If our great nation didn’t have such a burning desire for affordable electronics, these members of a civilization who built one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen would be absolutely helpless — the entire country would be adrift.

We have stepped up and handed our fellow humans an unprecedented opportunity to avoid the misery that would certainly otherwise befall them — the chance to make cell phones for us.

Some bleeding hearts are under the impression that there is a way for a nation to succeed without a period of explosive, unregulated industrialization.

That, to me, is absurd. Every country should follow the Western model of overstimulated growth in order to achieve some modicum of respectability.

Sure, it is a continuing cause of fundamental issues, such as worker rights, global warming and a food and pharmaceutical industry that value profit over the customers they ostensibly serve, but in my book these are a small prices to pay for the unhindered economic prosperity we currently enjoy.

Some have described conditions at Chinese manufacturing plants including Foxconn and Wintek as horrible and the labor slave-like, but let me remind readers that those frequent 18-hour shifts are paid. And the working conditions, as I think you’ll agree, are far from horrible.

The work isn’t even that hard. It’s simply making one repetitive motion on small pieces of machinery every day; I had endless amounts of fun playing with Legos as a child, and I believe it’s a very similar task.

In addition, the factories are state-of-the-art, with everything made to be as efficient and simple as possible.

In fact, when the screen-cleaning alcohol wasn’t evaporating quickly enough, the plant owners did some quick thinking and brought in hexane, which shaved seconds off the assembly process. Sure, it’s a neurotoxin that causes headaches, nausea and a touch of peripheral nervous system failure, but for anyone who falls victim to it, there’s a long line of eager workers excited to take their place.

And of course, efficiency makes more money, and money is the only way to better ourselves, so I’m sure the now-crippled workers understand.

One of the most attractive aspects of sweatshop labor is that it’s a family affair. Almost anyone over 12 years old can get a job and discover the many joys of being an active participant in the economic workplace, alongside their parents, assuming neither has died or become too crippled to work yet.

Then, once everyone clocks out, they can take their earnings for their day, maybe enough to buy a couple bowls of rice, and have a nice family picnic by the river. As they sit and look at the beautiful, vibrant hues of red and yellow their employer has considerately pumped in, they will be able to contemplate how fortunate they are to take part in the building of a superpower.

And also cellphones.

Now, you would think the Chinese workers would be singing America’s praises at this point, but no, they simply shuffle around, dead-eyed and ungrateful. A few even have the audacity to commit suicide, claiming their lives are unbearably miserable and they have no hope for any future other than constant labor.

Enough workers have these constant cases of the Mondays that some plants have had to erect nets around the factories to catch these lazy individuals before they hit the ground.

If only they were to read Mr. Lynch’s opinion, they would understand the unending, dangerous tedium that fills their days is actually saving them from a much more horrifying existence — one with a more expensive iPhone.

Wesley K. Pelletier is a fourth-year English student.

I moodily gazed into my favorite sweet, ruby, $3 Tisdale treat and suddenly was hit by a bolt of association inspiration. Liquors, wines and beers, oh my! The amount of money my compatriots and I spend on booze certainly merits some sustainability scrutiny.

My love affair with cheap wine started in France, where I desecrated the country by buying the 5-liter-for-5-euros plastic jug of wine. The habit has continued here where, for my own economic and “SOCial” sustainability, I buy three Tisdale and Carlo Rossi jugs for $10.

But are these choices sustainable in other ways? How do I even evaluate these choices? Is organic my only option?

Turns out, like most things sustainability related, it is a bit more complicated. Water use, waste disposal, energy use, pest management, chemical use, employee treatment, transportation and packaging are the big elements of what makes a sustainable winery, brewery or distillery — but each business is unique and has its own strengths and weaknesses, so rankings are a bit hard to figure out.

In terms of beer and liquor, you have to take the companies’ word for it on their reduced water use or waste recycling. These factors have huge effects, but it is a growing trend in the industry to be more eco-friendly because it is also economically friendly.

Even Anheuser-Busch claims it has decreased its water use by 34 percent and recycles its brewery waste. It won’t make too much of a difference in my choices, because I know how easily statistics are mangled and practices get “greenwashed.”

If I’m going to change my drinking habits, I want to know I’m having an effect, and the best way to do that is to reduce the distance or “booze miles” my drinks traveled and to make different packaging choices.

According to an analysis by sustainability consultant and wine economist Pablo Päster, despite the bigger environmental effects of producing aluminum — in terms of water use and greenhouse gas emissions — the overall weight of glass bottles increases the climate effect of glass bottles over cans.

If you want to reduce your “booze miles” and your packaging impact immediately, you should walk down to the Black Bear Brewery and grab a growler you can return for reuse after drinking. It is the hat trick of beers — economically good for the community, environmentally responsible and the social benefits are fairly obvious, especially on Thursdays.

A similar story can be seen concerning hard liquor with Twenty 2 and Cold River Vodka — and now gin — which are locally made. Although they are a bit more expensive than Orloff, you can pass out easy with the knowledge that you’re making Maine a better place, and at least not hurting the Earth as you are your head.

If whiskey is your thing, your best bet is Maker’s Mark. Most whiskey is kind of wasteful just by virtue of the boutique way the liquor is made and aged, but Maker’s has more going for it than just that sexy red wax.

According to the blog Inhabitat, “Maker’s Mark Distillery functions on less than 200 of its 620 acres of land. The remaining land is operated as a nature preserve, where Maker’s Mark houses its own Arboretum of Kentucky native species on-site. But what makes Maker’s Mark truly unique is its energy production facility that recycles the byproducts of the distillation process.”

Back to my cup. Is Tisdale sustainable? There are certainly other choices — like buying boxed wine for better packaging or visiting Winterport Winery to pick up some fruit wine. I’ve worked at an organic winery in Franklin, so I have a pretty good idea of my local options. But, as I’ve said — I’m poor and $10-15 is not sustainable for me.

Tisdale, it turns out, is a subsidiary of Gallo Wines, which also produces some of my other favorites — Carlo and Andre. They are in California, and their CEO is the current chairman of the Sustainable Winegrowing Alliance.

They are active in encouraging self-evaluations, gathering data and providing workshops to fill knowledge gaps. They have a pretty good reason to pursue sustainability as well. Water and energy scarcity are major problems in California and some climate predictions would put the entire California wine industry out of business because of a shift in favorable grape-growing conditions northward to Oregon.

So, there is a good chance that Tisdale is all right. It is hard to tell from the list of certified Gallo wineries and vineyards because it doesn’t list Tisdale specifically, but I have to assume if this is a pervasive company ethic that at least some practices at Tisdale are up to snuff.

And as long as it’s the cheapest and I can recycle my bottles in good time, Tisdale will continue to grace my cup.

Mackenzie Rawcliffe is a graduate student studying international affairs and public administration. She is the production manager for The Maine Campus.

Unfortunately for Santorum, these victories came in states that have unbound delegates, which means he hasn’t won anything meaningful. So, despite winning almost 50 percent of the vote in all three states that voted Tuesday, he’s really no closer to the White House now than he was Monday morning.

Which is to say, he’s very far away. All signs still point to Romney eventually winning the nomination. Romney continues to hold a significant advantage in national polls of Republicans — averaging 34 percent in polls taken in the last week, with Newt Gingrich second at 23 percent — and he still has enough money to compete in every state in the nation.

According to RealClearPolitics, Romney is also the Republican candidate with the best polling numbers head-to-head against President Barack Obama. In polls taken in the last month, Obama beats Romney 48-44 percent. Obama beats Santorum 50-41 and Gingrich 51-40.

Despite Romney’s status as the front-runner and still the likely eventual nominee, things still aren’t looking good for him. The fact that Republicans have repeatedly tried to find someone more conservative to rally around suggests that if he wins the nomination, many of them will stay home rather than vote in November.

Romney is starting to look a lot like John Kerry in 2004: nominee by default.

If and when we move to a general election campaign that pits Romney against Obama, we’re not likely to see many important differences between the two candidates. Romney may back off some of the conservative positions he’s touting now, since moderates and independents change the outcome of general elections.

Romney is fairly conservative, but Gov. Romney was a Massachusetts moderate. Obama’s health care reform looks a lot like Romney’s Mass-Care, as judged by Politifact, and while Candidate Obama talked a very good game about civil liberties and reducing executive power, President Obama has done little to back away from the Patriot Act and the Transportation Security Administration.

The one significant difference is in foreign policy. Obama has generally stayed true to his promise to use diplomacy as long as possible, is following timetables removing American troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, and has pledged to reduce the size of the military. Romney, following the Republican Party’s neoconservative base, has criticized Obama for being weak on foreign policy.

So if Romney isn’t likely to win the general election, and might not do things much differently if elected, and Santorum and Gingrich don’t stand up to Obama head-to-head, what are Republican primary voters to do?

Vote for Ron Paul.

I want to make it clear that I’m not endorsing Paul for president; I’m endorsing him as a Republican nominee who would make general-election debates interesting.

Paul hasn’t won a single state in the primaries and is losing to Obama in polls by an average of 48-42, just worse than Romney (but better than Gingrich or Santorum). He doesn’t pose an electoral threat to Obama any more than Romney does.

However, his presence on the national stage next to the president would make for an interesting and honest conversation.

Paul’s economic views are anathema to most liberals and some conservatives: He supports eliminating five of 15 federal Cabinet departments, drastically reducing regulation and cutting federal spending by $1 trillion. He is vehemently opposed to stimulus spending — such as the bailouts of 2009 — and wants to lower tax rates.

I don’t agree with Paul’s opposition to environmental regulations or his steadfast emphasis on lowering taxes, but I don’t believe he would mischaracterize Obama’s economic plan to win votes — we would get an honest debate about the merits of regulation and progressive taxation.

Paul also supports drastically reducing the size and mission of the military and advocating the use of military force only under a Congressional declaration of war, which we haven’t had since World War II. We wouldn’t have to listen to ridiculous accusations that either candidate is somehow “weak” on defense.

Most importantly, Paul would force Obama to discuss the Patriot Act, the assassination of American citizens and laws allowing indefinite detention of citizens. Paul is a staunch defender of civil liberties, and no other candidate will press the president on the issue — they’re liable to accuse him of not going far enough.

While I disagree with many of Paul’s views, his presence in the general election would lead to a frank discussion about how to fix the economy, protect civil liberties without compromising security and reduce the military to a reasonable size.

If we had a campaign based on facts and ideas rather than charisma and personal attacks, we would all benefit.

Mike Emery is a fourth-year sociology student. His political columns will appear every Thursday.

If our great nation didn’t have such a burning desire for affordable electronics, these members of a civilization who built one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen would be absolutely helpless — the entire country would be adrift.

We have stepped up and handed our fellow humans an unprecedented opportunity to avoid the misery that would certainly otherwise befall them — the chance to make cell phones for us.

Some bleeding hearts are under the impression that there is a way for a nation to succeed without a period of explosive, unregulated industrialization.

That, to me, is absurd. Every country should follow the Western model of overstimulated growth in order to achieve some modicum of respectability.

Sure, it is a continuing cause of fundamental issues, such as worker rights, global warming and a food and pharmaceutical industry that value profit over the customers they ostensibly serve, but in my book these are a small prices to pay for the unhindered economic prosperity we currently enjoy.

Some have described conditions at Chinese manufacturing plants including Foxconn and Wintek as horrible and the labor slave-like, but let me remind readers that those frequent 18-hour shifts are paid. And the working conditions, as I think you’ll agree, are far from horrible.

The work isn’t even that hard. It’s simply making one repetitive motion on small pieces of machinery every day; I had endless amounts of fun playing with Legos as a child, and I believe it’s a very similar task.

In addition, the factories are state-of-the-art, with everything made to be as efficient and simple as possible.

In fact, when the screen-cleaning alcohol wasn’t evaporating quickly enough, the plant owners did some quick thinking and brought in hexane, which shaved seconds off the assembly process. Sure, it’s a neurotoxin that causes headaches, nausea and a touch of peripheral nervous system failure, but for anyone who falls victim to it, there’s a long line of eager workers excited to take their place.

And of course, efficiency makes more money, and money is the only way to better ourselves, so I’m sure the now-crippled workers understand.

One of the most attractive aspects of sweatshop labor is that it’s a family affair. Almost anyone over 12 years old can get a job and discover the many joys of being an active participant in the economic workplace, alongside their parents, assuming neither has died or become too crippled to work yet.

Then, once everyone clocks out, they can take their earnings for their day, maybe enough to buy a couple bowls of rice, and have a nice family picnic by the river. As they sit and look at the beautiful, vibrant hues of red and yellow their employer has considerately pumped in, they will be able to contemplate how fortunate they are to take part in the building of a superpower.

And also cellphones.

Now, you would think the Chinese workers would be singing America’s praises at this point, but no, they simply shuffle around, dead-eyed and ungrateful. A few even have the audacity to commit suicide, claiming their lives are unbearably miserable and they have no hope for any future other than constant labor.

Enough workers have these constant cases of the Mondays that some plants have had to erect nets around the factories to catch these lazy individuals before they hit the ground.

If only they were to read Mr. Lynch’s opinion, they would understand the unending, dangerous tedium that fills their days is actually saving them from a much more horrifying existence — one with a more expensive iPhone.

Wesley K. Pelletier is a fourth-year English student.

And there are few extravaganzas with a wider circumference than the Super Bowl in any realm of entertainment. Stands groan under the feet of thousands of fans while cameras swoop on zip-lines across modern coliseums, capturing several faces in a mosaic of American hype.

Players take to the turf beneath a confetti of sparks, ushered by the almost inhuman grumble of the nation’s avid fanatics. It’s the blue collar American dream replayed each February, where the good ole boys from your hometown duke it out for glory — if only politics hefted the same sort of intent and valor.

For a night, all of America huddles together with the two top teams under the bright lights and tosses the old pigskin as though the economy were not decrepit and the government were not at odds with itself or the people. Violence is left to the streets, the innards of newspapers and case files — if it happens to squeeze its way through the positive energy, it’s perceived as contemptible.

Maybe it’s the endorphins buzzing about or the slower buzz of alcohol that causes us to make a beeline to the sidelines on Super Bowl Sunday; regardless of the draw, the nation’s sportsmanship on nights such as these is worthy of elaborate commemoration.

Unfortunately, for other regions of the world, major sporting events are more highly susceptible to instances of brutality than cohesion.

Penalties in Egypt were not confined to the field during a soccer game in Port Said — 70 people were killed and at least 1,000 more were injured when a riot broke out between fans of the local Al-Masry team and the Al-Ahly club of Cairo.

On May 9, 2001, over 120 people lost their lives in Accra Stadium in Ghana during a stampede, caused by police responding with tear gas to fans hurtling bottles onto the field.

Over the decades, exhibition of sport has suffered from tragic happenstances such as those listed above. But in such cases, it would seem that a ball isn’t the true kicker of brutality. Political turmoil somehow makes its way into the stands and what was once a vehicle for reverie becomes one more house for battle.

Forums where communities can discuss their irritation and concerns are largely affirmative, but athletic venues are not the place for promoting diplomatic agendas. Wherein the crowds are robust and the ease is generally abundant, a palace of play should not have to accommodate revolt.

So in the wake of the Super Bowl, no matter whether your team came out the victor or otherwise, appreciate that no one lost a life or a limb. Let’s continue to concentrate on keeping the game just that — an event for amusement and good cheer — and not an opportunity to make a point at the expense of innocents.

My father once found me in the kitchen pantry quaffing the sugary goodness from the bottle. I was the girl you’d look at and think, “Hey, there’s diabetes in the making.”

Although this proves a somewhat comical memory from my childhood, it also had serious health implications. If my parents hadn’t provided me with a healthy, balanced diet growing up, in addition to encouraging regular physical activity, I could be facing serious health concerns today.

Drinking that syrup surreptitiously in the pantry made me feel like a minority; however, if my habits had not changed, I would certainly find myself in the company of millions who also drink sugar regularly, helping to fuel the obesity epidemic that continues to feast on this nation.

In 2010, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that over 100 million adults or 33.8 percent of the United States’ population were obese — obese for an adult being defined as an individual with a body mass index (BMI) of 30 or higher — and in 2008 over a third of both children and adolescents were considered overweight or obese.

The CDC have estimated that obesity costs Americans approximately $147 billion in direct medical costs annually. To put this in perspective, the direct medical costs for all cancers combined totaled approximately $102.8 billion in 2010.

Furthermore, research conducted by the Society of Actuaries (SOA) found that both the economic and medical costs of obese and overweight individuals were estimated to approach $270 billion annually. We’re pointing fingers at Congress for increasing the national debt without even acknowledging our own direct contributions to the fiscal deficit.

The speck is all the more alluring than our own plank.

According to a study sponsored by MaineHealth and Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, overweight and obese Mainers are costing the state an estimated $2.56 billion in medical costs, lost worker productivity and worker’s compensation. Talk about squandering away money.

In attempts to curb this obesity epidemic, policymakers are not only advocating for increased funding to prevention campaigns but are also attempting to add restrictions to what one can purchase on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), the country’s food stamp program.

In 2009, former Rep. Peggy Pendleton, D-Scarborough, proposed a bill banning the use of food stamps for sugared soda and certain junk foods, as in Maine, food stamp dollars are used to buy sugared, carbonated beverages totaling about $20 million annually. That’s an inordinate amount of sugar, fueling a lifestyle that will end up costing the state in medical costs.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed a similar ban on using food stamps for soda. However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) denied this proposal, much to the chagrin of Bloomberg and medical experts alike. Yale public health professor Kelly D. Brownell said in response to the USDA’s decision: “It’s a real shame. … The government purchases $4 billion worth of soda through the food stamp program every year, and that soda is making people sick.”

Another effort targeting the obesity epidemic is proposing a tax on sodas and certain junk foods. Kiyah Duffey, research assistant professor of nutrition at the University of

North Carolina at Chapel Hill, has conducted a longitudinal study on the possible association between the price of soda and pizza with weight and other factors.

“Our results showed that changes in price of these food items — an increase in price — was associated with lower weight gain,” she said. “This suggests that raising the price of these foods, soda and pizza in particular, could result in positive beneficial changes in health.”

Duffey also pointed out that “taxing food is not THE solution, but it could be ONE solution, which, when implemented in combination with a number of other broad intervention measures, might actually help.”

According to a 2011 study, Maine was ranked as the most obese state in New England, with approximately 26.8 percent of Mainers considered to be obese.

We need radical reform now on both the policy level as well as the personal level. It’s time to stop sugar-coating our unhealthy habits.

We’re obese, we’re overweight, we’re getting sick and we’re costing this nation billions of dollars. Put down the sugared drinks. Drink water instead of soda. Go for a walk. Care about your health, as we alone are the masters of our own fate.

Erin McCann is a fourth-year biology student. Her columns will appear every Monday.

Witty title withstanding, this type of article drowns under the weight of unstable moral footing, having been in fact developed in an alternate reality.

The truth is, sweatshops help people in Third World countries. It must be noted that the labor conditions workers commit to are better than the alternative, which is starving in the streets. This is how it is for these workers — if you take away their jobs, they have nothing.

Sweatshops are, in fact, the first rung on the ladder of economic development. Ask any of those workers if they are worse or better off than before they had their jobs in a sweatshop. I guarantee they’ll say they are better off.

Ask Bangladeshi women if they are better off or worse off after the manufacturing boom of “whitewashing” took off in their country. The fact is, due to labor in these types of sweatshops, which are supposedly filled with “injustice,” women’s empowerment has only increased.

Women are able to secure a viable and stable income on their own and be economically independent from their spouses. Bangladesh is still on the first rung of the ladder, but economists say it has one of the highest growth potentials in the world.

But we know this is not just a theory. Sweatshops actually help countries grow. After the Korean War, South Korea was decimated and was in a position much like we see Bangladesh in today.

But South Korea used these “morally abhorrent” sweatshops and climbed the ladder to become a member of the G-20, and one of the most developed economies in the world. Today, when South Koreans are shown pictures of their country from just 30 years ago, many cannot believe the economic transformation.

I suggest Cocklin starts paying attention in that history class he admitted to goofing off in, for it would be ironic if major manufacturing ports like Boston and New York City were teeming with the sweatshops he so overtly criticized.

The conditions Cocklin mentioned in these Third World nations — low wages, minimal worker rights and child labor — were present in our nation during the Industrial Revolution. Sweatshops have proved to be the first rung on the ladder of economic development.

But the fact is, if we improved working conditions to suit the arbitrary levels of the author, we would literally be killing these people. These countries would lose their competitive advantage without their ability to produce goods at a low cost.

Without cheap labor, they have nothing. With over half of the world currently living on less than a dollar per day, taking away these people’s only viable income would be a death sentence.

But I don’t think Cocklin really cares about these people. I think he only wants to sleep better at night, to feel justified because he benefits from the misfortune of these people.

But I have news for you, sir: These workers benefit just as much, if not more, from the current sweatshop condition. I know that sweatshops make up the initial step on the economic ladder, and I have no problem sleeping at night.

Justin Lynch is a third-year economics and political science student.

In it, he responded to my op-ed on student debt, saying that “fixing the student debt issue would not solve the underlying problem of the inequality in our society.”

Emery is right — fixing student debt will not fix the broken system. There are many issues affecting many people. Many don’t have jobs; many have jobs that aren’t meaningful; many can’t afford medicine or health care; many can’t heat their homes during the winter; and many can hardly feed their families.

Each issue is important in itself, but all issues are connected at a basic level and stem from what I call a broken system.

We are all affected by our broken system and, thus, we should all be involved in changing it. Student debt, rising tuition, corporate university, the bleak prospects of a meaningful job (or any job) — this is the norm for the American student and, as Emery pointed out, student issues are connected to the greater problem of massive inequality and upper-class control of government.

The super-rich 1 percent gained extraordinary wealth and power through lobbying, massive campaign contributions and control of the media. Laws and policy that equalize wealth, end corporate personhood and get money out of politics are good, but they’re not enough. We must go deeper.

Martin Luther King Jr. said we need a revolution of values. This is the most basic level we must address and work to change. The values of the super-rich are money, property and power.

The people of the ruling upper class seek to own and control basically everything and everyone. They’ve been likened to people with strong drug addictions, unable to control their impulse to own and obtain more and more. Some perceive these people to border insanity, because they seem to lack both a sense of connection to others in their community and a sense of responsibility and conscience for the massive harm they cause.

Instead of money, property, consumption and production, we need to become concerned with the health and well-being of ourselves and everyone in our community. Love and compassion are primary. We need to create a society where we all are empowered and involved in the process of decision-making, production and use of common, shared resources like air and water.

It is crazy to structure our lives around endless, unneeded consumption and production, and unacceptable for us to let a small number of people — mostly white men — dominate our lives.

Bill McKibben, author of many books about the issues affecting nature and society, wrote in “Deep Economy” that there are three reasons that we must change our society and lifestyles: First, there are many injustices — inequality, exploitation, poverty, wars, etc.; second, it’s unsustainable — global warming, not enough resources on the planet for endless growth, etc.; and third, most importantly, we’re not happy.

McKibben will be speaking at the Hope Festival on campus in the New Balance Student Recreation Center April 21 — do not miss him.

Money, possessions and excessive consumption will never fulfill us. Everyone is going a million miles per hour, working their tails off just to keep up. So many people are oppressed by debt, Americans work more than people from any other industrial countries, and yet our things don’t make us happy.

Working for change is as much for ourselves as it is for others. The basic truth is that we are connected to the web of our community and environment, and we are fulfilled when we recognize and feel that connection.

Joining the efforts for peace and justice gives you purpose in your life and connects you to your community. Both purpose and loving connections to others are absolutely essential for us to be happy.

May we all unite and create a world in which all the people share the power and take care of each other.

Daniel K. White is a graduate student working to obtain his masters degree in liberal studies with a concentration in peace and reconciliation. He is a member of Maine Peace Action Committee.