The Keystone Pipeline, a massive pipeline system that carries crude oil across the United States and Canada, recently took the center stage in the national conversation about energy. Two of four proposed phases have been constructed already. The building of the third phase began in January, and President Barack Obama has yet to decide the fate of the fourth phase. Environmental groups, individual protesters and even well-known tech companies like Google and Apple outspokenly opposed the approval of the fourth phase of the project, known as Keystone XL. If this enormous outpouring of concern is not clear indication enough, the U.S. government must wake up and smell the burning oil.

The third phase of the Keystone Pipeline will add to an existing pipeline that runs from Hardisty, Alberta to Cushing, Okla., potentially extending to the Gulf Coast. The proposed fourth phase of the pipeline would essentially replace the existing pipeline between Hardisty and Steele City, Neb. Opposition from all corners arose in recent weeks, ranging from concern over ownership of property that the pipeline will pass through to concerns about the long-term cost of the two new phases.

Proponents of expanding the project continually invoke the job creation argument, stating that building such an enormous pipeline would require the creation of thousands of jobs. As numerous opponents have asserted, however, the potential short-term benefit of creating jobs does not counteract numerous potential long-term economic and ecological problems. The spike in employment would only be ephemeral since the people employed by the pipeline’s extension would again be out of work after the third and fourth phases of the project were completed. It makes little sense to support a project that provides such transitory employment when the U.S. needs better job security, not simply more temporary jobs.

The political careers of both Secretary of State John Kerry and Obama have been marked by a commitment to the environment, yet neither has firmly stood in opposition to the expansion of this project. On the heels of his promising Climate Action Plan, Obama approved breaking ground on the third phase, despite the outpouring of protests from environmental groups. Although advocates for Keystone XL claim that it will provide “long-term energy independence” for the U.S., in reality the pipeline will only serve to exacerbate American dependence on foreign oil, since the Keystone Pipeline is owned by Canadian company TransCanada.

TransCanada alleges that Keystone XL will “give an economic boost to Americans,” but they seem keen on maintaining shortsightedness when it comes to evaluating the real impacts of Keystone XL. While the project would temporarily increase employment in Montana, Nebraska and South Dakota, it would simultaneously displace many low-income families and indigenous communities in Canada from the land that contains pipeline. Not to mention that while oil companies hail the positive effects of expanding infrastructure for the industry, hundreds of their workers are continually laid off. According to “Think Progress,” the biggest suppliers of gasoline in the U.S. — Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Shell and British Petroleum — collectively eliminated 11,200 employees between 2005 and 2010, and minimum-wage workers comprise nearly half of the whole industry.

But the audacity of pro-Keystone XL advocates does not stop at putting rose-tinted glasses (or more accurately, blacked-out lenses) over the economic costs of the pipeline. Advocates even try to refute the probable environmental damage the project will cause. Environmental activists have pointed to the likelihood that this pipeline will create spills and more carbon pollution.

The pipeline’s starting point would be in Canada’s tar sands, an issue which has incited the most backlash. The process of making oil from tar sands usable is itself fossil fuel-intensive and in some sense is more trouble than it is worth. It creates more noxious emissions and byproducts than the typical refining process. For the U.S. to support this practice and to consume oil produced through this process would fly in the face of Obama’s alleged commitment to finding practical, long-term solutions to the ecological crisis.

At the heart of the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline is a surprisingly tenacious denial of the severity of the environmental disaster facing us. Underlying that denial, of course, is the unchecked capitalist enterprising of oil companies and certain politicians, even if it means the demise of the next generation. A report recently put out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) examined the negative effects of climate change we are already experiencing, including significantly compromised food and water security. If Obama approves of the Keystone XL pipeline, he is essentially communicating – to the American people and the global community at large – a flippant lack of commitment to a cornerstone of his political platform: moving toward long-term energy solutions.

To say that the U.S. needs to wean itself off of fossil fuels is a lot like beating a dead horse. Yet here we are, in a lurch, waiting for Obama to stand by his Climate Action Plan and oppose the start of Keystone XL or to approve a monumentally destructive and short-sighted project. Petitions and other means of opposing the pipeline abound. Americans should not let capitalist interests trump in the face of severe economic and ecological consequences. We are going to increasingly insane lengths to support our reliance on finite fossil fuels and not enough is being done to more creatively and effectively grapple with the ecological mess we have made for ourselves.

Cordelia Kenney is a senior history major. She can be reached at ckenney@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyCKenney.

If anyone asks if I have a Facebook, I tell them I do not. If they somehow find me on Facebook, I refuse their friend requests. It is a forum I use strictly to communicate with friends who live abroad. And to read “Oxy Confessions.”

When I first began reading the page, I thought of it as a guilty indulgence and a distraction. It held a similar appeal to picking up a People magazine, except with the added allure of possibly finding something written about myself. But as I, and 1,300 others, perused the page, I kept reading confessions that nauseated me.

In the last issue of The Weekly, writer Olivia Landon explained the positive aspects of the anonymous page. While I found the piece to be both strongly written and compelling, I cannot help but disagree. The many hyper-sexual and violent confessions mitigate any lasting positivity.

“To the blond sophomore kines major with the sexy new haircut: I want to make you as sore as you get from those intense workouts I see you doing at the gym,” confession No. 2925 reads.

“Cute guy in my economics class: any time, any place, any hole,” confession No. 2506 reads.

A third confession references the writer’s desire to stab the subject with his penis. The entire confession has not been reprinted because it so clearly implicated a specific individual.

In what world is writing about someone in graphic sexual detail complimentary? Most people have their kinks and fetishes, but being publicly made the object of someone’s is not flattering. It is scary.

The first two of confessions make it more difficult for the subject to be identified. The third, on the other hand, does little to protect the subject and in doing so violates her privacy. It allows an unwilling participant to become entertainment for 1,300-plus people, and it opens up tangled questions about safety, violation and rights to privacy.

A confession is supposed to be inherently some kind of catharsis, whether the secret be negative or positive. Post Secret, a community art project that provides a forum for confessions, epitomizes the way in which a massive (often anonymous) community can provide a safe space for the release of secrets. It catalyzes friendships and communities and provides a forum for conversation for those in need.

So why is “Oxy Confessions” both unproductive and unsafe?

Firstly, the moderator does not restrict such degrading confessions. And while he or she has done an excellent job providing resources to those who confess feelings of depression or alienation, it does not mediate the overall hyper-sexualized and contentious tone of the page.

What the page really does is allow people to feel as if they are engaging with their peers in a manner of exchange and debate, while in fact indulging themselves in their own opinions. Yes, debates over sexual identity, privilege, race and culture do unfold on the page. But the thoughts exchanged remain in stasis – they are comments on a web forum and nothing more. “Oxy Confessions” acts as a warm blanket which strips students of the compulsion to have such discussions in person. In doing so, it does nothing to change the intellectual or cultural landscape of the college.

More importantly, however, it draws explicit attention to individuals whose identities are hardly veiled. It also fetishizes entire ethnic communities – it would take a page of this paper to list all of the sexual confessions that reference Blasians and Asians alone.

The explicit nature of these confessions does not prove an open sexual discourse, but rather the presence of a repressed sexual culture. When we cannot turn to our sexual partners and say exactly what we like and do not like, when we cannot be honest with ourselves about our personal kinks, when we feel discomfort with our own bodies or the bodies of others, our desires will find a way to manifest themselves. They will manifest themselves in violent, sexual discourse, and they will further threaten the respect and acceptance which build a strong community.

Ari Laub is a senior English and Comparative Literary Studies major. She can be reached at alaub@oxy.edu or on Twitter @WklyALaub.

A new trade agreement between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and Taiwan negotiated last summer would further
integrate the two countries’ economies, allowing for greater direct investment in
services. Not yet ratified, the agreement has spawned a large protest movement in Taipei numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Students have occupied the
legislature for the past two and a half weeks, halting the passage of the agreement. Taiwan should ratify the trade agreement, along with legislation ensuring public and judicial oversight of future agreements with China.

The agreement will benefit each nation by removing barriers to services. The healthcare, banking and e-commerce industries would have greater room to expand as limitations on direct investment in service industries would be eliminated.The protesters are wrong to dismiss these steps toward liberal economic relations, but the embattled Taiwanese President Ma Ying-jeou must acknowledge the fears that motivate the demonstrations.

Economically, the two countries are growing ever more integrated, with bilateral trade calculated to be at $169 billion in 2012. A little over a decade ago the two nations hardly traded at all. Cooperation between Beijing and Taipei has been broadly welcomed across the world as a sign of cooling relations, despite both sides claiming rights to the other’s territory since the 1940s. Yet the increasing ties between Taiwan and the mainland belies the vast gulf that separates the two nations.

Trade between the two countries is balanced in Taiwan’s favor: In 2012, its surplus was over $95 billion, and a great deal of this is owed to Ma. Following eight years of semi-antagonistic non-engagement with the mainland under the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), Ma was elected in 2008 promising better relations with Beijing. In 2010, Ma negotiated the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, which established economic favored nation status between China and Taiwan. The result has been a surge in export-led growth in Taiwan, along with a tenfold increase in inter-China tourism.

On the surface, the protest movement may seem like standard populist protectionism – an illiberal attack on globalization. Indeed, many of the protesters oppose the deal on the grounds that it will hurt native firms or even flood the service sector with cheaper mainland labor.

However, there is more substance to the movement than is casually observable. The protesters in Taiwan fear not simply economic insecurity but political absorption and national nullification.

The Taiwanese are right to view China with suspicion. It is quite clear what motivates Beijing: the Communist Party of China (CCP) believes that the interweaving of the two economies and upsurge in personal connections between Chinese and Taiwanese will ultimately shift public opinion in Taiwan in favor of unification. The CCP hopes to recreate a Hong Kong-style absorption.

Taiwan would be wise to study the former British holding, now 17 years into reunification with mainland China. The 1997 agreement handed the city over to the PRC and declared a principle of “one country, two systems,” in which Hong Kong would retain some degree of autonomy but accept Beijing’s political system (i.e. the Communist Party). However, many people in Hong Kong still view Beijing with distrust. In 2012, the people of Hong Kong were not able to vote for their city’s executive due to a special election staged by Beijing.

But the trade agreement, which protesters fear, would do nothing of this kind. It would be another step toward liberalization and a step back from confrontation.

Despite the worries of the protesters, the two Chinas must remain close, and ultimately economic integration could be a good thing. When Ma leaves power in 2016, Taiwan should not reverse on economic engagement with China but instead should continue taking steps, albeit in a more public and less autocratic style than under Ma. When they get assurance that future treaty discussions will take place publicly and maintain Taiwan’s independence and democratic system, protesters should accept the economic consequences of free trade and go home.

Will Stupp is a sophomore theater major. He can be reached at stupp@oxy.edu on on Twitter @WklyWStupp.