The Waltonian

My dear University, this is my last article to appear in the Waltonian and the final that will ever feature under my name in this, my very favorite section. Before I offer you one last delectable opinion, I want to thank the Waltonian for being so kind to me over the years especially considering my knowledge and abilities in the field of journalism. My thanks to all the editors who put up with my late articles for four years, and my thanks to those who put up with me when I briefly and unprofessionally ran this section.

Over the past few days I’ve been reading through some of my old articles. I’ve written a lot of opinions, potentially to the detriment of this newspaper and our campus. It’s odd re-seeing the things you’ve written, especially when they’re being preserved for the rest of the foreseeable future on the internet. After a brief re-reading, a person, especially myself, quickly wonders why they ever wrote a particular thing at all. Why was it so important that I said that? Why did I find it necessary to argue that Women’s History Month shouldn’t exist or that pineapple pizza was a serious perversion? Sometimes, when I can remember my reasons for writing these kinds of things, the reasons often feel suspiciously trivial or petty.

And though I have this worry, and may have it for some time to come, especially if my future employers research and read the opinions of freshman me, I don’t know if I can say that I regret them. This lack of regret doesn’t come from an assurance that I have spoken goodness and truth (I haven’t) but rather because each time I was attempting to create an opinion.

There’s something beautiful in opinion making. Opinions aren’t verdicts, commands, or edicts. Instead, they are (at least ought to be) the essence of the phrase “I have an idea”. They are something designed to be shared, heard and examined. An opinion, in its proper place, is a gift. While I lie turning in the grave of “real life,” I hope you all continue to write opinions, and I hope you remain brave enough to throw ideas into the midst of your friends—and maybe even your enemies. That having been said, I now want to take one final stab at this great art and make one last opinion.

It’s hard to pick one thing to have a last opinion on though. If you were dying and someone held a microphone to your lips right as your eyes were closing, would one opinion suffice? Maybe, but now that I find myself having time for only one more article, every singular opinion feels unworthy of the title, last. In front of me looms the unsaid; the immense pile of everything I will never get the chance to say. How does one even begin sorting through which of these are valuable and which are worthless? Maybe one can’t, and so what follows is, or I should say are, my last opinion(s).

Firstly, black and white movies may be the pinnacle of art (along with claymation). Secondly, have you ever considered believing that all gods are real, not just God? If your answer is no, I think you should consider it. Along a slightly different line of thinking, do you think that tobacco can be healthily smoked? (I do). What about our male/female friendships? Do they actually exist or are we just kidding ourselves each and every day? I think more often than not we are kidding ourselves, and I am thinking of particular people who are reading this. What about our University? Is it really turning one hundred? According to a certain understanding of one hundred, certainly—but I will posit that the university did not always hold this certain understanding. (Check the basement of Warner Library for more information). Will we last another hundred years? Unless we can find ourselves a story and a purpose that our whole community can embrace, I think the answer is, nope. (Don’t be concerned by this though. We are currently very financially stable, and that kind of stability can last a decent amount of time). Here’s a never asked question that most students ask themselves on an almost daily basis: Can we ever justify breaking university rules? It seems like in some situations we would be right to do so, that is, unless the school’s rules are entirely free from error or obedience in everything is virtuous. I can’t be opinion making without mentioning that we lost some Christian spirit when we became a “Christ-Centered University.” Also, did you know that there is any such thing as a purely aesthetic choice? What I mean is that we are only fooling ourselves when we say we chose a thing “just because we like it.” There is a reason we like it (and that reason could be sinister). Oh, I also believe that a hierarchy can be a pretty good thing. You too should consider it.

Well, thank you for listening to my last opinions. It might be unwise for you (or I) to believe half of them, but if you have time during the hecticness of finals week consider them and then write me an opinion in return. Here’s to Eastern! A flawed school that does a lot of good. And here’s to opinions. Farewell dear readers.

As we exit the month of November, we come face to face with four years of a new presidency. Our world feels unstable, our country seems unstable, and for many of us the president-elect offers the possibility of even more instability. How did we end up here? And also, where exactly have we ended up?

We find ourselves in an interesting dilemma. The Democratic party argued that democracy was at stake in this election because of Trump’s past actions, particularly the January six insurrection and Project 2025. But now, post-election, it has become apparent that democracy has elected its own enemy. It has elected the person that was supposed to destroy it.

Why would democracy ever do such a self-destructive thing? I have an answer, but I am hesitant to give it—mostly because I haven’t yet convinced myself of it. So please, bear with me, and forgive me if this is too ridiculous. I am thinking that Americans purposely voted against democracy because democracy is a very unstable kind of government. I’ve been wondering whether in an attempt to find stability, our nation has turned on its own system. Of course, you might argue that we have had a democracy for almost 250 years without a problem, so why the change of heart? This is true: Democracy seems to be truly stable when most of its citizens agree. Further, for much of American history we have agreed a lot and loved democracy a lot. But when a democracy becomes as divided as our own is, people seem to stop wanting plurality of thought; instead, they want to unify with only those who share their vision. In other words, they stop being democratic because their democratic system is blocking their rights and destroying their ideals. Think about it. In a lot of people’s minds it is more important to have at least one of the following– food, private wealth, healthcare, guns, religion, abortions, or universal basic income– than for all people to have a say in who is in charge of controlling it. I am beginning to think both sides have clearly thought about this, and have turned on democracy. Both sides have tried to jail opponents. Both sides have questioned the intelligence of their opponents’ voters. Both sides have questioned the legitimacy of elections. All of these are undemocratic actions.

Because of this rejection of democracy, I think Democrat’s shouldn’t have argued that Donald Trump was a threat to abstract democracy, but rather that Trump was a threat to the liberal vision for America. I think this strategy would have been more effective, because I am not convinced anyone cares about democracy in the abstract any longer. Democracy, at its heart, means submitting yourself to the rule of the majority. Neither side has done this. Democrats have done a slightly better job of this than Republicans over the last eight years, but let’s be honest, both sides have utterly failed to be anything worthy of the title “lovers of democracy.”

Nothing shows this more clearly than the way both sides have treated the courts. Democrats and Republicans have been exploiting the courts, and the reason for this is that the courts are both the most functional and least democratic part of our whole nation. There are few things in our society less democratic than a judge. If you don’t believe me, consider the Supreme Court. Here sit nine Justices who are appointed for life and are slowly proving they can be more powerful than both Congress and the Presidency.

Perhaps we must be honest with ourselves and admit that we too are attracted to non-democratic societies. We want rights, personal liberty, goodness and mere stability; a divided, democratic America does not promise these. If we admit this, we have two paths forward: fight to reignite a true love of democracy in ourselves and those around us, or stumble into the unknown world of a post-democratic America. We may not have a choice. The Republicans and Democrats may have already entered a post-democratic America while we weren’t paying attention.

vox.com, variety.com, time.com, npr.com, cnn.com

Let me be frank, I don’t like Barbies. Now that this important bit of information has been conveyed, I will say what I really want to say and that is, the “Barbie” movie might just be my favorite movie I have seen all year. I went to the theater fearing I was going to watch a pink nightmare, full of plastic legs and doll jokes. I wasn’t quite wrong; these do feature in “Barbie”—and yet the movie took me by surprise. I thought of writing a long intro subtly leading up to my point, but let me leave subtly to the movie’s director Greta Gerwig who is masterfully subtle in this film. “Barbie” is a movie evaluating feminism, and perhaps the best of our time.

There is not enough I can say praising this film. The movie is visually masterful. Gerwig carefully creates beautiful yet artificial looking sets in each scene to emphasize the appeal of the impossible. The script is hilarious, completely random and yet somehow it manages to comment on ideals, desires and fears present in our society. But better than anything else, is Gerwig’s careful examination of feminism through Barbies. I have never seen a film that is so subtle and so nuanced that it can both be a celebration and criticism of an ideal.

It’s a comedy, but I nearly cried watching it. Every character was so confused and messed up by their inadequate ideals and their responses to them. Ken was undervalued and so he tried to dominate others through patriarchy. Barbie was given every dream, yet left in confusion the moment she stepped outside those dreams. The movie ends with Ken being instructed by Barbie that he must leave her, and Barbie moving to the real world with no clear way of surviving there.

This is what makes the Barbie movie so strange—so complex. The movie makes it clear, we must dream. And more importantly, women must dream. And we must celebrate these dreams. It is not wrong to call the movie a celebration of the Barbie doll. And yet the movie also argues that the dream, the feminist ideal which exists in Barbies, is fundamentally flawed.

It’s flawed because the dolls lack genitalia. Well, it’s flawed for a few more reasons than this, but this is emphasized in the film in order to demonstrate what the feminist movement forgot, the unique problems men and women face separately. Barbie’s final line, “I’m here to see my gynecologist,” is her finally facing this reality. It’s uncertain what will result from this action, because it is not certain if a Barbie doll can need a gynecologist, yet there is some triumph in Barbie attempting to be a real woman, not just an unrealistic idea.

You should watch this movie. Geriwg’s use of symbols is much more complex than the simple sketch I have laid out above. I didn’t even get to write about what “Barbie” says about men. If you watch it, hunt me down so we can chat about it.

By: Christian Lengkeek

At five o’clock on a Sunday, I met with Tiger Winston in Baird Library where we talked for over an hour. I highly doubt my ability to capture that whole hour accurately in a few hundred words, so this will be only a shadow of the color and personality of his actual story.

It all began on a Thanksgiving day in high school when he was returning from the Grand Canyon with his family. They had just stopped for the third time that day at McDonalds (much to Tiger’s disappointment). As he was walking through the parking lot he noticed a homeless man, and partially on a whim, but also partially out of guilt since he had just been complaining, he decided to offer to pay for the man’s meal. The man was very appreciative, and so they went inside together. Once outside again the man only ate a part of the meal, and when Tiger asked the man if he wasn’t hungry, he replied, “No, I am going to bring it home to my family for Thanksgiving.” Tiger describes this as “The moment the reality of homelessness clicked in my head.”

The next Thanksgiving, Tiger found himself alone in Long Island. Remembering the previous year, he decided to head into New York city and see if he could repeat his experience. This time he was able to buy meals for multiple people, but more than just buying them meals, he attempted to hold conversations with them. This desire came from a story he had heard from his pastor about a homeless man crying after being hugged for the first time in years. Tiger said, “The homeless rarely receive attention or love. I really just wanted to give that to people, much more than the food.” At first he just bought stuff for people because he found talking “a bit nerve-racking,” but after his first conversation with a man named Mike, talking became much easier.

Talking to people who are often overlooked has become Tiger’s main objective. Throughout his last years of high school and his first year of college, he has made these trips a much more regular part of his life. He describred the people he speaks with as “people who are so down in life but also have so much hope.” He said he has heard some of the most painful stories in these conversations, stories about lives that have fallen apart, many because they were rejected or abandoned by their family and friends.

Because of the homeless person’s overlooked perspective on life, Tiger finishes every conversation by asking who ever he has been chatting with for advice. Often the advice he receives centers around the idea of “keep pushing” or, more generally, perseverance. Since then, as he has expanded to talking with more and more people, he has begun asking just random people he runs into for life advice. Even with a broader audience, the the theme of perseverance has remained, he also has added the question “What makes you happy?” He has found answers to this question (he is currently compiling a list) often ended up being centered around people. Tiger said, “I thought this was really cool. Life is really about people. Even people who want to be billionaires, its often because they want to spend the money on themselves or their family. Everything seems to point back to people.”

It may seem that Tiger is some gifted extrovert, but he claims that for most of his life he was shy and didn’t do a lot of talking. It wasn’t until he forced himself to speak to strangers that he began to get over his fears. When I asked how to best start talking to random people, he said, “Once I did it the first time, it became really easy.” Multiple times during the conversation Tiger emphizied the value of listening, specifically listening to those who are not heard. From his conversations, he has encountered people who actually have no one who listens to them. He hopes that perhaps these tiny moments might bring them the bit of joy they need to persevere.

By: Christian Lengkeek

The 27th United Nations Climate Change Conference, more commonly referred to as COP27, was held in Egypt, in the city of Sharm El-Sheikh from Nov. 6 until Nov. 18 of this year. One of the conference’s main purposes was to further discuss certain issues that were not resolved at COP26 which was held two years prior in Glasgow. The conference had a variety of aims, a notable one being the agreement to limit the earth’s temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Another was to pull together economic resources to support nations facing the consequences of environmental damage.

Many different leaders and advocates from around the world were in attendance. The conference brought together leaders from 110 nations, as well as representatives from the EU and other international organizations. Civilians are also allowed to attend, although such participation was limited by the Egyptian government in attempts to curb potential protests. Key polluters such as China and India neglected to send representatives to the conference. Putin likewise did not attend due to Russia’s preoccupation with the war against Ukraine.

The results of the conference can be viewed through a variety of lenses. The nations in attendance finally agreed to a fund that will help developing nations affected by climate change. That being said, the fund has only been approved, not implemented. Any clear action in determining how and when it will be set up has yet to be decided. The previously held goal of a 1.5 Celsius limit to the Earth’s temperature rise was upheld. This is a victory for those who see any increase above this point as a danger, to the survival of our ecosystem.

However, some have expressed frustration over the agreements made at COP27 seeing as many of its accomplishments were commitments already agreed upon at the previous COP26 conference, and through the Paris Agreement, passed in 2015. Importantly, new incentives to limit the production of fossil fuels were not successfully passed.

Many continue to feel that the climate crisis is not being sufficiently combatted by international organizations such as the UN, or by heads of states. Recently, a rise in protests have attempted to bring awareness to this cause. These protests have included the actions of two climate change activists with the group Stop Oil, who threw soup onto a Van Gough painting to protest fossil fuel production. The protests have been controversial, with some deeming them uncalled for with others applauding them as courageous acts.

Overall, the public reaction has been mixed. Some are disappointed by the relatively small amounts of progress these conferences have made, yet others show signs of hope that we may indeed be on our way to a cleaner and greener future. Kristin Tilly, the Australian ambassador for climate change, said shortly after the conference, “We’ve made historic progress at COP27 to establish new funding arrangements… However, we must strive further in light of the stark findings of the latest science.” This sentiment was echoed by many of the leaders in attendance who focused both on the conference’s success, but also on the need for further action.

Sources: Reuters, The Guardian, un.org, COP27, CNN

By: Christian Lengkeek

Ingmar Bergman is a movie director I know of that comes closest to deserving the title of poet. Living from 1918 – 2007, Bergman witnessed nearly all of cinema history. As a small child, Bergman fell in love with movie making. At age nine, he traded all his toy army for a small image projector. This small projector became the start of the career of Sweden’s greatest director.

Last night, I watched The Seventh Seal, Bergman’s 1957 film about a crusader who returns from the crusades having lost his faith in God. The movie is slow, the scenes are simple, the lighting intense as well as carefully thought out and the music ranges from grand and stylized, to gentle notes plucked on a lute. The plot might be labor-some for some viewers. Bergman takes his time on scenes and even individual shots. The movie does not attempt to impress. Besides the dramatic entrance of Death, the filming is only impressive in its simple beauty.

Bergman’s movies deal with philosophy, and in many, he returns in some way or another to his favorite question: the existence of God. But his movies only begin to “make sense” in retrospect. Scenes are meant to be experienced and felt, and the feelings only afterwards point up to the ideas.

I don’t know many people who are interested in watching artistic works that discuss the existence of God. Philosophy in general is put up as a stale alternative against the alive nature of art. Art is personal; it can be felt. Philosophy is distant; it deals with things that are above and outside us. But in a weird way, Bergman’s philosophical movies feel so personal. It’s as if by revealing his thoughts on God or truth, Bergman has in some way exposed the core of himself.

There are two scenes in the movie I love. One is of a parade of religious zealots whipping themselves in hopes God will forgive them and remove the Black Death. Bergman captures the confusion that often exists in the three-way relationship between God, the individual and God’s church. Bergman carefully cuts between the reactions of the onlookers, the priest’s exhortations and blood trickling down the bodies of those beating themselves.

The second scene I am not sure I can put into words. It is just a few people eating strawberries and drinking milk while the sun sets. One of them is playing a song on a lute. All the things about the scene down to the simple notes of the lute are simple, yet the joy of the characters is as brilliant as sunset falling across their faces. For a movie that spends most of its time trying to capture religious confusion and existential crisis, this is the one reprieve. It acts as a reprieve for us as the audience, as well as for a crusader who says that he wishes he will always be able to go back to it.

As far as I know, Bergman had no faith, at least not a faith he confessed. In his later films, he dropped questions of God’s existence because he found them too depressing. But I am very thankful he approached the question in his earlier films. Not many filmmakers have dared to lay their thoughts and feelings about God so bare for so many eyes to look upon and ridicule. In many ways, I appreciate Bergman for his courage as much as I appreciate him for his art, because without his courage his art would be empty and lifeless.

By: Christian Lengkeek

When I was asked to write and take readers of the Waltonian “into the classroom,” I thought I would take the request literally and give classrooms of Eastern their due respect. Students often write about teachers and courses and labs and textbooks, but when was the last time someone acknowledged classrooms themselves? The classrooms are the bones of education. Without them, we would have no school. But they are even more important than this. They also subconsciously move our thoughts when we sit in them. Sure, the teacher’s rhetoric is more powerful, but I am willing to claim that most students who don’t pay attention learn more from the environment of the classroom than the actual teacher.

Each classroom puts me into a slightly different frame of mind. ELC classrooms either make me fall asleep or make me feel like I am on a trip to the dentist. McInnis classrooms give me no end of confusion since every wall is painted with a different random color. Andrews’ classrooms give me the same feelings I get when seeing one of Oppenheimer’s 1940s labs. I am actually the most focused in Walton 3. I am not sure why this is, but I do give some credit to the beauty of the room itself.

I chose McInnis 120 because I feel like it is as average as something that is average can get. But despite this, there are many small details (hidden within its obvious monotony) that I am sure you never noticed. For example, did you know that under the light switch is a small piece of beige tape that says “LTG–PNL–CKT–1?” Or did you know that instead of a clock, there is just a flat, blue circle with a screw sticking out of it? I am sure you never noticed that there is a strange, small electrical box in the lower left-hand corner that looks like an old, unused piece of telephone machinery.

The yellow, taped lines on the floor don’t make much sense to me. At first, they seem to be chair row markers, but as they get near the front they become more and more unaligned with the chairs. The paint scheme doesn’t make sense either. The left wall is painted blue, the right wall is painted two different shades of beige, and the front wall is half beige and half a color that might be called pink.

Classrooms are like most people I have had the chance to hang out with. They’ve got their flaws, and they’ve got their virtues. I am pleased to report that McInnis 120 has seven markers all of which work: three blacks, two browns, one blue and one red. I would suggest avoiding the blue though, because it’s pretty dry.

One thing I find fascinating about classrooms is that a close inspection can yield very interesting findings. I pulled up one desk at random and found three pieces of green gum on the back. I considered pulling up every desk in the room and creating a tally of pieces of gum and sorting them by color (and maybe flavor), but this plan seemed time-consuming and kind of gross.

While sitting in McInnis 120, I realized I never look at the ceilings of my classrooms. I certainly hadn’t known that McInnis 120 has two large water stains on its ceiling. Also, I hadn’t realized how many blank, crooked switch covers it has. Finally, there is a mysterious yellow cabinet on the left side. I thought I might uncover some deadly Eastern secret if I got it opened. Sadly, it was unlocked and all it contains is some random scientific-looking instruments that appear to be a cross between a printer and a microscope.

Well, those are my observations. Next time you get a chance (preferably not during class but if the class is boring feel free to try it then too) take a look around your classroom and see what you notice. If you are really bored, check and see how much gum is under your desk.

By: Christian Lengkeek

If you aren’t from Philly you won’t understand this article. You won’t understand how exciting it is to actually have wide receivers who can catch, or to have a legit secondary, not just guys signed from off the street. You definitely won’t understand how amazing it feels to have the best record in the NFL.

The last time the Eagles were 6-0 was 2004! That year we went to the Super Bowl. Sadly, we lost because New England cheated. But we got revenge in 2017 so all is forgiven — well, actually nothing is forgiven, but at least we feel avenged.

Everything has gone right this year. Jalen Hurts (our quarterback) has looked like a changed man. He has been cool and calm and shown a lot of improvement from last season. We average the most yards per attempt at 8.2, and Hurts has only thrown two interceptions.

Our short yardage game has been superb. We have completed the third most number of fourth downs in the league, as well as having the most rushing touchdowns. Our biggest problem so far has been special teams, which has been a wonderful relief from last year, when we could only run the ball and had to cross our fingers every time the defense took the field.

Let me take a moment to mention that we beat the Cowboys 26-17 during Week Six. If you are not from Philly, you will not understand what this win means for our city. Yes, the Cowboys are allegedly good this year — we secretly all know they suck — but even if they had been 0-5 coming into that game, it would have been our biggest win this year.

A win over the Cowboys is worth ten wins over any other team. Every Philly baby knows to hate them before they learn to walk. There has never been a tie between the two teams, and for good reason. Neither fan base would accept that result. I have heard many Eagles fans console themselves after a bad season — or really after anything bad, a stubbed toe, a breakup or a war — by saying, “Well, at least the Cowboys didn’t make the playoffs.” (I actually console myself this way.)

I’ll admit, we aren’t the most glamorous football team. Yeah, we have lost a lot and played a ton of ugly football, but that’s what makes us Philly. We are the type of team that wins its only Super Bowl with a backup quarterback.

We tend to hold grudges and are sometimes a bit too fast to judge. We don’t get a lot of coverage, and we don’t have many fans outside of Philly. As a true Eagles fan, I believe the entire country hates us, but that doesn’t matter because we hate them right back. So here’s to a great season my fellow Philadelphians! Fly Eagles Fly!

Sources: NFL.com Football Database

By: Christian Lengkeek

The sign for the Dining Commons where Maurice works. Source: Jayme Fisher

I first met Maurice Simmons on the platform of the Radnor stop of the P&W line. It was sometime after 9:30, and the train was late. Since we both had nothing to do we began talking. Right away, I found out he worked at Dining Commons, and so I immediately asked many of the questions I had always wanted to ask Dining Commons employees. Afterward, I thought it would be interesting to get together and have an actual interview.

“My job at the DC is to supervise, to make sure that everyone that is at a station or wherever they are positioned knows what to do and if they need help,” Simmons said. “I am not one of those supervisors who is going to stand around and watch you struggle. I am here for my team.”

Simmons’ involvement in his team’s work started off from a smaller position, where he knows the work it takes to help run the kitchen.

“I started off as a dishwasher/line server,” Simmons said. “That was my first three months of working here. Then summertime came and they liked what I was doing. When the summer camps were here, they took me out of the dish room and made me a supervisor.”

While many may complain about the food at the DC and the people in charge, Simmons is still a person behind his uniform. His favorite part of working in the DC is that he gets to eat, and his favorite meal is getting a burger off the grill. He appreciates a good meal and tries his best to provide that for the school.

“You don’t like what you don’t like,” Simmons said. “I can try to make you like it, but there is always going to be something in the DC someone doesn’t like. And some of it is out of our hands. We had one incident where we didn’t have any peanut butter, and people were complaining about that, and there was nothing we could do about it. Because of allergies, we couldn’t order certain things with peanuts and tree nuts, and you know, peanut butter has peanuts in it. So we couldn’t order it, but people talk to the school and my boss and we got it cleared up. But some things — like we serve too much pork — I can’t control that. The cooks plan the menu. We just cook it.”

Just like the peanut butter fiasco, Simmons also has foods he’d like to see in the DC. He said, “I would like more turkey. I love turkey. We don’t get much turkey. We get it like once in a blue moon, like once a week. The rest of the time it’s just pork and chicken. I think if we had more to the menu, more people would come in.”

On the flip side, I asked him what we do that annoys him, and he said, “Well we have four items, and you tell us what you want one by one when you could tell us that you want it all or that you want the first three. That just burns. Also, when students leave their plates on the table. That’s another one. Those are the main two.”

But beyond the barricade between the DC and Eastern students, Simmons chooses to come here and loves Eastern in the same way we all do. He plans on continuing to work here and enjoy all that Eastern has to offer.

“Alright, right now, if I wasn’t talking with you, I would be sitting over there messing with the turtles,” Simmons said. “I like going over there near the water. I have never gotten close enough to pick one up though. Like you start seeing the environment here. I like it. There is a lot of stuff to do here.”

It was a wonderful opportunity to get to know Maurice Simmons more and get another look into the faces behind the food we eat. Once again, there are plenty of faces around Eastern for us to get to know, and it never hurts to say hello and get to know some that we see daily!

By: Christian Lengkeek

In Russian Car Curling, one person sits inside of a car while a team of curlers shove the car down an icy patch. Source: AP Photo(via Daily Mail)

What sport is the perfect combination of beauty and athleticism, speed and strength, the mind and the body? I had looked far and wide for this sport, and I had thought after much searching, I had come to a conclusion: curling.

If you don’t know what curling is, here are the basics. Men and women contort their legs like a pretzel, sliding down a rectangular ice rink holding a rock that looks like a tea kettle. They then release it while two other players scrub the ice with brooms and finally watch it bang into a bunch of other rocks.

The goal is to get your rocks closest to the center of a round target painted at the end of the ice or in technical terms, the curling sheet. All I can say is: where is there a better spectacle of athletic talent in sports?

For years I lived under the delusion that curling was the sport to end all sports, until I stumbled across Russian curling. The Russians are known for improving games. They took Roulette, a boring game, and made it exciting. In Russian curling, all curling rules remain the same…except for one small change. Instead of small rocks, it’s played with cars.

It’s quite simple. Eight or nine people push the car down the ice while one person sits inside and steers. The car then crashes into all the other cars that have already been shoved down the ice. All strategy remains the same; the closest car to the center wins, which means crashing your car into other cars is essential for clearing the ice.

The sport is new. The first ever organized tournament was held in 2017. This means the sport has a ton of room for growth. I am excited for the first time it will be held at the Olympics. I am even more excited for the first time people try to play it with Lamborghinis and Ferraris. And my wildest of dreams is that maybe, just maybe, Eastern University will start the very first collegiate car curling team in America (perhaps in the world).

Let me remind you that we do have ponds that freeze, and a lot of cars on campus look like they have already been used for curling.

Sources: USA Today