In recent times, due to unknown causes, people have become rather sensitive to opinionated articles. The topic is of no concern, considering the fact that there will always be someone who is left "utterly speechless" or is "disappointed with such harsh words." These readers of the opinions page consider themselves experts on any topic due to the fact that they are capable of accessing the Internet and immediately finding the Google bar simply to type in the given matter. Perhaps their feelings are bruised due to the fact that they only superficially read the article, picking points against which they could argue rather than reading the entirety of the piece and grasping the concept. In any case, political writings are heavily commented on and least understood, and they therefore get a lot of hits on newspaper websites.
Since the current idea is that President Barack Obama is the right man for the job, readers must find the smallest concern with any writing based around our president's image and standing. Undoubtedly, his strong words and brazen opinions speak favorably in the minds of most Americans, but the public seems to stop at that. Nothing of further study is of any importance due to our inability to get past what it is that bothers or enthralls us. Anything said to counter the popular opinion should not be said or is offensive. I had written an opinion piece last week which took facts from a widely known newspaper, USA Today, and formulated a position that did not seem to stand right with many readers. The plethora of people who responded to my article seemed to be offended at the fact that along with my treatise on Obama, I had called into question issues relating to aiding Native Americans. Automatically, anything that deals with segregated groups or impoverished societies is untouchable. The overly sensitive majority of the University seemed to overlook the general idea of my opinion and the fact that the question of Native Americans was taken from both sides. The intelligence of said readers is not at question, but their sensitivity in recent times has become an obstacle to reading a piece correctly.
In review of the responses to this apparently controversial article, I found professors and students who were "disappointed with such insensitive opinions." The nature of any such reader is to immediately jump to conclusions rather than to address given points. If one were to look at America today, its nature and its right is to get offended by anything remotely controversial, and I do not disagree with that right. The problem, though, is that the oversensitivity to particular actions or publications is largely affected by the popularity of negative opinion, the disagreeing majority. If one were to look at former President George W. Bush's presidential agenda and accomplishments, he or she — "she," because I am afraid a feminist organization might read this article wrong — would immediately find his faults. This is the man that had an 86 percent approval rating after the tragedy of Sept. 11. At that time, no one was to speak against him, no one was to question his methods and no one was to question the passing of the Patriot Act. Eight years later, society unabashedly criticizes his actions and approves of "change," a change in which "we believe [in]."
Approval of any article against a Nobel Prize winner, therefore, should not be sought. Perhaps the public has not reached for the Google search bar and only looks up the recent Gallup polls that reflect the job Obama has done since stepping into office. That will come only after reading this article. The rating will fall as society follows its own footsteps. Obama's rating might only stand on hope — how audacious.
In essence, public opinion still remains the strongest opponent of logical writing. So insensitivity is affected by the bourgeois' tendency to follow each other. Perhaps our president's faults were not meant to come out as soon as they did. His only option, therefore, of getting reelected is appeal to the public opinion and attempt not to offend too many sensitive souls. I hope not to offend anyone, rather to express the truth using blatant stupidity. I may not be very well liked, but I am willing to bet that my popularity — or unpopularity in this case — will die down as public opinion switches sides.
Aleksi Tzatzev is a School of Arts and Sciences sophomore majoring in English and political science.


SAN LUIS OBISPO, Calif. – Sophomore centerfielder Tommy Jew went 2-for-4 and junior designated hitter Tevin Mitchell, sophomore left-fielder Armani Smith, and freshman first baseman Cole Mueller picked up an RBI apiece in a late comeback bid, but the UC Santa Barbara Gauchos couldn't dig themselves out of a 7-0 hole and ultimately lost 9-3 against Cal Poly (27-27, 12-9 Big West) in the final game of their Big West series at Baggett Stadium. This series marked the third time in three years that UCSB (24-27-1, 8-13 Big West) was swept by their Blue-Green rivals in Big West play.
Cal Poly picked up their first run with two outs in the bottom of the second inning. Singles from both right-fielder Bradlee Beesley and second baseman Scott Ogrin meant left-fielder Josh George was able to bring in Beesley on a single through the 4-3 hole on the first pitch he saw from the Gauchos' starting junior RHP Chris Clements.
The Mustangs extended the lead two innings later, thanks to an Ogrin RBI double and a three-RBI double from designated hitter Kyle Marinconz to jump ahead to a 5-0 lead.
Cal Poly then tacked on two more in the bottom of the fifth inning with the bases loaded after first baseman Elijah Skipps was walked, catcher Nick Meyer hit a double along the left field line, and Ogrin reached on a walk, and shortstop Dylan Doherty scored Meyer and Skipps with a two-out single to right field.
The Gauchos were held scoreless until the top of the seventh inning when Smith's groundout brought freshman second baseman Andrew Martinez across home plate to score the first run of the afternoon for the visitors. With freshman Marcos Castañon at second after reaching on a fielder's choice in his pinch-hit appearance for freshman third baseman Jason Willow, another pinch-hitting decision by UCSB head coach Andrew Checketts paid off with Mueller's RBI single making the score 7-2.
In the latter half of the inning, the Mustangs restored the seven-run advantage with RBI doubles from Meyer and Beesley, in a combined 5-for-9 day for both batters.
The Gauchos continued their late rally in the top of the eighth after Jew's second single of the day and a Cal Poly defensive error that allowed junior catcher Thomas Rowan to reach base set up runners on the corners for UCSB. Mitchell doubled with two outs to score Jew to make the score 9-3, but the Gauchos struck out in the next at-bat and were sat down in order in the top of the ninth to secure the victory for the hosts.
Clements dropped to 1-2 on the season in his third consecutive Sunday start, while junior RHP Alex Patterson, sophomore LHP Ben Brecht, and sophomore RHP Liam Steigerwald appeared in relief. Michael Clark (4-6) earned the win for Cal Poly, pitching 7.1 innings and allowing two runs.
The Gauchos begin their season-ending four-game homestand tomorrow with a midweek matchup against the Portland Pilots at 2:00 p.m. The game was originally scheduled for a 3:00 p.m. start but was moved up by an hour to accommodate Portland's travel arrangements.


This is one of those things that gets emailed around, but it struck me as pretty good. His vocals are nice, and his sentiments, strong.
Dang, that Jimmie Walker's seen better days.
I think it's Cosby's dad.
It looks like Wilford Brimley to me.
I didn't know that my favorite person in the world is a fan of my blog. What an honor!
Still color blind, I see.