Israel Doesn't Get a Free Pass, but Anti-Semitism Doesn't Either

For some, criticizing Israel is equated with being an anti-Semite. Just the other day, someone on my social media called the world “anti-Semitic” and claimed that rather than paying attention to what Israel is doing, people should focus on Bashar Al-Assad in Syria and the Islamic State in Iraq. This rhetoric is not uncommon.

What’s going on in Iraq and Syria is not only deplorable, but shouldn’t be ignored either. Nonetheless, just because horrific things are taking place in other parts of the Middle East as well doesn’t give Israel carte blanche to do as it pleases.

The reason much of the world is captivated by Gaza is because one of the most advanced armies in the world is engaged with guerilla forces and not an actual army, a discrepancy that is resulting in humanitarian devastation on the Palestinian side.

But that’s not all.

Much of the condemnation of Israel is rooted in the fact its government prides itself on being the “only democracy in the Middle East” (I will leave that debate up to the reader). It is that very premise people across the globe find themselves transfixed by the crisis that unfolded in Gaza, resulting in 70-80% civilian causalities, according to the United Nations. On top of that, with the United States giving $3 billion in annual aid to Israel and providing the ammunition that caused those deaths, it leaves room to critique where American taxpayers dollars go.

Regardless of where you are from, there is a higher standard held for countries within our reach and particularly if they are perceived as a beacon of freedom. As Haaretz’s senior columnist Peter Beinart notes, “We all intuitively understand the rationale for focusing on those offenses over which we have more control, even if they are not the most egregious. If that weren’t the case, how could an American justify focusing her attention on the misdeeds of the government of the United States?”

People across the spectrum expect more from these so-called democracies and have every right to criticize, regardless of the religiosity of one’s government.

The Right To Criticize

The irony of being labeled an “anti-Semite” for criticizing Israel is that it calls itself a democracy and one of the most fundamental ideals of having that title is freedom of expression. If anything, it is imperative to be critical of a state’s action. By doing so, you point out its flaws with the hope it will improve its standing in the world and the conditions of its people.

When the Israeli left in the Knesset criticizes their own country, does that make them an anti-Semite? When Israelis protest the war on Gaza, does that make them anti-Semites? When soldiers refuse to serve in the Israeli army because of what’s happening, does that make them an anti-Semites?

Journalist Laurie Penny says it best,

“It is not anti-Semitic to suggest that Israel doesn’t get a free pass to kill whoever it likes in order to feel ‘safe’. It is not anti-Semitic to point out that if what Israel needs to feel ‘safe’ is to pen the Palestinian people in an open prison under military occupation, the state’s definition of safety might warrant some unpacking. And it is not anti-Semitic to say that this so-called war is one in which only one side actually has an army.”

Penny takes it a step further:

It is not hate speech to reiterate the wild disparity in casualties… To speak of proportionality is not to call, as at least one silverback columnist has claimed, for ‘more dead Jews’.

Having that been said, even the Anti-Defamation League points out the following:

Certainly the sovereign State of Israel and its government can be legitimately criticized just like any other country or government in the world. Criticism of particular Israeli actions or policies — even harsh and strident criticism and advocacy — in and of itself does not constitute anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism, A Fine Line

While criticizing Israel certainly isn’t anti-Semitic, it is important to note there is a fine line to cross when some begin equating Zionism — a nationalistic movement — with Judaism — an Abrahamic religion — in an effort to show support for Palestine and specifically Gaza during this politically charged time.

As we speak, there are solidarity with Gaza protests taking place in various parts of the world. However, there is an aspect of these protests that needs to be carefully assessed. If you’re out protesting the Gaza war and chanting “Jews to the gas chambers” or “death to the Jews” and resorting to violence towards any Jewish person — essentially unable to differentiate between Zionism and Judaism — I hate to break it, but you’re an anti-Semite and horrible human being.

By targeting members of the Jewish community — regardless of their stance on Israel — demonstrates one’s ignorance of history and current events. You’re not only resorting to anti-Semitism, whether you are verbally or physically hurting the Jewish people, but you’re taking it a step further by dragging those who are against the war on Gaza with you. This is one of the most destructive things to the Palestinian struggle than anything else. By being hateful and ignorant, you’re hurting the Palestinians and their supporters. It is these very actions the public points to obstruct support for the Palestinian people.

Criticize Israel all you want, but don’t resort to anti-Semitism to express your frustration at Israel’s wrongdoings.

Microsoft's Snipp3t App Helps You Virtually Stalk Celebrities

Microsoft's Snipp3t App Helps You Virtually Stalk Celebrities

On Saturday, Microsoft pulled the cover off of Snipp3t. This free iOS app looks a lot like any other endlessly scrolling news reader, but it doesn’t aggregate based on trending topics, specific outlets, or Facebook friend “likes.” It’s completely based on people.

Read more…



Disney tech auto-edits your raw footage into watchable video

More and more people are starting to record their daily lives, whether by traditional video cams or first-person live-loggers attached to glasses, headsets, necklaces or even handbags. Since a group of people (say, at a party) are bound to capture…

Amazon Unhinged

Amazon’s e-book pricing dispute with Hachette raises a myriad of fascinating issues. These include important questions, such as, “Should retailers be able to dictate suicidal business terms to their suppliers?” and “Now that Amazon is retaliating against Hachette by threatening authors’ livelihoods, how is it any different from a crime syndicate?”

The dispute illustrates that Amazon, which made books the centerpiece of its gargantuan retail business, doesn’t actually care about them. Amazon’s ruthless business practices, which seem designed to drive commercial publishers out of business, raise the dystopian horror of a world in which all of literature will be replaced by the self-published novels of wingnut bloggers.

(For the record, I have nothing against the self-published novels of wingnut bloggers. I am only saying that we should be able to enjoy the self-published novels of wingnut bloggers along with other forms of creative writing, including the high-concept, well designed literary treasures regularly turned out by the big five publishing houses.)

But one aspect of the dispute is particularly fascinating: The crazy tone and content of Amazon’s public statements.

Amazon doesn’t like to open its mouth. Back in May, it removed pre-order buttons from Hachette titles, and slowed delivery of Hachette books, without telling anyone. After the New York Times reported the story, Amazon still refused to comment. “We talk when we have something to say,” Jeff Bezos told Times reporter David Streitfeld at the company’s annual meeting.

Four days later, Amazon published a message on its website about the dispute, and the world learned why Amazon is so reticent to speak in public. It is because when it does, it sounds like your drunk crazy uncle, the one who waves a loaded shotgun around the living room on Thanksgiving.

(Again, nothing against drunk crazy uncles waving loaded shotguns, etc.)

Amazon’s May 27 press release began by disingenuously characterizing its refusal to timely ship Hachette titles as having to do with some sort of change in inventory management policies. The authorial tone of the release was basically, “We’ll send your Hachette titles when we get around to it.” Amazon had apparently decided that the best tone for its publicity campaign would be that of the surly cashier who can’t be troubled to ring up your pack of gum so you can leave the store. The press release also made Amazon’s dispute with Hachette sound pedestrian, when Amazon was demanding terms so one-sided they would make Hachette’s business unsustainable.

This past weekend, Amazon released its second public statement about its dispute with Hachette. The essay appears on a website called “Readers United.” In its latest statement, Amazon goes full-on crazy. The new press release makes the first one look like the Gettysburg Address.

The most embarrassing aspect of the “Readers United” statement is that, as the New York Times noted, it misquotes George Orwell. Amazon quotes Orwell to say, in 1936, that if publishers had any sense they would combine to block the sales of cheap paperbacks. What he really said was that the books were so splendid that if publishers had any sense they would combine against them. Orwell wasn’t raising his voice against paperbacks, he was celebrating them.

Orwell went on to make a point that is fatal to Amazon’s case: Cheap books are great for readers, but bad for everyone else in the book business. Bad for writers, editors, publishers, and booksellers. It’s the same point Hachette is making.

If you are a cartel trying to pass for a book person, you can’t do much worse than misquote George Orwell, especially when what he actually said eviscerates your case.

But there may be an even greater historical mistake in Amazon’s claim that publishers fought the introduction of paperbacks: It doesn’t seem to be true.

I searched Google to find any mention of opposition to paperback books when they were introduced in London by Allen Lane under the Penguin imprint in 1936, or when they were introduced in the U.S. in 1939. I couldn’t find any references to this fact. Smithsonian Magazine‘s historical piece on the introduction of the paperback tells only a glowing tale of Allen Lane rescuing the book industry from the depression by producing an inexpensive product that consumers loved. It notes that he had to start the Penguin imprint with his own capital, but that hardly counts as the publishing establishment “circling the wagons” as Amazon claims. The Smithsonian article goes on to note that paperbacks were proudly carried by British and U.S. soldiers in World War II.

A similar article on Mental Floss says only that some American publishers were “skeptical,” and that the publisher employing Robert De Graf, who introduced pocket books in the U.S., made him moderate his hyperbole in initial advertisements for them. An article on the history of the paperback on the website for the Independent Online Booksellers Association tells a similar story. Again, nothing about anyone circling any wagons.

I’m not a historian. If there is a source for Amazon’s claim, I welcome comments pointing it out. But it appears to be made up. Like the twisted words Amazon put in George Orwell’s mouth, it is most likely a piece of corporate propaganda.

Amazon’s statement is full of other head scratchers. It makes a nonsense comparison between e-books and paperbacks, for example. This will take only a little bit of explaining, so bear with me. Paperbacks, we are told, sold for 25 cents when they were first introduced. Hardbacks, on the other hand, sold for $2.50. Movie tickets were 10 or 20 cents. Publishers, Amazon tells us, opposed the new and cheaper paperbacks. Cue out-of-context George Orwell quote, and that’s pretty much where Amazon’s argument ends. Once upon a time, a cheaper alternative to hardbacks arrived on the scene, and publishers fought them.

It’s hard to see where Amazon thinks this logic is supposed to lead. Forget that the facts upon which it is based may be contrived, and that the analogy isn’t perfect, because no one needed to invest the 1939 equivalent of $70 ($4.08) to read a paperback. Instead, keep in mind that the pocket books introduced in the United States in 1939 were the equivalent of today’s mass-market paperbacks. The 1939 price, adjusted for inflation, would be $4.29 today. Today, however, mass market paperbacks sell for between $5 and $10. In other words, their price has outpaced inflation. Not only that, publishers now market higher quality trade paperbacks, which sell for between $15 and $19, or two to four times as much as mass market paperbacks.

If the story of the paperback proves anything, it’s that publishers may introduce new and less expensive formats at lower prices to gain market share, but they eventually have to increase prices (above and beyond inflation) to make their business sustainable. This is exactly what Hachette and its competitors want to do with e-books: raise the price from $10 to around $15 so they can collect enough profit to say afloat.

You can reach the same conclusion by updating the comparison to movie prices. In 1939, paperback prices (25 cents) were 25% higher than the price of a movie ticket (20 cents). Today, a movie ticket costs $12. Twenty-five percent more than that would be $15, again, what Hachette wants to charge for e-books.

This adventure in math begs an obvious question: Who is Amazon to dictate to Hachette and other publishers how much they should charge? How could Amazon know Hachette’s business better than Hachette? What right does it have to burden Hachette with its ignorance or its greed?

There are other ridiculous claims in Amazon’s “Readers United” statement. It recites a line — “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme” — that is often mis-attributed to Mark Twain and that doesn’t actually make any sense. What does it even mean to say that history often uses two words at the end of a line that have different meaning but sound alike? It repeats its mistaken Orwell quote, and even scolds the great writer for his suggestion that book publishers monopolize to quash the paperback.

Yes, this is how Amazon thinks about literary history. It imagines George Orwell in a silk suit leaning into the ear of one of Penguin’s competitors and saying, “I say, old boy. Here’s what you should do: form an illegal monopoly to stamp out these frightful pocket books. Soldiers are even carrying them into battle. The situation is right out of hand.”

There are a score of arguments to be made against Amazon’s stand in its dispute with Hachette, but I think the strongest one may be this: Amazon and Hachette are fighting to stand at the gates of literary culture. One of them is a prestigious publisher with a long history of issuing popular titles that, over time, become literary classics.

The other one, apparently, can’t write its way out of a paper bag.

Former Boxing Promoter Frank Maloney Having Sex Change

LONDON (AP) — Former boxing promoter Frank Maloney announced in a newspaper interview Sunday that he is undergoing a sex change.

The 61-year-old Maloney, who guided Lennox Lewis to the world heavyweight title in the 1990s, told Britain’s Sunday Mirror newspaper that he is now living as a woman under the name Kellie.

The twice-married Maloney ended his illustrious career last October and told the paper he has been undergoing hormone treatment for two years in preparation for a sex change operation.

“I was born in the wrong body and I have always known I was a woman,” Maloney was quoted as saying by the Mirror. “I can’t keep living in the shadows. That is why I am doing what I am today. Living with the burden any longer would have killed me.

“What was wrong at birth is now being medically corrected. I have a female brain. I knew I was different from the minute I could compare myself to other children. I wasn’t in the right body. I was jealous of girls.”

Maloney said his boxing career helped bring in enough money to walk away from the sport and live a new life as a woman.

“It was something that I was determined to suppress and keep wrapped up because I didn’t want to be seen different,” Maloney said in a video interview published on the Mirror website.

“(Boxing) took up all of my time. It gave me a complete focus. It was something I thought I had to be successful in because I thought if I failed in that, where do I go?”

Reagan's Magical Mystery… According to Ron Reagan, Rick Perlstein, Lou Cannon

2014-05-05-BothSides_WebsiteBanner_728x90_041421.jpg

LISTEN HERE:

By Mark Green

Ron Reagan and Ron Christie discuss clashing portrayals of Ronald Reagan — Perlstein’s smart, shrewd charmer (The Invisible Bridge) and Cannon’s under-informed racantour (Reagan: The Role of a Lifetime). Consensus: he was a shrewd fabulist. And on the 40th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation, both Rons lament the Watergate-ization of politics but disagree who’s the better president — RN or BO.

On Perlstein on Nixon. On the 40th anniversary of Nixon’s resignation and publication week of Rick Perlstein’s epic, readable The Invisible Bridge: The Fall of Nixon and the Rise of Reagan, the Rons are asked how such a corrupt guy could ever have gotten elected and how the Watergate scandal reverberates still in our politics.

Christie is unapologetic about RN’s skills and record, as he grew in stature from the Navy to House to Senate to Vice President and then a twice-elected President, highlighting accomplishments from the EPA to opening of China. Ok, except for the play, Mrs. Lincoln… Christie then allows that while “a person of character, largely”, Nixon embodied the Lord Acton aphorism that ” absolute power corrupts absolutely.” “Though he didn’t know about the break-in and bugging beforehand,” Christie concludes, “he did know about and participate in the cover-up — you can’t get away with that.”

Ron Reagan generously notes that all presidents have some dark sides that aren’t known before or during their terms, including Lincoln’s intermittent depression. We agree that, in today’s cable/social world, it’s unlikely that probably our greatest president could have gotten elected (see Eagleton). Christie adds that FDR hid his disability and immobility as JFK did his sexual misconduct… but this “era of innocence” ended on August 8, 1974 when the relationships of the press, public and president permanently changed.

Ron Reagan adds two salient points: first, today’s corruption is not as graphic and criminal as Watergate since big money super PACs are a form of corrupt institutionalized bribery; second, the over-use of “Obama’s Watergate” defines deviancy down and cheapens political discourse since nothing has recently occurred remotely like Watergate — when 29 aides including two attorneys general, went to jail. Christie agrees, saying it’s ideologically and intellectually lazy to add a “-gate” to every controversy in order to simultaneously exonerate Nixon and tar Obama.

On Perlstein on Reagan.

For his first time, Ron Reagan on the show discusses his father in the context of how the president’s stories weren’t always accurate but aspired to a “larger truth,” how he exploited racial tensions in his 1980 presidential race, and whether “Reaganism can survive without Reagan.”

We listen to Perlstein’s trenchant comments on NPR’s Fresh Air that our 40th president engaged in a “liturgy of absolution” appealing to the patriotic self-regard of millions of Americans, and could take the temperature of the audience in a way that reflected a special brilliance. But how does that portrayal square with Lou Cannon’s version of Reagan as an amiable dunce, an under-informed storyteller?

Answers his son:

He was a very intelligent man who wrote his own speeches early as governor and edited all of them. His deficiency, as it was, were his powerful emotions that could influence his thinking and deny realities that others saw. Like the way he never broke with Nixon over Watergate because he couldn’t believe that someone he knew and liked could do something like that.

Ron adds that the factual mistakes biographers and books have documented [see Reagan’s Reign of Error (Pantheon, 1985 and 1988) by the Host and Gail McColl] were in pursuit of his attempt to tell a larger morale and truth. Or as my book concluded, he made a lot of stuff up but could pass a lie detector test.

What about the way that Governor Reagan and then-President Nixon surfed the wave of anti-student and then anti-minority backlash in the 60s and 70s, which proved cornerstones of their electoral victories? Christie maintains that both parties did that in the 60s. Which was true when Southern Dixiecrats were part of the Democratic coalition but, once white Southerners moved en masse to the GOP after the Civil Rights Acts, the Nixon-Phillips-Buchanan “Southern Strategy” became largely the home of one party.

The Host agrees that no one who knew Ronald Reagan has ever said he demonstrated any racial animus but, wonders his son candidly, “why did he kickoff his 1980 presidential campaign in Nachez, Mississippi talking about states rights?

Hamas, Abbas, ISIS, Netanyahu, I never got to ask him. Presumably his advisors thought it a good idea but it was an obvious play for angry white southerners.”

Last: his indisputable charm bonded him to many voters to an extent that he was far more popular than his policies. Can Reaganism today survive without a Music Man to sell them? Ron Christie vigorously insists the answer is yes because President Reagan’s character and principles endure to inspire folks still. Ron Reagan has a different view: “What remains really of what’s called Reaganism? The Moral Majority of the Nixon-Reagan years has become the Tea Party of today. And can someone explain how the traditional Republican Party of big business and banks has now become the party that denies evolution and climate change and thinks it a good idea to allow guns in kindergarten classrooms?”

On Israel-Hamas. We speak between cease-fires after Hamas violated the first 72 hours one with a rain of rockets. While world opinion is against Israel and only marginally in favor in the U.S., what else can Israel really do? Ron Reagan argues that, while today Hamas is a terrorist organization devoted to eradicating Israel, Hamas thinks the same thing in reverse about Israel… and that at some point Netanyahu has to work harder with Abbas for a two-state solution to avoid endless wars generating new generations of Arabs seeking revenge.

On Obama-ISIS. Oh the irony! A president who won office running against the “dumb war” in Iraq was forced by circumstance into going back in with a specific airlift and air attacks. Did he thread the needle? Christie argues no because of a weak and shifting policy that failed in Syria and encouraged ISIS. What? There was no al Qaeda or ISIS in Iraq until Bush43 invaded and occupied the country… not to mention that Iraq’s government wouldn’t allow the U.S. to keep a residual force of troops there after our promised pull back in 2011.

Says Ron Reagan: “Why is it that we’re the only ones who come in to save the beacon of the Arab World which also fears ISIS? The Saudis have billions at their disposal — where are they?”

Odds of some American troops having to go back in despite Obama’s protestations? Christie: 50/50. Reagan: No.

Mark Green is the creator and host of Both Sides Now.

You can follow him on Twitter @markjgreen

Send all comments to Bothsidesradio.com, where you can also listen to prior shows.

2013-04-22-PREMIERElogo.png

2014-02-10-BSBTUNEIN.jpg

Both Sides Now is available
Sat. 5-6 PM EST From Lifestyle TalkRadio Network
& Sun. 8-9 AM EST from Business RadioTalk Network.

2014-03-03-BizTalk_Logo1.jpg

Here's How Hackers Can Make the Most Money Off Stolen Credit Cards

Here's How Hackers Can Make the Most Money Off Stolen Credit Cards

Wealth management is all about reinvestment and diversification. You can’t just sit on billions of stolen login credentials , or credit card numbers, and expect to magically build equity. Do you want to be pushing 70 and still haggling over zero-day exploits in some Czech darknet forum? Good. Now: Listen to the pros.

Read more…


What Is the Weirdest Gadget You've Ever Seen?

What Is the Weirdest Gadget You've Ever Seen?

This week we’ve witnessed some weird wearables. First, was the SexFit (pictured above), which—as I’m sure the form factor gives away—is a wearable to help quantify a man’s sexual prowess. Then, we saw the Sproutling Baby Monitor, a health tracker for infants.

Read more…



Iraqi PM Maliki Accuses President Of Violating The Constitution

BAGHDAD, Aug 10 (Reuters) – Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki indicated that he will not drop his bid for a third term and accused the president of violating the constitution in a tough televised speech likely to deepen political tensions as a Sunni insurgency rages.

Maliki, seen as an authoritarian and sectarian leader, has defied calls by Sunnis, Kurds, some fellow Shi’ites and regional power broker Iran to step aside for a less polarizing figure who can unite Iraqis against Islamic State militants. (Reporting by Ahmed Rasheed; Editing by Sandra Maler; writing by Michael Georgy)

The Randomest, Awesomest Things That Make College Students Happy

What makes you happy in college?

We reached out to college students across the country asking this very question, and here’s what we got in response:

Late-Night Jam Sessions

Sometimes after a night out (or in), my friends and I will come together in our living room and have impromptu sing-alongs, busting out the guitars and ukuleles in our house and singing songs at the top of our lungs. Our neighbors may not appreciate it as much as we do, but there’s something about live tunes at ungodly hours that puts us all to bed with smiles on our faces.

https://soundcloud.com/sarahlindstedt
-Sarah Lindstedt, University of Pennsylvania, Class of 2015

Freedom To Explore

What makes me happy in college is the freedom and opportunity to explore my interests either by joining clubs or enrolling in courses that I would otherwise not have had the chance to do. Unlike in high school where a majority of the courses you take are compulsory, in college you have the freedom to choose more courses that interest you and be able to study what you love. From fitness classes to organizations and events on campus, college provides a variety of opportunities to gain new skills and meet like-minded at the same time.
-Marsha Pinto, University of Toronto, Class of 2016

Shopping

-Skylar Dixon, Georgia Southern University, Class of 2015

julia
-Julia Musto, New York University, Class of 2015

A ‘Fun’ Class

Just before I graduated from college a year ago, the real world seemed pretty daunting. I only had a few classes left, so I decided to step out of my comfort zone and take a “fun” class — Intro to Painting. Waking up at 8 a.m. for a three-hour class twice a week isn’t ideal during you last few months of school, but I found those six hours so peaceful that I began painting on the weekends and have now made it a hobby in my adult life. It became a form of therapy where I can be creative and have a tangible product from my long hours of hard work — and it’s definitely a cheaper and more colorful way to decorate my new apartment.

-Jessica Kane, Northwestern University, Class of 2013

‘Nuff Said

Pizza.
-Melissa Andrews, Marist College, Class of 2015

Cookies

Happiness to me is these cookies.

Joy of Cooking Peanut Butter Cookies:
Preheat oven to 375
Beat until soft – ½ c shortening or butter
Add ½ c packed brown sugar and ½ c granulated sugar
Beat in 1 egg; 1 c peanut butter; ½ t salt; ½ t baking soda; ½ t vanilla
Add 1 to 1 ½ c flour
Roll dough into small balls Bake 10 to 12 min.
-Kendall Ciesemier, Georgetown University, Class of 2015

Midnight Cheesesteak

Pretty trees on ugly streets; a fraternity in the Christmas Spirit; flowers in the midst of textbooks; dorm room decor; midnight cheesesteak outings; the ice cream man during finals.

Photos taken by Whitney Mash:
underrated

underrated

underrated

underrated

underrated

underrated
-Whitney Mash, University of Pennsylvania, Class of 2014

Spirit Of Positivity

I consider myself really lucky to be involved in orientation programming for new students at my school. We spend eight days welcoming new students from all 50 states and tons of countries around the world, and they’re the best eight days of the year. All 220 orientation leaders volunteer out of a genuine love for all 2,200 freshmen and transfer students, the university and helping other people. There is a spirt of wonderful positivity in the air when everyone is coming together to welcome the next batch of incredible new students to campus. We have the opportunity to make a positive change for the next people to care for our community, and we definitely leave things better than we found them. It makes me happy to be reminded of how much good my university can do for our students, and I’m constantly inspired by the students and staff that I work with.
-Jon Feldman, Northwestern University, Class of 2015

Ratatat

It’s worth listening to the whole thing, but especially at 3:35!

-Eliza Sankar-Gorton, Wesleyan University, Class of 2015

Cleaning

-Hannah Krueger, Southern Utah University, Class of 2017

Macaroni Union

This amazing song — it’s the perfect track when you need to calm down. And this short and simple video by gay life coach, Jordan Bach:

-Andy C. NG, New York University, Class of 2015

Netflix Marathons

-Katie Duguid

Living Close To Friends

In college, what made me happy was that all my friends and I lived super close to each other, and our open schedules made it easy to chill whenever, wherever and however.
-Sara Ouerfelli, McGill University, Class of 2014