Chanika Wyrick bounced from foster parent to foster parent as a child. After completing her GED completed, Chanika wasn’t sure what lay ahead. College wasn’t really an option.

But in November of 2005, an anonymous group of donors pioneered a program in to fund a college education for graduates like Chanika in Kalamazoo, Michigan (yes, it is a real place!) — the goodwill of the Kalamazoo Promise started a community transformation. Housing demand soared, people started to move to the city again, even from as far away as Hawaii. Enrollment in the public school system rose, and morale in the city soared.

Even better, people like Chanika can now attend college.

Last week, hometown oil company Murphy Oil blessed El Dorado, Arkansas with a similar program. With close to 25% of El Dorado residents living below the poverty line, higher education–and the economic benefits that come with it–was a distant dream for too many residents. Not any more.

I know what you’re thinking … “I wish I was from El Dorado or Kalamazoo!” Well, maybe not, but still the idea of a free education is quite enticing and very exciting for its recipients. But Murphy Oil’s goal goes beyond education, to community revitalization.

Big donations like the ones in El Dorado and Kalamazoo are rare — their real transformative power even more so. Reflection on such powerful philanthropy brings me back to Philadelphia. Imagine the effects a Philadelphia Promise — hell, even a West Philly Promise — would bring. Reductions in poverty, true social mobility, increases in student motivation, and community revitalization are just some of the effects our neighborhood would reap.

It only takes one group of caring, helpful people to affect this change. Graduating with our Ivy League degrees, we will have the power to affect this sort of change. Will we?

Switzerland’s Roger Federer right, stands with Chile’s Fernando Gonzalez at the trophy presentation after winning the men’s singles title at the Australian Open tennis tournament.(AP Photo/Rick Stevens)

My roommate woke up at 3:30am last Thursday morning to watch Andy Roddick play Roger Federer in the semi-finals of the Australian Open Tennis. He needn’t have bothered. I could have told him the result. As expected, Federer blew Roddick out of the water with an awesome display of hard court tennis, winning 6-4 6-0 6-2. Roddick didn’t have
a chance. Why? Because Roger Federer is the greatest tennis player in the world. Ever.

Superlatives are used far too often in sport. Commentators and pundits use phrases like “world-class” and “all-time great” with blatant disregard for those who truly deserve such language. But there are a select few who sit at the top of their respective sports, men and
women with names carved into history as a result of their staggering achievements. There is now a new name to add to the list.

Roger Federer has dominated men’s tennis for the better part of 4 years. His first singles title came in February 2001 but it wasn’t until July 2003 that he secured his first grand slam, beating Mark Philippoussis to win Wimbledon for the first time. Since then he has
won 9 more grand slams, including his recent demolishing of Fernando Gonzalez in the Australian Open Final.

Federer breezed through the Australian Open without dropping a set and has now won 36 matches in succession and six of the last seven grand slams. He rewrites the record books with every game he plays and is just three weeks away from breaking American favorite Jimmy Connors’ record for most consecutive weeks as the top ranked male tennis
player.

The man is clearly talented! But more than that, he’s humble and gracious and one of the most pleasant men in Tennis. He rarely criticizes other players or officials, he maintains complete control on court, he never uses his success or fame for any narcissistic means he’s a gentleman and a genuine role model for youngster with aspirations for glory.

Federer gives something back too. In 2003 he established the Roger Federer Foundation , played a number of tournaments to raise money for
the people affected by the Tsunami of 2004 and last year was appointed a Goodwill Ambassador to UNICEF.

First and foremost though, he is a tennis player, probably the greatest we’ll ever see. Still just 25 years old, he has the ability to continue his dominance well into the next decade. He’s yet to win the French Open and as such is yet to win the ‘True Grand Slam’ of holding all four titles in one calendar year, but most expect him to
conquer this final hurdle in the near future. And when he does, he will surely be heralded as the best ever.

So here’s to Roger Federer, probably the greatest tennis player to have ever lived, great enough for a 3:30 am wakeup call. May the superlatives rain down on him for few are more deserving than he.

As a proud feminist, I’m always happy to talk about the motives behind a woman’s actions. Whenever I do, some disgruntled man mentions how complex and mysterious women are, to which I earnestly reply, “No, no women are easy to figure out, it’s you guys whom nobody understands.”

But this time, I’m sorry to say, I’m entirely wrong — women are irrational, or at least when it comes to their sexual health. A Penn study that reveals women’s thought processes when deciding whether or not to to get the new HPV vaccine has just been released, and like any guy of my generation, I’m pretty much mystified.

The Annenberg School of Communication-sponsored research suggested that the way the vaccination was framed was a key factor in a woman’s decision to actually get the vaccine. This means that women are deciding whether or not to get a vaccine that could save their lives based on how it’s being presented to them.

When a sample of women read a description of the vaccine as protection against cervical cancer, 63 percent answered that they were likely to get the vaccine. When the vaccine was described, however, as a way to prevent cervical cancer and a sexually-transmitted infection (STI), that number dropped to 43 percent.

43 percent? That’s a ridiculously low number, especially when you consider that in the latter case the respondents were presented with more information: that the vaccine could prevent both cancer and an STI in three doses. What has possessed women to adopt such a blase attitude toward their sexual health?

Researchers said that the drop may indicate a woman’s belief that a vaccine against an STI may be simply unnecessary. Unnecessary? When 20 million people are diagnosed with HPV and 50 percent of the population is projected to acquire it sometime in their lives, it’s clear that this is the most welcome advance in medical care since the polio era.

The only way to fix this problem is to talk about it. Whether through education awareness programs or panel discussions, Penn Women’s Center and the Office of Health Education should team up to prove that even if women’s thought processes seem a tad muddled at the offset, our ultimate decisions reflect crystal-clear thinking.

SEPTA isn’t popular with a lot of Penn students–the stench, the grime, the possibility of being victimized while waiting in a shady, underground station. The obvious alternative: take a cab. But that might not be so easy if you’re toting your drink of choice on the way to a BYO.

An article from CNN yesterday detailed cab drivers in Minneapolis who simply refuse to carry passengers with alcohol — and some drivers won’t even take passengers to bars. The reason: it’s against their religion. The conflict is heated at Minneapolis — St. Paul International Airport, where nearly 75% of the cabbies are Muslim and over 5000 passengers have been refused the ride in the past five years. The Muslim American Society told CNN that “it is expressly stated [that] transportation of alcohol for Muslims is against the Islamic faith, and therefore forbidden.”

A proposed compromise would have placed specific lights on the cabs that refused to transport alcohol–alerting the staff directing passengers that a cab was alcohol-free, so that they could send passengers to cabbies that wouldn’t mind the alcohol.

Apparently, that solution was unacceptable. It was seen as “condoning discrimination against people who had alcohol.” But since when was possessing alcohol a right more fundamental than the free exercise of religion?

Think of it this way: we, as Americans, are presumably guaranteed the free exercise of religion from birth. The constraints on this freedom come from nuanced interpretations of the Constitution and subsequent case law. But the right to possess alcohol? Non-existent prior to age 21. There are US citizens abroad dodging bullets, watching their friends being ripped apart by explosives. And many of these soldiers are under the legal drinking age in the United States. When they return home, happy to be alive and proud to have served their country, they can’t even have a beer at a bar in celebration. Obviously we don’t value the right to possess alcohol as much as the free exercise of religion.

Even more, these cabbies are losing money. I think it’s a safe assumption that driving a cab isn’t a relatively lucrative job — losing clients definitely hurts. But when faced with the decision to either sin against God or lose money, these cabbies appear to believe piety conquers profit.

So should we expect to encounter Philly cabbies who won’t take us (and our bottles of Patron) to the local Mexican BYO? Who knows. It hasn’t happened to me yet — but if it did, I hope I’d be able to suck up the inconvenience with the understanding that I’m respecting another human being’s most fundamental beliefs. I think that’s worth waiting in the cold for a few more minutes — especially if I have the Patron to help me out.

Director Deborah Kampmeier’s controversial film Hounddog has the spotlight at this year’s Sundance Film Festival, currently underway in Park City, Utah. Hounddog, which premiered Monday night, for the most part sounds like a compelling, feel-good drama — except for a scene in which the young protagonist, played by Dakota Fanning, is raped. It’s an image that has left some viewers disgusted and outraged. With phrases like “child exploitation” and “child pornography” floating all over the blogosphere in response to the scene, Fanning — Hollywood veteran at the tender age of 12 — insists in that oh-so-precocious way of hers, “It’s called acting.”

Kampmeier, too, in defense of the scene, tells the Associated Press that it’s simply a succession of harmless images simulating a rape: “If you have a hand hitting the ground, Dakota screaming ’stop,’ and you see a zipper unzip, that creates a rape.” Hm. It seems to me that no matter how you put it, it’s pretty unsettling. But I digress.

Now, I know that the spirit of Sundance is all about “creative risk-taking” and “nurturing the diversity of artistic expression,” as they put it, and I do recognize the value of confronting and exposing sensitive subject matter through film. At the same time, I don’t think that filmmaking should be a free-for-all in the name of art; we, as major media consumers, can all attest to the fact that film is an incredibly powerful medium, and as such, it has the potential to impact people for better or for worse. Yes, it’s a complicated issue, and I realize the futility of jumping into the thick of this latest culture war in the hopes of winning you all to my side.

Instead, I’ll challenge all of us to put our own answers aside and to allow ourselves to be posed these tough questions anew. After all, isn’t this the meaning of an undergraduate education? At what other point in our lives will society let us sit around all day (all three hours or so) discussing questions like, “What is art,” and, “What is morality?” College is a unique time, and we can’t afford to go into it thinking we have all the answers.

Finding the new “it” place — home of the latest, greatest, hippest people is an art. If I had to start somewhere, I’d start in Skirkanich Hall with the bioengineers. If Gregg Gillis is any sign, the hottest trends of pop-culture start with them.

On January 19th, at a swank bar in the Northern Liberties called Johnny Brenda’s, Gregg Gillis made an appearance and an impression Unfortunately, due to my lack the required identification, due in part to my under 21-ness, I couldn’t attend. But Gillis, well, he still astounds me.

See, Gregg Gillis, alias Girl Talk, is the man behind the latest hit CD Night Ripper.. The album is essentially one, giant, 40 minute long mash-up. Elton John’s “Tiny Dancer” + Notorious B.I.G.’s “Juicy,” The Verve + The Ying Yang Twins, Madonna + Marky Mark and the funky bunch = 40 minute of awe.. You can check out the full list of titles here.

As amazing as the precision, accuracy, and get-up-and-dance-feel are on this CD, I’m even more amazed by the man behind the boogy. Music is a side job for Gillis — he works 9 to 5 as a bioengineer in Pittsburgh! He graduated from Case Western Reserve, where he first got into the digital music scene, and then moved back to his home town of Pittsburgh. His concerts, which range from smaller gigs like the past one in Philly, to stints in Europe, to this year’s Coachella Music Valley & Arts Festival, are weekend hobbies.

In an interview for Pitchfork Media, Gillis said, “It’s crazy. I jump in my car on Friday in my casual office gear heading to NY or wherever to do a show that night.” And people he works with in Pittsburgh” they have no idea they’re hanging with an uber-hippster.

So the next time you see the bioengineering kids leaving Van Pelt at midnight on a Saturday, think twice before making fun of them. They might be engineering the future of pop-culture.

71% of Americans would die for their religion, according to a recent ICM poll.

73% are convinced God exists — an incredible figure in a country living under the ’separation of Church and State’.

Upon arriving here at Penn in August, I soon discovered that three of the girls living across the hall from me went to church most Sundays. And another girl I met in my first week was a committed Christian who had been to church every week for as long as she could remember. Compared to my life back home at Edinburgh University, this was a whole new ball game.

In the UK, only 7% of the population claim to attend a religious service every week. I know only three committed Christians at Edinburgh, people who’d attend regular church services. I know of no committed Jews. Yet here at Penn, I met four such people within my first week.

Back home we have the Church of England, an established state church in an officially Christian country. Queen Elizabeth II is the head of that church and is crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in Westminster Abbey.

All of this is in direct contrast with the US Constitution, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Imagine the US President being the official head of the Church of America and being inaugurated by a Bishop in a ceremony held in Washington National Cathedral! Thomas Jefferson would turn in his grave.

And yet 57% of Americans say religion is a very important part of their life, 58% believe religion could solve all or most problems today and 41% profess to be born again or ‘evangelical’ Christians. This country is clearly a religious nation — Church and State are about as separate as Ben & Jerry.

Coming from the UK, Super Churches that can hold 25,000 people are as foreign as ice hockey and food trucks. A church for 25,000 people?! I’d be surprised if my local church pulled in a congregation of 25.

Lakewood Church in Houston, Texas seats 25,000 and has sports fields, a foodcourt and an arcade on the premises.

Which got me thinking, why is this so? Why is religion so dominant in the US and so limp in the UK? College sophomore Erica Evans says her religious roots are as much cultural as anything else — “Being a black woman from the south, I’m part of a community that remembers slavery and can see the huge steps black people have made in America today. That in itself is a reason to believe in God”. She also believes Christianity plays a large role in providing a “moral upbringing”, for people of all races.

For black society, the burning ashes of slavery may well be doused by religion. But more generally, religious strength in the US comes from the country’s foundation, as a new home for persecuted Europeans. Here, this melting pot of cultures and races are brought together by their beliefs. America clearly is religious, constitutionally secular or not. As John Adams said in 1775, “We recognize no sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus.”

It was Sunday night and we were all enjoying a friendly dinner, until someone accidentally dropped the Z-bomb. Normally I wouldn’t have noticed, but this time it caught my attention, because I hadn’t even known “Zionist” wasn’t appropriate for dinner conversation anymore. At least that’s the impression I got when one of the girls at dinner objected to her friend labeling her a Zionist” the way someone might not want to be called a liberal or a conservative” in front of everyone.

An article titled “Second thoughts about the Promised Land” in the January 13th issue of The Economist cites a survey by Steven M. Cohen, a research professor of Jewish Social Policy at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion, that found that only 17% of American Jews call themselves Zionists. The number of American Jews who consider themselves pro-Israel far exceeds that number.

So, why are so many pro-Israel American Jews avoiding the term Zionist? In a phone interview with Prof. Cohen, he explained that there are divergent definitions of the word: “Zionism believes there is something strongly lacking from Jewish life outside of Israel, either Jews will assimilate or Judaism outside of Israel is distorted or Jews will always suffer anti-Semitism — but in common parlance, especially in America, especially recently, it comes from [another] definition, that means bolder pro-Israel ideology.” With Zionism attached to a specific, more right-wing pro-Israel ideology, it also invites a backlash, which explains the dinner Sunday night.

David Twersky, the Director of International Affairs and the Council for World Jewry at the American Jewish Congress has another explanation for the decrease in Jews identifying themselves as Zionists. Twersky links the aversion to the word to the changing identity of American Jewry. “Zionism grows out of circumstances in which peoplehood and ethnicity matter and as they decline among American Jews, the substance out of which Zionism grows begins to evaporate.”

Despite falling on the liberal side of the Israeli political spectrum, I’ve always called myself a Zionist. That’s why I was surprised when my friend wanted to keep her Zionism under wraps. For me Zionism has never had a political connotation. Left-wing, right-wing, as long as you believed in the idea of a Jewish state’s right to exist, you were a Zionist. Or so I thought. But somewhere along the way (some might argue immediately after Israeli independence), the meaning of “Zionist” changed.

One way or another, the definition and the very nature of Zionism is evolving. But, that won’t keep me from using the word at the dinner table.

As a member of Penn’s illustrious Parliamentary Debate Society
I have been exposed to some of the country’s best debaters at work and at play. Penn Parli prides itself on teaching its members how to craft the perfect speech, margarita or pick-up line, and as such, people often solicit my advice on when they need to get their rhetoric on.

President Bush “exuding emotion” during his State of the Union address. (AP Photo/Lawrence Jackson)

So, you see, I’m not just an idle observer when I watch our nation’s most eloquent cowboy at work. The State of the Union address last night inspired me so much, I felt compelled to share the do’s and don’ts of public speaking.

Speaking in Public

1. Get excited about your speech. Whether you’re pontificating about Lindsay Lohan’s trip to rehab or eliminating the flat tax, exude some emotion. Even if you’re confronted with an entire room of people determined to bring you down (let’s say you’re a College student in a Finance class, or George Bush in a room of Dems), don’t let their attitudes get to you. Be confident: even if your approval ratings are in the 2 percent range, you can still go out with a bang.

2. Do not avoid the elephant in the room. If there’s a huge issue that you fail to address (say, Iraq), people will notice. It’s better to bring it up and spend a little bit of time defending your actions and outlining a proper plan than to step gingerly around it the entire evening. Chances are, your audience has already decided what they feel about the issue anyway, so not talking about isn’t going to get anyone on your side.

3. Do not present two options as if they’re the only ones possible. If you’re separating people into “with us” or “against us,” that’s what’S known as a false dichotomy If you refer to a group of people (say, terrorists) 22 times in your speech, the distinction you’re trying to make is pretty clear- and blatantly wrong.

Just because someone doesn’t support your plan to address the issue doesn’t make them an enemy.

4. Lastly, pay off people before the evening to cheer for you. No, seriously. It looks pretty bad if your own supporters can barely muster a “hoo-rah” from time to time.

Follow these tricks, and I can guarantee the state of your union will be much “stonger” than ours.

Whenever someone asks me where I live, I slip into a comatose state in preparation for the inevitable Q&A session to follow. 45th and Pine. Yes, I go to Penn. No, it’s not dangerous. No, it’s not a long walk. And no, I don’t have classes in DRL (thank god — but not because of the walk).

When I moved into my apartment last July, I spent the rest of the summer exploring the neighborhood: concerts at Clark Park , Thai food on Baltimore, late night jazz at Abyssinia. The feel is totally different than at Penn — it’s like you’re in a neighborhood, a successful experiment in diversity that’s authentic and interesting.

Summer farmers’ market in Clark Park (Caroline New/DP)

So I found yesterday’s article in the DP on posters protesting gentrification (”Penntrification”) particularly interesting. The posters all depict Penn negatively — focusing on the effect of Penn expansion on the pre-existing community. I think Penn should take these objections seriously, especially given its history.

An article last September in Philadelphia Weekly detailed The Black Bottom — the mostly black working class community that existed in the area now occupied by Penn and Drexel. That community was demolished and displaced by Penn. Penn part-time professor Walter Palmer said in PW that “[Penn] started buying up properties and not doing anything with them. They just let those properties sit there deteriorating, creating an eyesore, and then people were pressured to sell. They had the use of eminent domain to hang over the homeowners’ heads, so they could drive the prices down to where they wanted them.” And Penn certainly hasn’t escaped allegations of racism in the Black Bottom situation.

But that was mostly in the 50’s and 60’s — naturally Penn is different now. It’s hard to refute the visible changes in the neighborhood over the past decade. The retail success. The continued construction and improvement. “Penntrification” has increased property values as well as rent.

There’s truth to both sides: Penn has certainly improved the area, but local residents are being forced to relocate due to rent increases. There isn’t an obvious answer. The issue needs to be studied; the University should work with the community in mitigating the adverse effects of development.

Luckily, most of Penn’s future construction will probably take place east — in the recently acquired and unoccupied postal lands.