64 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/10/09 3:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>How many Harvard law degrees does it take to fix the world’s economy? Well, we might actually never know. Let’s face it. This isn’t exactly a Kumbaya moment in world politics. Bipartisanship has disappeared faster than Michael Phelps’ endorsements as the parties fight an ideological battle through the stimulus bill.Of course, they have a lot to fight about. You might have heard that our economy is in macroeconomic freefall. Well, folks, the rumors are true. As the financial system continues to woe the world markets, I have found myself wondering, “Geez, maybe there is something to that gold standard thing.” And by God, how bad does it have to be for people to start wondering if Ron Paul was actually right?The stimulus bill is limping its way toward becoming policy; it has surprisingly been an enormous struggle for a popular new president with a 65 percent job approval rating. I pretty much blame this on Nancy Pelosi. She took the results of the November election as a green light to “make a grab bag of Democratic wish lists,” as Patrick Dorinson, a GOP strategist, described it. Unfortunately, Congress still only has a 27 percent approval rating, and America is not crazy about going along with a bill that uses taxpayer dollars to achieve a perfectly manicured National Mall.Meanwhile, Pelosi is throwing salt in the lacerations of the wounded animal that is House Republicans by touting that she “didn’t come to Washington to be bipartisan” one day after her $819 billion bill hobbled through the House without a single Republican vote. Not quite the change we were thinking of in November, was it?Obama has made a significant effort to get Republicans on board with the stimulus bill. And Pelosi has made it nearly impossible for them to do so. She alienated GOP Congress members from having any real consequential input in writing the bill and included provisions such that any conservative who even thought of supporting the stimulus would be lambasted by James Dobson and the entire Focus on the Family crew – i.e., stimulus spending on family planning. Now Obama is off to a shaky start, and it seems the new Republican strategy is to just let Pelosi keep talking. What’s better than sitting back quietly and forcing the Democratic House majority leader to defend contraception?As for what to do about the economy, I have come to the decision that our government is incapable of collaborating to get anything of even minimal significance accomplished. Therefore, I propose we take Russia’s lead and resort to the barter.Newspaper and online ads are filling up in the former Soviet Union for the exchange of goods, such as one offering “2,500,000 rubles worth of premium underwear for any automobile.” What could be simpler than that? Let’s just go ahead and do away with the financial system for good. That’ll show those Wall Street fat cats.
(02/03/09 3:42am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Is it just me, or has advertising gotten exponentially worse over the past few years? I fondly remember the “Wazzzzzup” campaign of yesteryear, and each time I have to endure the Geico cavemen, I dearly miss Spuds MacKenzie. Today we are left with the unfortunately immortal “saved by zero” Toyota ads that unbelievably have not been stopped by the Facebook groups protesting them.If I hear that excruciatingly annoying voice chant “the fit is go” one more time I’m going to start pulling my hair out. And now terrible advertising is expanding into new territory.White House lawyers are quickly moving to stop the commercial use of Barack Obama, whose popular slogans have been usurped by everyone from Ikea to Southwest Airlines. Even Ben & Jerry’s recently unveiled “Yes Pecan” ice cream.Over the weekend, of course, the greatest event in televised advertising took place, and as usual nothing comes close to the ads intended for the big game.Fortunately, NBC rejected the Super Bowl ad by a Catholic group based in Chicago that made use of the Obama name brand. The 30-second clip features ultrasound images and then suggestively poses the question “Would you abort Barack Obama?” It pulls at our heartstrings, pointing out that Obama was abandoned by his father and had an unfortunate childhood and then advocating the anti-abortion stance.Besides the logical fallacies begged by the ad itself – for instance, the fact that legal abortion did not prevent Barack Obama’s fetal development or that, using the same logic, you could promote abortion by questioning why Adolf Hitler’s mother never had the procedure – an ultrasound image is just not something I wanted to include in my Super Bowl XLIII experience.Then again, I don’t really want to see women being seduced by vegetables either. NBC came to the rescue to save us all from PETA’s promiscuous Super Bowl ad the animal rights organization described as “a comely crop of models demonstrating their fondness for fresh produce.” Whew ... crisis averted. Did we really want to take the chance of a vegetable malfunction?NBC cited concerns regarding a woman “rubbing pelvic region with pumpkin” and “screwing herself with broccoli.” I realize that sex sells ... but seriously?Some Super Bowl ads that did air may have inspired hope for the future of TV watching. DreamWorks and Pepsi teamed up to bring us the first-ever 3-D commercial, which aired at halftime. It was also rare in another aspect: It was the first 90-second ad to run since the mid-1990s when Nike ran one. Of course, if you never made it to your local grocer to stock up on 3-D glasses, you missed out.Sadly enough, we have a whole year to wait for next year’s Super Bowl clips. However, I can only hope that in the meantime Toyota finally gives up on incessantly insisting you be saved by zero and maybe, just maybe, someday we can once again be enthralled by Michael Jordan taking on Larry Bird for a Big Mac.
(01/27/09 12:11am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>President Barack Obama signaled his stance on abortion Friday by reversing a policy that prohibited foreign non-governmental family planning groups from receiving U.S. aid if they lobbied for or provided abortions. It’s a landmark policy shift. And you probably didn’t even know it happened.The Mexico City Policy, named for the first place it was instated, was established by Ronald Reagan and has since been a manifest divergence between the two parties. Bill Clinton very publicly reversed the policy after just two days in office, causing many pro-lifers to doubt the third word in his “safe, legal and rare” abortion slogan. George W. Bush was also quick to fan the flames of the culture war by reinstating the policy, declaring that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortions.Of course, federal law already bans the use of U.S. tax money for abortion services (but, then again, he might not have actually known that). This policy, on the other hand, does not allow funding to go to any non-governmental organizations that use their own money for abortions or even simply provide abortion referrals or lobby for abortion rights, causing some critics to nickname it the “global gag rule.”Obama, however, did not follow suit. Unlike Clinton and Bush, who very publicly changed the policy on Jan. 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he waited until the day after. He signed the executive order late on Friday afternoon so that it would be less noticeable. And he preceded the executive order with a statement encouraging support for abortion reduction through bipartisan and common ground efforts.Finally, a government official has presented a commonsensical approach to abortion policy and family planning. The culture war over abortion will probably never end. If you say that it’s a life and I say that it is not, there is not much common ground for us to find. The core of the abortion debate is made up of two belief systems so fundamentally different that the problem will most likely never be resolved.Until now, however, we have allowed this cultural divide to distract us from making sensible policies. While we may never all agree on the legality of abortion, no reasonable person would argue that abortion should not be as rare as possible. Through abstinence-only education and an unavailability of birth control and other forms of contraception, we are almost encouraging unintended pregnancies and other sex-related consequences. By reversing this policy, NGOs such as Planned Parenthood in developing countries will have the funding to provide not only contraceptives, especially vital in Africa in the fight against HIV/AIDS, but also pre- and post-natal care, early childhood immunizations, tests for cervical cancer and malaria screenings.Obama is taking the right steps to quietly address abortion policy and move us closer to one goal that we all share: reducing the number of abortions and promoting sexual health.
(01/20/09 1:50am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Today, my fellow Americans, has been declared a national emergency. As many as three million crazed Obamanites will flood the streets of our nation’s capital, I would imagine most likely resembling the South Park depiction of post-election Randy Marsh (“Come on, people! We can keep partying can’t we? YES WE CAN!”). Braving the crowds, the cold, and a 6,849 people per porta-potty ratio, they are undeterred. They have traveled from across the nation to watch the conclusion of what began with the launch of Obama’s campaign on Feb. 10, 2007. The culmination of the longest campaign in history will be, of course, the inaugural speech. People will be trudging into the cold and fighting crowds for hours to get a glimpse; it will probably last about fifteen minutes. Regardless, people are flocking from all across the nation in record numbers. Honestly, I think this could have something to do with the fact that the Jonas Brothers are there (Sorry, Obama). Regardless, it’s certainly a spectacle to be seen; 11,500 troops and 8,000 police officers have been brought into the capital to handle the unprecedented crowd, and a whopping $150 million has been spent on the festivities. And irrespective of your own political ideology, pretty much everyone must admit that this election, and its result, was both historical and fascinating. No matter how you voted, the first election of a minority is undeniably inspiring.While the election was encouraging and the inaugural celebration will certainly be grand, we shouldn’t overlook the fact that our next president will be giving his inaugural address wearing bulletproof clothing. He will be speaking from behind a protective glass shield. He will ride in the parade in a Cadillac that could withstand an explosion from a rocket-propelled grenade. Snipers are positioned on rooftops and balconies down Pennsylvania Avenue and boxes that detect the release of chemical or biological weapons are scattered throughout the crowd. Overhead, fighter planes carrying automatic weapon-toting SWAT team members will be on guard. We still very much live in a post-Sept. 11 world.When attention is drawn to these facts, I sometimes find it difficult to believe in “hope” in a time where any sizeable gathering necessitates a police state. Each and every attendee is subject to a security screening and mundane items such as umbrellas are banned for fear they might be used to conceal an AK-47. The next thing you know, everyone will be asked to remove their shoes and discard any and all liquids.The inauguration will most likely be a grand display of democracy and of American values – something we will experience together as a nation despite current hardships facing us all. However, amidst the 10 inaugural balls and the Springsteen performance, we should not forget the rocky road that has led us here – a boggled war, a tanked economy and a persistent fear of terrorism – and the challenges that we (and our new president) face.
(01/13/09 3:19am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>So the economy has been better.Barack Obama recently said, “If we do not act swiftly and boldly, we could see a much deeper economic downturn that could lead to double-digit unemployment.” And then Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman proclaimed in his New York Times column that this was an understatement and, furthermore, “This looks an awful lot like the beginning of a second Great Depression.”The American people are wearing down and getting frustrated. Grocers have begun placing electronic tags on sirloins to prevent them from being shoplifted. In New York City, where bank robberies have increased by 54 percent this year, five banks were held up in a single day. And by now everyone has heard the abhorrently pitiful story of the death of a Wal-Mart employee at the hands of bargain-desperate Black Friday shoppers. So now what?Obama has proposed a $775 billion plan, which unfortunately doesn’t even come close to closing the gap that has emerged between the potential production of our economy and what we will actually be able to sell. But more importantly, only about 60 percent of Obama’s plan consists of public spending. The rest is made up of tax cuts, many for businesses.While there is certainly a time and place for tax cuts, the current economy is not one of them. In our present dire economic situation, what we need is the most bang for the buck, and this can come from public spending. While everyone can appreciate forking over less of their hard-earned dough to the government, tax cuts during a recession can lead to saving and not spending, which is what our economy desperately needs. Moreover, public spending has the added benefit of the “multiplier effect,” which essentially means for each dollar spent by the government, gross domestic product is raised by about $1.50 due to higher consumer spending when incomes increase, according to Krugman. Through public spending, we could even emerge from this predicament a little better off. Public investment has the power to benefit everyone.And health care is just screaming for public investment. The Washington Post recently reported that a record share of the economy is now spent on health care: Rising costs associated with health care now consume 16 percent of the nation’s economic output. The high costs are making companies less competitive due to the amount they now must spend on employees and retirees, and experts in the political, economic and medical fields have warned that health-care trends will gradually overwhelm the economy. Not to mention the effects of inadequate health coverage on the population and our system’s tendency to ignore preventive care, which has been shown to be much less expensive and more effective.Obama needs to propose a bigger plan that is almost entirely made up of public spending and focus a large part of that spending on health care. We might as well take advantage of this crisis and use it to focus on one of our nation’s largest problems.
(12/09/08 2:15am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Are three million jobs and $300 billion in business trade worth saving? Well, no, actually – not to the tune of $34 billion in taxpayer cash. That’s how much the CEOs of the Big Three auto companies are currently on their knees unabashedly begging for in Washington. Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford, even gave up his private jet and drove the 525 miles from Detroit to Washington to plead his case for coin. Of course, by ‘drove’ I mean ‘had someone drive him,’ but still.Despite their clear desperation, no amount of executive groveling will change the fact that in 2007, GM alone lost $38 billion.While, yes, Detroit going under will be a substantial hit to an already weak economy, that is no excuse to throw billions of dollars at an industry that has been floundering for some time now and refusing – or at least not attempting – to make necessary changes in order to remain competitive in a global market.The Big Three have trailed their foreign competitors for decades and still lack the innovation and efficiency necessary to contend with international brands. They have failed to cut costs. They have failed to respond to market demands for fuel efficiency and smaller vehicles. And they have allowed themselves to be manhandled by the UAW (GM has paid out $103 billion in health care costs and pensions for retirees over the past 15 years.)Handing a check over to the Big Three will merely delay the inevitable: GM is currently burning through $2 billion a month and Chrysler disposed of $3 billion last quarter alone.Although a glance at the headlines during the last few weeks might suggest otherwise, we do still have a capitalist system – believe it or not. The beauty of that system is that when firms become outdated and uncompetitive, the invisible hand swoops in and disposes of them so that new, better and more productive entities can come in to take their place.Every day, companies fail. Every day, better companies replace them. Ah, nothing quite like survival of the fittest.The death of Detroit will be painful, no doubt. But then again, everyone seems to be forgetting that Detroit was moribund long before the term “subprime mortgage” gave you nightmares. James Poniewozik remarked, “In Michigan, the death of the auto industry has been going on so long, it’s become a way of life.”Paul Krugman, who recently won a Nobel prize for his work on international trade patterns, pointed out that the U.S. auto industry is “no longer sustained by the current economy” and notes the industry will probably disappear, mainly due to geographical forces.America is no longer the place to build cars. Just as our economy painfully morphed from an agricultural system dependent on a nation of farmers to an industrial one during the Great Depression, it is time for us to move on once again, this time away from industry and into technology.Step back, Congress; let the invisible hand work its magic.
(12/02/08 5:03am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>As President George W. Bush approaches the end of his presidency (thank God! I’ve waited so long to begin a column with that statement), there is much talk about Bush’s legacy and what he will do with his remaining days in office.For a president who has in many of his most major policies overstepped his constitutional boundaries, he has thus far been very conservative in one of his most unrestrained presidential prerogatives: pardons.The Constitution grants a president the power to pardon whomever he chooses, and his forgiveness is absolute; it cannot be overruled, and he need not provide an explanation.So far, however, Bush has provided just half of the pardons afforded by Clinton or Reagan, both of whom also served two terms. This is not from lack of applicants: More than 2,000 folks are seeking the president’s mercy before Jan. 20.From what I can tell, I can only assume that he has been stingy thus far because he’s confused (he seems to be confused a lot).But with only a couple of months left in office, it is time to capitalize on the privilege of the pardon! So, Mr. President, luckily for you, I’m here to help.First, you should probably pardon all those nice people who could be convicted for carrying out your policies.You know – those responsible for warrantless wiretapping, questionable firing of attorneys, torture, a few war crimes here and there – that sort of thing. I realize preemptive pardons are a little faux pas in the political world; just ask Gerald Ford – who very possibly lost the 1976 presidential election due to his preemptive pardon of Richard Nixon.But honestly, your approval rating can’t really get that much lower. And besides, your party has pretty much disowned you. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but you probably aren’t going to have a plethora of candidates knocking at your door begging for endorsements. Your post-presidential years will likely consist of a lot of quiet time alone on the ranch. A lot.That is, unless you get charged, too.That whole approving-a-torture-program thing could potentially carry some federal charges.Which brings me to my second pardon recommendation: Why don’t you go ahead and pardon yourself while you have the chance (better safe than sorry). It would be a presidential first! No president has ever preemptively pardoned himself – although Nixon seriously considered it.But you will not have your VP to fall back on for a pardon like Nixon. Barack Obama will be taking office, and don’t count on a pardon from him.He clearly hates Republicans, as exhibited by his master plan to take all their money.Finally, I think that you should pardon Mark Tynes for two reasons.One, because he is serving a 27-year sentence for drug trafficking, which is just obscene, and two, because his brother, Lawrence Tynes, helped to defeat the Patriots in the Super Bowl last year (he’s the kicker for the New York Giants). Clearly, this case is worthy of some presidential mercy.Hope this cleared up a few things – now get busy pardoning!
(11/11/08 2:24am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Sure, we all heard plenty this election season about the Bradley effect (the theory proposed to explain the discrepancies between election results and opinion polls in races involving one white and one nonwhite candidate, which implies people say they’ll vote for a nonwhite candidate but won’t actually do it).But what about the Urkel effect?Joel Stein wrote in Time days before the election: “The Urkel effect holds that voters leaning toward Obama will suddenly think, ‘I cannot take four years of listening to that giant-eared nerd.’”Obviously neither effect, if existent in this election, was enough to keep Obama from the title of president-elect. But while the role his race played has been reiterated more than ‘Sarah Palin nude pictures’ has been Googled, not much attention has been paid to his nerdom.For sure, the election of Barack Obama is notable because of his race. But this aspect overshadowed a no less important one: Obama is an unabashed, out-of-the-closet intellectual.In a country where the population is more likely to believe in the existence of UFOs than the correctness of Darwinism and where only three-fourths of us can correctly name the country we gained our independence from, intelligence often goes unappreciated – and lacking intelligence is acceptable.Sarah Palin’s allegeded mistaken belief that Africa is a country (and not a continent) might not be alarming to you if you’re amongst the fifth of the population that believe the sun actually revolves around the earth.But maybe, just maybe, we have finally come to the conclusion that the ‘guy you’d wanna have a beer with’ might not be the most prepared to handle the largest economic disaster or our lifetime.America has finally taken a step away from the anti-intelligence of the Bush administration, which consistently rejected expertise ranging from the opinions of reproductive health specialists to recommendations by Middle East experts.We elected a nerd among nerds: an Ivy-League educated law professor. Obama graduated with Magna Cum Laude Honors from Harvard Law School (versus McCain who was 894th out of 899 in his graduating class at the Naval Academy). It would seem we are regaining a sense of appreciation for our nerds.So now that we have confronted our social biases that have stuck with us since eighth grade gym class, surely we can all get behind our skinny, overly practical, philosophy-reading, emotionless president to reachieve American prosperity, right?Of course, as Nicholas Kristof points out in the New York Times, Emperor Nero was amongst the most intellectual rulers of ancient times, and he castrated and married a slave boy who bared resemblance to his pregnant wife after he killed her (along with his mom and brother) and most likely set fire to Rome.But at least we no longer have to place our trust in a guy who asks “is our children learning?”
(11/04/08 3:16am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Ladies and gentlemen, it’s the moment you’ve all been waiting for! Nov. 4 is finally upon us. At long last, you will have the opportunity to take part in the most beautiful process of modern democracy and cast your vote.More importantly, when you wake up on Wednesday the world will be a very different place. No longer will you have to avoid making contact with all those motivated people carrying clipboards lest you be harassed about your voter registration status.You will once again be able to answer unknown phone numbers without the fear that it will be a well-meaning but nevertheless obnoxious volunteer reminding you that you may vote early.The sidewalk chalk and yard signs that litter our campus and town will slowly vanish. And thank God you will not have to hear the phrase “vote or die” for another three and a half years. Oh yeah, and we’ll have elected a new president, taking us one step closer to forever ridding the White House of the abomination known as George W.But today the election is in full swing. And all that is democracy will culminate in the events you’ve been impatiently anticipating for months: election night parties. In case you were hoping to join in your respective candidate’s celebration (or pity party), I will offer some sound advice. Firstly, for the Republicans: If you plan to travel all the way to the Biltmore Hotel in Phoenix this evening, don’t be surprised if you make it there but John McCain doesn’t.Unless you are among the small, hand-picked group comprised mainly of reporters who have traveled with McCain on his campaign plane, you will not be able to see McCain speak live and in person.Instead, you will watch the same televised version the rest of us will see. McCain plans on only addressing a small press pool from the hotel’s lawn and broadcasting the post-election remarks via television to the indoor party; he has no plans to make a direct appearance in front of supporters inside the hotel. But, hey, maybe you’ll get a glimpse of Palin if you’re lucky.Grant Park will be a slightly different atmosphere.The venue famous for annually hosting Lollapalooza has a theoretically limitless outdoor capacity, and Chicago Mayor Daley is estimating about 1 million Obama supporters will crowd the park this evening.But don’t be fooled into thinking that just because the party will be “free and open to the public,” getting in will be cheap. If you’re trying to get a glimpse of the $2 million extravaganza, including an enormous specially built stage, you will need a ticket. And sadly enough, the Obama campaign has ceased to issue them.But don’t give up quite yet. Democrats from as far as Sweden, Hawaii, Texas and Canada have turned to eBay and Craigslist, offering everything from cash (as much as $200) to custom furniture painting to sex (yes, you read that correctly: sex). So if you have a special talent or questionable morals and a bit of determination, I’m sure it’s not too late to snag your ticket.And if you’re bummed because you can’t make it to either election night party, be comforted by the knowledge that after tonight, your daily run-ins with political activists will be substantially reduced, and you will no longer have to wake up to headlines of celebrity endorsements.
(10/28/08 2:34am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The sky is falling! The sky is falling!The economy is clearly a mess as we helplessly suffer through one of the greatest financial panics of all time. Nearly unanimously, the population believes our country is headed in “the wrong direction.”Jeff Probst is creating a reality TV show about terminally ill people in the last days of their lives (it’s creatively entitled “Live Like You’re Dying”). Perhaps most heartbreakingly, one of our very own pop culture icons is deserting us in our time of need: Ringo Starr has stopped responding to fan mail because he is just too busy. But hey, look on the bright side: At least you aren’t Joe Wurzelbacher.You probably know him by his nickname, “Joe the plumber.” This stereotypical American has come to represent everything wrong with “spreading the wealth around” and Obama’s tax proposals in general. One moment, he was a normal guy from Ohio and the next, the centerpiece of a fierce campaign.Frankly, I feel sorry for the man. I’m glad I am not him – not only because of the way he was dragged into the media spotlight, but also because of the repercussions of stardom. A little digging on the part of the press produced a few embarrassing facts. For example, he owes Uncle Sam a little tax money and isn’t actually a licensed plumber.When first mentioned by John McCain in the third presidential debate, Wurzelbacher described the situation as “surreal” and, despite his clear dissatisfaction with Obama’s tax plan, stated to reporters that his vote was only for him and a button to know.However, he quickly embraced representing middle America, whether accurately so or not. I think that Joe the plumber’s rise in politics is representative of this campaign as a whole. As he was swept into the campaign his viewpoints and statements drastically changed.Despite the fact that since he spoke with Obama, it has been shown that Joe would actually be better off under Obama’s tax plan, he has dismissed the Democratic candidate, saying he didn’t support “government handouts for the less well-off.”And now he is even considering his own run for Congress in 2010. He revealed his plan to conservative talk show host Laura Ingraham and confirmed the possibility of a campaign to Fox News. Ohio Republican leaders have been supportive of this possibility, saying they would welcome his challenge of Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in her Toledo area seat.What started as two candidates looking to alter the status quo and campaign respectfully has turned into one of the least civilized election races. Similar to Joe, who has become so enraptured in partisanship that he moved from refusing to tell the media which candidate he supported to potentially running for Congress, the continuance of the campaign has driven both Obama and McCain farther into polarity. As the end nears, both sides have consistently abandoned courtesy, regard and respectful politics. I’m just looking forward to Nov. 5.
(10/01/08 1:12am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Every February I battle my way through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid.I don’t know why I continually put myself through this. It is lengthy, complicated and rather time-consuming, and ultimately it makes me want to set fire to any and all IRS-related paperwork.Of course, I’m not the only one who has a few complaints about FAFSA. Its complex and daunting nature has often been blamed for intimidating lower-income families from even considering college. The Rethinking Student Aid Study Group has recently recommended that the FAFSA be scrapped and financial information be taken directly from income-tax returns.While I applaud this notion of simplification for everyone’s sake, I must object to some of the other recommendations. Another focal proposal of the study group is to shift funding from more middle-income families to lower-income ones. The group advocates that aid now going to students with incomes higher than 250 percent of the poverty level should be directed to lower-income students (as well as a reduction in the amount of aid for families only mildly below this level). While I do not disagree that lower-income students are in the most need of funds, there are many outlets of assistance for them – states, universities and private sources that include scholarships and grants all contribute to financially supporting those below, at, or barely above the poverty line. There are far fewer of these resources for more middle-class families who are now seriously grappling with rising tuition and living expenses. Many Ivy League schools and other well-endowed universities have restructured their entire financial aid systems to better accommodate middle-income families. Harvard, for instance, has adopted a “0 to 10 percent” policy that states any family earning $180,000 or less will not have to pay more than 10 percent of its income (families below $60,000 are not required to pay anything).For the middle-income families who’s children will not be attending an Ivy, however, financial aid can play a crucial role in college attendance and debt acquisition. Two-hundred-fifty percent of the poverty line for a family of four is only $53,000, and under the study group’s recommendation, only families earning less than $31,800 would receive the maximum Pell Grant amount of $5,000. It’s not as though by “middle-income” we’re talking about the rich and famous here. While helping the lower-income families should certainly be a priority, it is unfair and injudicious to unreservedly neglect families that earn slightly above an arbitrary line yet still struggle with the costs of higher education.
(09/30/08 2:06am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>America is in love with the notion that anyone could become president; a commonplace citizen taking command is the ultimate illustration of what our land of opportunities represents. We value in our political candidates an aura of ordinariness and a sense of being down-to-earth. We want our presidents to be just like us. We enjoy imagining that our commander in chief is the type of dude with whom you’d like to sit down at a bar and have a beer (or, in the case of Hillary, a swig of whiskey), which is why the dub “elitist” has become so, well, nasty. It’s a label both candidates reject, snub and fear.Elite is, technically speaking, defined as “the best or most skilled members of a group.” Let me ask you this: If you were going into a hospital tomorrow for some complex type of brain surgery, would you not want an elite surgeon to perform the task?Likewise, we send elite troops on our most critical missions and ask elite pilots to fly our planes. And aren’t you glad that Peyton Manning is an elite athlete (well, most of the time anyway)? So why do we condemn an elitist in the political arena?The next leader of the free world will face nuclear proliferation, ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (and covert wars elsewhere), global climate change, a precarious economy, Russian belligerence, the rise of China, a defunct United Nations, emerging epidemics, the deterioration of American schools, failures of energy, infrastructure and Internet security ... is your head spinning yet?I don’t think that I could tackle these problems and, no offense, I don’t believe that you could either. Nor could anyone like us. I kind of feel like this job could maybe, just maybe, require someone better trained, more intelligent, more talented – more, well, elite than you or me.And let’s face it: Neither candidate is anything like us. McCain, who doesn’t know how many homes he owns, and Obama, with his Ivy League education and world travels, don’t know much about a day in the life of the average Indiana resident – or American citizen, for that matter.But voters have fooled themselves into demanding mediocrity, surmising that this trait enables our politicians to identify with us. We are buying into the notion that “elite” candidates think they are better than us and convincing ourselves that a desirable presidential quality is the absence of excellence.America’s elite is the result of a combination of extraordinary talent and meticulous training; in no realm outside of politics will you find these qualities disparaged.The next president’s thoughts and actions will decide the fates of millions. Is it an unreasonable or pompous assumption that, in the 21st century, only an incredibly well-educated person should be given command of our nuclear arsenal? Give me an elitist, please.
(09/23/08 2:14am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I think we are probably all in agreement that democracy is a really good thing.Of course there are the obvious freedoms and pleasantries affixed to this governing style, such as greater individual liberty, political stability, freedom from governmental violence and enhanced quality of life relative to non-democracies.Amartya Sen, the winner of the 1998 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, has pointed out that “no famine has ever taken place in the history of the world in a functioning democracy.”Additionally, I think we all know by now that, statistically speaking, stable democracies are less likely to war with one another. Furthermore, democracies in general enhance long-term economic performance. So I think we can all agree that democracy is, say, better than an authoritarian regime. However, empirically we have found that actually implementing and spreading democracy is much easier said than done.President Bush’s simply-remove-the-tyrant method, as seen applied to Iraq, has certainly left something to be desired. Merely holding elections is not the solution for developing democracies, which tend to be rather unstable and produce election results that indicate if pushed too soon people will vote only according to their established ethnic, religious or racial identities. The internal structure of democracy, including institutions of law, a civil society and a bureaucratic framework, need time to develop. The Magna Carta, which first established limits on governmental power, actually preceded universal adult suffrage in Britain by about 800 years.As Newsweek writer Fareed Zakaria argues in a recent column, foreign aid, too, has had its failings.More aid does not necessarily correlate to better governance and often its good intentions end in massive corruption. Indeed, the aid programs did not produce early and successful democratic transitions of countries like Taiwan, South Korea and Chile.Unless loans, grants and forms of debt relief are properly structured, they can actually be detrimental, lending foreign aid a bad rap.What the implementation of democracy necessitates in most cases is land reform. The benefits of widely distributed land and the idea that private land ownership results in freedom are exhibited by our own Homestead Act of 1862, in which the United States government gave away 10 percent of public lands to anyone willing to pay a small filling fee.Hernando de Soto, a highly-regarded Peruvian economist, has argued that the principal impediment to development in the Third World is the aversion of feudal elites and governments to give fully-fledged property rights to their tenants and farmers. Land is the largest asset in most societies and land reform, contrary to the belief that this is a socialist process, actually places land that was first acquired centuries ago by non-market means into the marketplace for the first time.The reforms are crucial to converting a backward peasant society into a modern capitalist one. It is this process that lays the groundwork for successful democracy.
(09/15/08 1:10am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The Russian government is undertaking a courageous crusade to protect the innocent eyes and ears of its citizenry from the abasement of “national dignity” and incitement of “religious and national hatred.” These horrific notions, along with the villainy of “offending the honor and dignity of Muslims and Christians alike,” are the result of cartoon characters singing Christmas songs. Don’t be fooled because it sounds innocent. The animations in “Mr. Hankey’s Christmas Classics,” the “South Park” episode that caught the attention of Russian prosecutors, included the likes of Santa Claus, Jesus Christ, Adolf Hitler, Satan, and an anthropomorphized human feces known as Mr. Hankey – the Christmas poo – in addition to the previously realized public enemies Stan Marsh, Kenny McCormick, and Eric Cartman. Together, this team of illustrated characters assaulted the purity of Russian children’s minds while simultaneously “provoking ethnic conflict and sparking inter-religious hatred.” They, along with emo music and maverick journalists, must be stopped for the sake of Russian society!Television programs such as “South Park” that bare “signs of extremist activity” must swiftly be terminated and banned from the airways. This is precisely what Moscow prosecutors are attempting to accomplish with legal proceedings that began last Monday, citing the show’s violation of a 2006 law which widened the definition of extremism to include the exact atrocities of which “South Park” is guilty: degradation of Russian dignity and the provocation of religious and national hatred. It is about time; extremist media outlets such as this have been long overlooked and underestimated. The depiction of a fourth-grader singing a slightly altered version of “O Holy Night” is obviously just as detrimental to Russia’s social fabric as unorthodox reporters and the “emo” genre of music, including the detestable affixations, such as pierced lips and eye shadow that come with it. Action had already been taken against these social hazards: No less than 261 journalists have been murdered in Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union, most recently Anna Politkovskaya, who “besmirched her country’s reputation” by accusing Russian President Vladimir Putin of “state terrorism” and describing him as a “KGB snoop” (despite the fact that he indeed had a background as an agent for the Soviet intelligence service, this tarnished the Russian image). This summer a bill was introduced that pushes for heavy regulation of emo Web sites and the banning of emo and goth fashion from schools and government buildings. The equation within the legal system of shows such as “South Park” that “promote immorality and violence” to the inimical effects of emo culture’s “negative ideology” – which might encourage depression, social withdrawal and even suicide, according to the proposed anti-emo bill – and the negative ramifications generated from criticisms of the government by Russian journalists is long overdue. “The point is so that by 2020, Moscow will have someone to rule its government,” explained Alexander Grishunin, an adviser to a Duma member. Thankfully, the Russian government has stepped in once more to protect their delicate leaders of tomorrow from not only a blemished national image and black nail polish, but also Mr. Hankey, the Christmas poo.
(09/09/08 12:37am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>They are filthy with mud streaking their faces and matted hair. The mother holds her son, her parted lips revealing that she has no teeth. Her daughter follows behind her, looking on despondently. They could be beggars on the crowded Indian street. Well, except that the toddler is donning a Fendi bib worth more than two months’ income for an impoverished family in rural India. They appeared in the August issue of Vogue India. Other similar pictures, including a barefoot man with a Burberry umbrella and a family of three squeezed onto a motorbike with a Hermes handbag exemplified the emerging trend of ‘Third World’ chic. Earlier in the summer, clothing designed by India’s downtrodden and impoverished women made an appearance on the New York catwalk. The sixteen-page Vogue spread is the most recent example of bringing the Indian lower class into fashion.India’s leading social commentators have attacked the photo shoot as ‘distasteful’ and ‘callous’ - and rightfully so. The decision to utilize some of the poorest peasants in India, many of whom are living on less than about a dollar a day, according to the World Bank, for a photo shoot featuring obscenely luxurious fashion items was exploitative and seriously trivializes the plight of people who are legitimately struggling to survive. In a country where hundreds of farmers commit suicide every year due to crop failures and increasing debt, it is not amusing to use huts and dirt roads as a backdrop for designer fashion accessories. Additionally, Vogue did not even name the models, listing them only as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ while pouring out details regarding accessories and store locations.Leading fashion designer David Abraham defended Vogue saying that critics should relax because fashion is really all about fun and because “wealth next to poverty is just a reality in India.” While this may be true, using people who struggle on a daily basis to obtain food in order to serve the purpose of fashionable fun is beyond distasteful. Kanika Gahlaut, a leading Indian columnist, responded to the pictures: “There’s nothing ‘fun or funny’ about putting a poor person in a mud hut in clothing designed by Alexander McQueen. There are farmer suicides here for God’s sake.” The actual distribution of Vogue in India drives home the serious state of affairs for the majority of the population: The magazines are sold mainly at roadside junctions by bonded child laborers who are often sold by their parents to gangmasters at an early age and earn just a few pennies per copy.While it is clear that Vogue and the designer fashion industry were attempting to gain name recognition and advertise to the rapidly expanding and newly rich elite in India, a spread involving not India’s upper class, which could actually purchase the items, but impoverished members of the lower class was an extremely offensive and repugnant decision. As economic disparities in India continue to increase, luxury brands need to be more tasteful and respectful in their future endeavors into the new market.
(09/04/08 3:11am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Something has changed in the McCain camp. The Straight Talk Express has essentially derailed; reporters now travel separate from the candidate, something previously mocked by McCain, and open-ended question time has dwindled due to McCain’s newfound clench on his specific talking points. He has refused to answer hardball questions such as one asked by a “Time” reporter: “Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it’s over?” No response.More importantly, however, is McCain’s shift from his high-road, policy-based campaign approach to an Obama assault approach. During the summer he issued ads ridiculing Obama with comparisons to Paris Hilton and accusations that Obama would “rather lose a war than lose an election.” This is disheartening. This shift represents something greater than different and more lowball campaign tactics. It is a change from conservative optimism to go-for-the-jugular negativity. McCain has unfortunately turned to the Bush style of campaigning. George W. Bush and his father left a campaign legacy of pessimistic sarcasm that attempts to paint rivals as unpatriotic, weak or elitist. This was not seen just a few decades ago with Ronald Reagan. He attacked his opponents on policy with optimistic confidence that his ideas and philosophies were truly better than the status quo of exhausted industrial-age liberalism. His most well-known ads were a series titled “Morning in America” that included magnificent American images but not his opponent’s name. George H.W. Bush and Lee Atwater, his political consultant, bestowed upon U.S. politics the type of sarcastic negativity that would later capacitate Rush Limbaugh’s niche. During the campaign against Michael Dukakis, Atwater conducted a series of focus groups involving blue-collar East Coast Democrats that revealed such fodder as that Dukakis was “against” the Pledge of Allegiance and that he ran a weekend prison-release program which permitted Willie Horton, a felon in a Massachusetts prison, to go on a killing spree. Atwater died before the Clinton election, and Bob Dole avoided these tactics for the most part. However, the campaigning style of Karl Rove saw a return to these methods with the “independent” Swift Boat campaign in 2004. Now McCain has fallen victim. I’m not saying the Democrats or Obama have been entirely innocent here, but let’s face it – in all reality they’re just not very good at personal assaults. The Republicans are the ones using the strategy successfully.And that’s what’s most disappointing: It’s working. Since McCain has shifted his campaign strategy, he has been rising in the polls and steadily catching up with Obama.You can’t really blame the guy for trying to win the election. Sadly enough, I think it insinuates a lot about our political system when a candidate who has prided himself on avoiding dishonorable tactics feels as though he must resort to them to stand a chance of winning or even just to get a bit of press coverage. Voters need to stop rewarding destructive attacks and encourage candidates to return to the productive policy-based optimism of the Reagan era.
(08/28/08 1:30am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Twenty-three months. That’s a long time. Twenty-three months ago I was embarking on my college career, preparing to trade in the comforts of my spacious home for a 10-by-10 square with bunk beds and a gothic roommate. Twenty-three months ago people everywhere were awestruck to learn that Pluto is not a planet after all and that “my very elegant mother just served us nine pizzas” would never again have the same connotation for fourth graders. Twenty-three months is also the amount of time that George W. Bush’s approval rating has been less than 40 percent. It’s true. The vast majority of the American people have dubbed our 43rd president a failure. The natural reaction of the presidential candidates has been an attempt to distance themselves as much as possible from the current administration. This is especially crucial for McCain, whose relations with Bush could hurt him as much as Wright has harmed Obama, according to a USA Today/Gallup Poll. The poll found “38 percent of likely voters saying McCain’s association with Bush makes them less likely to vote for McCain, while 33 percent say Obama’s association with Wright diminishes their likelihood of voting for Obama.” Rejecting Bush’s policies seems to be an obvious and necessary strategy for both Republican and Democratic campaigns at this point.However, while I am certainly the last person to defend Bush’s presidency, I do think it is key to realize he got a few things right, especially over the more recent portion of his presidency, and that if Obama or McCain aren’t careful they could wind up committing the same major fallacy that Bush did. It is easy to look back over the past seven years and point out Bush’s major mistakes. Regardless of your opinion of the Iraq war, it is hard to argue that it was waged correctly from the beginning; we invaded with too few troops, took apart the Iraqi army and state and alienated both Sunnis and Shiites with the occupation. Additionally, Bush has been the most fiscally irresponsible president in American history, converting surpluses equal to 2.5 percent of the gross domestic product to deficits equal to 3 percent (that’s $4 trillion). That’s just to name a few obvious blunders.However, many of Bush’s mistakes were made early in his presidency and were rooted in his determination to unthinkingly repudiate any and all things Bill Clinton. Before he even examined or evaluated Clintonian policies, he knew they had to be rejected. The next president cannot afford a similar mindset. It is absolutely pivotal that the good policies of the Bush administration are recognized and continued; blanket criticism is simply not constructive and ignores that many of Bush’s most radical policies have been altered or discarded. The next president is not taking office in 2001; they will not be able to fix Bush’s errors. They will inherit the world as he shaped it. It is of the utmost importance they do not repeat Bush’s fallacy and critically evaluate all policies before rejecting or reversing them on a solely ideological basis.
(07/30/08 9:34pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Barack Obama’s recent world tour was indubitably bold. For a man who has yet to even officially be named his party’s presidential nominee, it is only natural that his actions were seen by many as presumptuous. Numerous critics condemned Obama for undermining the authority of Bush by meeting with foreign leaders. Others questioned why Obama seems to be campaigning for the U.S. presidency in foreign countries. Fox News even lambasted the photograph taken of him playing basketball with troops in Kuwait, pointing out that McCain would not be capable of such a stunt due to his war wounds, which prevent him from raising his arms above his head. Ultimately, however, the tour was ingenious and was a great success for the Obama campaign. But for a moment, let’s look past the narrow scope of Obama’s individual campaign. His tour, and its relative success among his supporters and U.S. voters in general despite its unorthodoxy, exemplified a shifting American worldview. We are learning, albeit slowly, that for better or worse we as Americans are not isolated from the rest of the world and that the opinions of other nations matter. As the United States continues to address and attempts to understand terrorism, this lesson is invaluable. For too long we have relied on an “us and them” mentality, seeing ourselves in the First World as separate and secluded from the problems and the people in developing nations. The attacks of Sept. 11 unveiled not only Muslim rage but also the harsh reality that we cannot continue to ignore the plight of the “other” world without devastating repercussions. Sept. 11 exposed that we, just like those in Rwanda, Lebanon and Srebrenica, are vulnerable.The key to fighting terrorism is not occupation. In fact, terrorism, especially suicide terrorism, has been strongly linked to a strategy of national liberation against foreign occupiers. Robert Pape points out in his book “Dying to Win” that Osama bin Laden’s principle goal is “expulsion of American troops from the Persian Gulf and the reduction of Washington’s power and influence in the region.” He continues to explain that “the use of heavy offensive force to defeat today’s terrorists is the most likely stimulus to the rise of more.” Terrorism can be better addressed by ordinary Americans. We need to learn of foreign ideologies and religions. It is our responsibility to be familiar with our government’s foreign policies and utilize our democratic rights to support or oppose them. We are citizens of the United States; but more importantly, we are citizens of the world. It is up to us to develop sympathy for those who have experienced the helplessness similar to what we felt in September 2001. As Obama’s tour suggests, we are slowly adopting to this one-world mentality and the realization that the rest of the world is important, too. That is a courageous step toward a safer and more just world.
(07/16/08 10:05pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The current trends in gasoline prices have led many Americans to envision a world in which the price displays on gas pumps resemble slot machines along the Vegas strip, numbers spinning in constant upward motion. Already, I find myself saying, “In the good old days, I could fill up my car for less than $20!” I got my license five years ago. We are all feeling the economic pinch of higher gas prices right now––but there are some subtle perks.The most obvious is that people drive less. Gas purchases were down 3 percent in early July compared to the same month last year. This obviously equals less pollution and all its accompanying misery. But there are a lot of unnoticed benefits as well.Perhaps most importantly, studies have begun to link higher fuel prices to a reduction in auto fatalities. Professors Michael Morrissey of the University of Alabama at Birmingham and David Grabowski of Harvard Medical School found that for every 10 percent increase in gas prices, there was a 2.3 percent decline in automobile-related deaths. This effect was the most pronounced for younger drivers: the decline was 6 percent for drivers aged 16-17 and 3.2 percent for those aged 18-21. Several factors influence this correlation: People drive slower to maximize their mileage, they are more likely to upgrade from older vehicles to newer, more fuel efficient and safer ones, and all drivers, especially teenagers who demographically have the least amount of cash and are also the most high-risk vehicle operators, will drive less to save money. All this combines to reduce vehicular deaths by as many as 1,000 per month (which would reduce all auto fatalities by approximately one third) according to Morrissey’s estimate. For those of us aged 5 to 34 this is a significant plus to higher gas prices, as we are more likely to die in a car crash than any other way. Besides car crashes, obesity is a leading cause of death that is poised to overtake tobacco as the top cause of preventable death in the near future. Some studies have actually linked the lowering of real gas prices to Americans’ expanding waistlines and Charles Courtemanche of Washington University in St. Louis found that for every dollar increase in the average real price of gas, overweight and obesity levels in the United States would eventually decline by 16 percent. As gas costs rise, people walk and bike more and are less likely to eat out.These two examples are not the only benefits as people are to make behavioral shifts. Businesses are becoming more local due to rising shipping costs. Americans are rethinking our dependency on foreign oil and more people have begun seeing this as a national security threat. The sagging housing market is picking up a bit in cities as people abandon suburbia for the relief of a shorter commute. Hollywood is even boasting higher sales as people opt for the local cinema in place of a long drive. While none of this may make your next fill-up any less painful, it is nice to know that there is a silver lining.
(07/02/08 10:23pm)
Last night I turned 21. I went out, I took immense pride and satisfaction in pointing out to the bouncer who so rudely and ignorantly proclaimed, “This is an under-21 license” that I was indeed 21 and drank a whole lot of free booze. I even got a free T-shirt that reads “Hey! It’s my birthday!” It was, in a word, awesome. This was the final frontier, the last coming-of-age birthday that’s really any fun. All I have left to look forward to now is cheaper car insurance and the senior citizen’s discount.\nBut I don’t really feel more like an adult. For the past three years, I have watched my classmates and peers get married, have babies, accumulate credit card debt, move into their own apartments and even go off to Iraq. My 21st birthday, more than anything else, simply made it appropriate for me to drink a cocktail in front of my mother. In all reality, the drinking age in the United States is a mockery of American law and a display of our lawmakers’ illogical pandering to interest groups as well as the population at large. The United States is one of only four nations to implement a drinking age of 21 (the others are Mongolia, Indonesia and Palau). The only countries that have stricter laws than these follow Islamic Shariah law.\nMost lawmakers and others who support the current drinking age point to the sharp decrease in alcohol-related vehicular fatalities since the current legal age was raised to 21 during the ’80s. However, this likely had very little to do with the law. For one thing, the 18-21 demographic was shrinking as baby boomers grew up. Additionally, seatbelt use was very much on the rise (it was only 14 percent in 1984 – in 2004, 80 percent of drivers used seatbelts). But most importantly, a cultural shift was taking place, and we as a society were becoming aware that drinking and driving is problematic. Adults and friends’ parents have told me that in the 1980s, driving after drinking was just not really seen as a concern; people thought very little, if anything at all, of it. Even before the drinking age was raised, alcohol-related fatalities were already in a declining trend due to the simple fact that people were becoming much more aware of the dangers of alcohol.\nQuite frankly, our government took the easy way out and created a quick fix to appease a concerned population. The truth of the matter is that an 18-year-old who is entrusted by our nation with an M-16, or even a MasterCard, should be able to purchase beer at the supermarket. Similar fallacies in policy and public education can be cited almost endlessly, including our “War on Drugs” (surprisingly, marijuana is not the same as heroin, despite the fact that the government treats them that way) and the abstinence-only sex “education” of some schools that leaves teenagers clueless as to condom usage and birth control. We need a government that will create long-term solutions, such as accurate education, public advocacy and well-reasoned legislation, instead of policies that eventually do more harm than good but look nice on paper.