural reaction is likely to include telling the administration to preserve undergraduate life at all costs” – but, as the Crimson writer asserts, Harvard administrators and students must resist this mentality. An undergraduate experience that is protected from the economic crisis at the expense of low-wage workers’ livelihood is not a quality educational experience, but a potentially disastrous illusion. With Harvard’s current fiscal scheme, many students are exposed to the recession only theoretically in economics classes or by reading the newspapers. By “preserving undergraduate life,” Harvard is shielding its students from an enormous global issue and in doing so is producing a class of policymakers, economists, and academics who are out of touch with one of the most important realities of our time.

To sum up, Harvard should more fairly distribute the necessary cuts to our budget in order to appropriately prioritize our staff as important members of our community and to enhance our educational experience. As it stands now, Harvard’s fiscal scheme is an embarrassment to all members of our community; one cannot help but blush at the recent report that the Cambridge City Council is trying to “shame Harvard into realizing how unnecessary and immoral low-wage worker cuts are in light of [the university’s] overall fiscal scheme” by giving Harvard a mini stimulus package. We should be concerned that the university sees our low-wage workers as “unnecessary” parts of our community in light of the continued financing of superfluous expenses such as Yardfest and the unchanged salaries of higher paid Harvard employees. Furthermore, we cannot accept the argument that these layoffs are necessary in order to maintain Harvard quality as an educational institution, for shielding students from the realities of a global issue can in no light be perceived as education. We call on Harvard to prioritize “Staff, Not Stuff,” as the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) has advocated, and to make cuts more evenly across the Harvard community. In doing so, Harvard will show adequate respect to its workers and will offer a more effective education to the policymakers, economists, and academics who will be addressing this crisis and others in the future.

According to the Crimson, about 150 female freshmen rush these three sororities every year. The Harvard Panhellenic Council, which is made up of the leadership of all three sororities, oversees the process. According to a current sorority member, the rush process consists of a week of social events hosted by each sorority. The lucky few are then invited to further events by individual sororities. And if you’re not invited? You’re out. Beyond this general description, the process remains intensely secretive. Members are forbidden from talking to anyone about sorority happenings or even the sorority’s existence at all. In fact, when asked to speak about sororities for this article, three members refused to comment. The president of one sorority wrote: “I’m afraid I cannot may any comment about sororities in general or Delta Gamma at Harvard at this time.” She did offer to release a statement, but Perspective had yet to receive it at the time of publication.

Why join a sorority? Proponents of sororities claim that they provide a new, noncompetitive opportunity to make friends. The draws include a “diverse” set of women and, well, people who are basically guaranteed to like you.

Honestly, we want to root for a new social space on campus. The existing choice among hanging out in a dorm room, going to a House-sponsored for a party or, in desperation, trekking down to MIT, can get monotonous. But we just can’t support alternative provided by sororities.

Sororities purport to even the playing field. They allow women to have the social opportunity that men already have thanks to long-established final clubs and fraternities with houses on campus. Yet, this method of equalizing social opportunities for the genders is fundamentally flawed. Due to their exclusive nature, sororities actually perpetuate gender divides in our community.

Yes, final clubs suck. But why? For starters, they are exclusive by nature: they necessarily exclude an entire half of the student population from membership. Sororities, clearly, do the same. Additionally, final clubs must be criticized for choosing to be exclusive. You must be “punched” for membership, and getting into parties can be a challenge. For those students who still bother, getting dressed up to have a shirtless guy with a penis drawn on his face assert that you are not elite enough to enter his fine institution is, at best unpleasant and at worst, extremely degrading. Ideally, sororities would present a viable alternative to this social space. However, sororities operate with the same level of exclusivity as do final clubs. In terms of membership, the image of accessibility that sororities present is largely a charade. Members readily admit that many women do not get “invited back,” which seems awfully similar to not getting “punched” for a final club. Giving girls the illusion that they are applying to sororities, as they would for a club or job, and then judging them just as a final club does, seems mean. Also, sometimes the pretense of the rush is dropped and girls are simply invited to join.
In terms of social events, we wonder whether anyone has even heard of a Kappa dance or a DG night open to all. Doubtful. Perhaps sororities are even more exclusive than final clubs themselves. Which brings us to yet another reason that final clubs suck: they are shrouded in mystery. This sounds exciting. As you know, it’s mostly just annoying. The goings-on of a final club: its membership, activities, even its location, are too important for mere mortals to know about. But do sororities try to counter that culture? Are they open, and transparent, inviting everyone to know about their workings? Hardly. One actually meets in the AD.

The question arises as to whether Harvard should change its policy toward Greek life on campus. Many state schools and southern universities, and even our own neighbor down the river, MIT, fund Greek life. Harvard not only refuses to provide funding or housing for Greek life, but it also does not permit frats or sororities to meet on campus. Title IX of the Education Amendments, written into US law in 1972, states that “No person in the United States shall judge on the basis of sex, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Although Title IX does make exceptions for universities to support sororities, Harvard chooses not to. As Harvard College dean Harry R. Lewis ’68 said to Harvard Magazine, “While I am sure their members consider them important, the Greek organizations do not add to the educational experience here in the aggregate, since they simply displace other forms of activity. A student who organizes the rush for his Greek organization is probably not going to organize things at the IOP or a choral group or his House intramural teams, too.”

We concur. There are myriad opportunities to socialize on campus. And although we may complain, we really do have a lot of options for every weekend night.

Sororities at Harvard may be different from those at other schools. But, fundamentally, sororities, just by virtue of being at Harvard, are not any better. They perpetuate a system of gender inequality. So, this month, as we celebrate the women in our community, let us celebrate them at Cultural Rhythms, at the IOP, in our classes and our entryways, not in our sororities.

The 2008 election season was a victory for African Americans on many levels.  President Obama and his family project both pride in their background and a fundamental American-ness that show people in and outside the U.S. how complex and progressive our notions of identity can be.  Obama’s accomplishment means that in spite of economic disparities, the black experience in America spans every class, profession, and level of power.  The fact that Americans as a group could choose the right person for the job, without worrying about race, shows that though the battle is not over, the mindsets of white Americans have changed in a significant way.

One chapter of the story, however, stands out in the saga of the 2008 elections, namely, the humbling of the Republican Party.  This was a great step for African Americans as well as other minorities because the electorate rejected an organization which increasingly looked like the party of intolerance, pushing the Republican establishment into a long-overdue identity crisis.

In an election cycle that persisted for a historic two years, the American people had a chance to hear more from the Republican Party than was good for the GOP.  In the primaries, the Republicans had their first warning sign.  Every Republican except for John McCain participated in a competition for the title of “most nativist.”  The usually soft-spoken Mike Huckabee aired a television ad proclaiming that Chuck Norris would be his “plan to secure the border.”  In a grueling debate, Rudy Giuliani accused Mitt Romney of having a “sanctuary mansion” and Romney responded that Giuliani had run a “sanctuary city.”  Americans, however, recognized that America’s problems could not be pinned on immigrants.  They were turned off by the coded hate speech.  Registered Republicans enthusiastically chose John McCain, the immigration moderate.

As Obama gained popularity, the McCain campaign drove itself into a corner by playing to intolerance.  Sarah Palin was presented at the RNC as the solution to all the party’s problems.  She was—that is, for a few weeks.  Then voters stopped focusing on the fact that she was a woman and noticed that she was part of the theocratic wing of the Republican Party, interested in shoving creationism down the throats of public school children and treating women who don’t follow a Christian interpretation of reproductive rights like murderers.  Pro-life candidates often alienate women as a voting bloc.  Christian fundamentalists also alienate non-Christians, no matter how much they simper about their love for Israel.  Before long, Palin became a weight on the campaign.

The most disturbing side of the McCain campaign was the attempt to “run on narrative”.  The campaign drew attention away from political issues.  What was important was that McCain was an all-American war hero and Obama was The Other—or in McCain’s words, “that one”.  The ads asking voters, “Do you know enough to elect Barack Obama?” invited our minds to run wild with ideas about Obama’s un-American loyalties.  Soon we all saw the McCain-Palin rallies on TV, where audience members shouted “kill him” and “terrorist”.  It is hardly a surprise that the American people as a whole had had enough.

Republicans agonized over their losses: a governor, eight senate seats, twenty-one house seats, the presidency, and electoral control of nine states.  According to a now infamous January Gallup poll, the Republican Party had only retained solid control in Alaska and Mormon country, where there has never been concern over the separation of church and state.  The similarly infamous New York Times election results map showed that the only areas where McCain did better than Bush did four years ago were his home state of Arizona and the so-called “bigot belt,” stretching from northern Texas through Arkansas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, and part of West Virginia.  Had the GOP become a regional party?

Voters were responding to something fundamentally distasteful about the Republican Party, which was brought into view by McCain’s ads, Palin’s rhetoric, and the xenophobic conspiracy-theorists  they attracted.  The Republican Party is run by conservatives.  Conservatives wish to conserve—they look to the status quo or the past for inspiration, whether they evoke Reagan or the Founding Fathers.  On the other hand, liberals generally think the past held good ideas but many despicable actions.  By nature, they do best when their rhetoric is future-oriented.  Hence hope and change.

Much of the American national past is only appealing to what Bill O’Reilly might call the “white, Christian, male power structure.”  For African Americans, the past brings memories of busing crises, segregation, and slavery.  For Latinos and Latin Americans, it is the Monroe Doctrine imperialism of Theodore Roosevelt and Reagan.  For independent-minded women, it is the oppression of aprons, corsets, and back-alley abortions.  LGBT Americans remember sodomy laws in the 1990s and the still-raging conflicts over the legitimacy of their relationships.  

From the introduction of the Southern Strategy in 1968—Nixon’s plan of picking up the South by appealing to segregationists—the Republican Party’s subtext has been racially charged.  They attack affirmative action as well as welfare and healthcare programs that bring dignity to people in underprivileged communities who, because of lingering disparities, are still very often people of color.  The Republicans encourage the gun lobby and gun manufacturers, who stand to profit from violence between young people, again often Latinos and African Americans.  They may frame these issues in whatever light they choose, but the Republicans continue to cater to white people on issues that benefit white people—often at the expense of the other thirty percent of Americans.

In a step to move forward, the Republicans have chosen Michael Steele, the former Lieutenant Governor of Maryland and an African American, as their new national chairman.  This said, Chairman Steele makes regular public statements, giving the orthodox party line.  Meanwhile, Republicans have not agreed on whether to drift to the center or stick to their right-wing guns—all they can agree on is that they do not like the bailout, and would rather solve the economic crisis with tax cuts.  A Herbert Hoover-oriented approach to recession and choosing Michael Steele will not be enough to save the Republican Party and make them a party for all Americans.  They need to stop looking at the past and start looking at the future.  And that will be a fundamental change.

In September 2006, when the class of 2010 streamed into the Science Center for the mandatory “Sex Signals” presentation, they were accosted by a horde of Burberry-wearing, Andover Shoppe-frequenting upperclassmen handing out pink slips of paper.  The fliers contained a list of reasons to wait to have sex until marriage, among them, “Because married sex is hotter” and “Because Jessica Simpson waited, too.”  There is, alas, no accurate estimate of the number of Harvard students who have chosen to take the chaste road, other than the number of students handing out said fliers, who ironically numbered sixty-nine.  In the interests of presenting a balanced perspective (pun intended), we humbly offer an alternative, hopefully preferable, view: our ten favorite reasons not to wait until marriage.

1. Because the condoms won’t be free forever.  Harvard might be expensive, but at least you know your parents’ money is going to a good cause: free condoms, lube, and dental dams at the Women’s Center, the Resource Center, the Contact office, and every house.  But don’t get too used to it – when you graduate and get out in the real world, you’ll have to pay for your own safe-sex supplies.  So be fiscally responsible, and take advantage of the freebies while you can.

2. Because your boyfriend might get quadded.  Freshpeople, already found a significant other?  Good for you – but take it from us, it might not last.  Survey data reveal that a full 30% of freshman relationships at Harvard end when one partner is assigned to a river house and the other is relegated to the quad.  Non-survey data reveal that walking to the quad is worse than the colonoscopy you can look forward to twenty years from now.  Don’t let this happen to you – take advantage of your proximity while you still can!

3. Because it will answer all of your questions.  There’s what we know we know, what we know we don’t know, and what we don’t know we don’t know. Where do you fall? Remember when you had to take your questions about sex to your parents, your big brother, your gym teacher or that anatomy textbook you nicked from the Medical School library thinking it would teach you the basics but really just edified you about the three major nerves penetrating the left-kidney-fallopian-tube-neuroendocrine axis?  Save yourself the embarrassed questions, awkward responses, and uninvited med school detour; take the “hands (and everything but your clothes) on” approach.

4. Because it will answer all of our questions.  The arrival of the telematic age raises profound, largely unresolved quandaries of academic interest pertaining to mankind’s oldest passion: If you lose your virginity to the Japanese-engineered Kawada HRP-2 Humanoid Helper Robot, does it still count? If you bang at the speed of sound, can you still hear Sarah Palin trying to coherently answer a question? If you have sex in the woods and no one is around to hear it, will Fred Thompson finally get a round of applause? Investigate these and other sextacular conundrums, and let us know.

5. Because we’re in a recession.  According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, the U.S. economy has been in a recession since December 2007; economists predict that the recession will last at least until the end of the year. When even the porn industry is asking for a bailout, you know it’s time to take drastic action – and by that we mean get some drastic action.  In the spirit of saving America from an unrestrained, meteoric descent into the toilet of chaos, give the economy a little boost with a “stimulus package” of your own.

6. Because you can’t get married.  If you’re not willing to at least pretend that you’re heterosexual, “abstinence until marriage” is particularly difficult. In fact, there’s no guarantee that you’ll ever be able to get legally married.  Thirty states have passed constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, and 37 have “defense of marriage acts” on the books.  So unless you’re planning to permanently reside in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Canada, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, or a state of denial, don’t gamble away your sex life waiting for a marriage that might not be legal for decades. (The cost of publishing this paragraph is covered in part by the estates of Ted Haggard and former Senator Larry Craig).

7. Because the MAC is far away.  Sex burns 240 calories an hour, about as much as a match of championship-caliber intramural badminton. Folks, this is the kind of endurance your significant other wants you to build (they don’t care how long, fast and hard you can whack that … shuttlecock). Plus, sex doesn’t require you to buy running shoes, find workout clothes, or take the cold walk to the gym.  Instead, get your exercise indoors and make a new friend while you’re at it. Heck, you might even make more than one.

8. Because weddings are expensive.  The average American wedding costs close to $24,000, which is almost what we pay to spend a week here. Waiting until marriage means waiting until you can afford that much, or marrying an iBanker who can – and between student loans and the collapse of the financial sector, neither of those is likely to happen anytime soon.

9. Because it’s environmentally friendly.  Headed out for a night on the town? Perhaps dinner and a movie? Think you’re saving gas by taking the T instead of driving? Well, if you’ve been reading the latest EPA reports, you clearly need to try a lot harder. Consider not going out at all; stay in, make your own dinner, and get busy like it’s 1978. You’ll thank us after you spare yourself a ticket to the film industry’s latest overtly commercialized bourgeoisie consumer spectacle feigning empathy with the Other.

10. Because sex, unlike the Presidency, gets better with experience.  The historic campaigns of Barack Obama, Sarah Palin, Fred Thompson, Mike Gravel and Roger Waite aside, we urge you to support the experience ticket for your next (or first) encounter of the dirtay kind.