89 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/18/08 2:05am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>The man crusaded against the Federal Reserve System, hinted about a plan for a North American Union and claimed that the Federal Income Tax was unconstitutional. When Ron Paul ran for the Republican presidential nomination last year, he inspired legions of followers and for a time was raising more money than John McCain.I can truly say that Ron Paul was the phenomenon of our campus last year.Ron Paul carried on his campaign after it was really over, securing plenty of votes in primaries long after McCain was the presumptive nominee, and holding a Rally for the Republic during the Republican National Convention that attracted almost as many people.Alas, last week Ron Paul decided to divvy out his influence in the least effective way possible: He endorsed four of the main third-party candidates: Ralph Nader (independent), Bob Barr (Libertarian), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party) and Cynthia McKinney (Green). This could clash with Mr. Paul’s crusade to reform the Republican Party from the inside out and leave his supporters wondering what to do.Many would probably be pleased to see such a snag in Paulism. I know plenty of liberals on campus who scoffed – with a hint of jealousy – at the enthusiasm of the Paulites and just mentioning Ron Paul around most conservatives was enough to make their blood boil.When I first wrote about Ron Paul last year, I derided his insistence on withdrawing from the U.N. and his calls to make gold legal tender. I still think he is wrong on both of these issues and plenty more, but I wish the Republican Party would have taken more from Ron Paul.In many ways, there is a gap in our political system – a gap for those who marry their support of economic freedom with a similar support of personal freedom. This gap has never been adequately filled by the wacky and ineffectual Libertarian Party. Thus many voters are forced to watch Democrats and Republicans to decide which party, during any election, is closer to their views.I have long favored the Democrats, not least of all because I grew up during the often incompetent reign of the Bush Administration, but last year’s Republican presidential primary seemed to change things.Unfortunately, Republicans have opted out of the admittedly difficult path of fixing their own party. Instead they have re-embraced the same conservative ideology that was so devoid of skepticism and self-criticism.John McCain has turned his back on an incredible opportunity this election by trying to appease this broken movement.Many conservatives turned a blind eye while Bush mismanaged a war and busted a budget and they are turning a blind eye now to Sarah Palin’s fickle foreign policy views and her history of earmarks.Plenty of conservatives used the federal government to teach their version of sex education and tried to use it to define marriage while supposedly championing “small government.”McCain could have whipped the conservative movement – a movement that may have once been about ideas but is now about conformity – into shape.I am starting to miss Ron Paul.
(09/10/08 3:53am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>Mike Sodrel, the Republican candidate for the Indiana 9th Congressional District (which includes Bloomington), recently took a trip to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. What was Mike doing all the way up in Alaska?He has been doing what plenty of Republicans have been trying to do this election season: make energy an issue that actually help’s the GOP.On Sodrel’s Web site you can see clips of the beautiful Alaskan wilderness contained within ANWR. This wilderness apparently only provoked thoughts of oil for Sodrel; perhaps he was succumbing to the same emotion that overtook the Republican National Convention crowd as they chanted “drill, baby, drill” at former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s beckoning.America is finally having a big debate about energy policy and, somehow, I couldn’t be less happy. Going into this election there were two energy policies I really wanted to see support for. One was an increased gas tax, which is the best way to increase the use of mass transit, encourage the purchases of more efficient cars and reduce congestion.The other was a carbon tax to force suppliers to pay for the damage excessive carbon emission do in terms of global warming. A tax on carbon, versus simply subsidizing alternatives, would encourage suppliers to find alternatives that actually work. “We can’t create energy by raising taxes,” writes Mike Sodrel on his Web site. It makes me wonder how he plans on encouraging alternative energy – something many Republicans now support as part of a try-everything to lower energy prices mantra.Sodrel claims he supports alternatives in the long term, but I haven’t heard him complain about the possible expiration of alternative energy tax credits the way he complained about Congress adjourning before they could vote on drilling for oil offshore and in ANWR.That is the Republican strategy for this election: focus on the populist notion of energy independence and hope voters forget that Reagan tore solar panels off the roof of the White House. Then pretend Democrats are keeping oil prices high by not allowing drilling in a few select areas. The Democrats have their own problems on energy policy. Barack Obama has supported wasteful ethanol subsidies and also indulges the protectionist notion of making sure green jobs are American.There is a lot of pandering because our current energy debate doesn’t exist because of our long-term problems. Increased demand from India and China has brought the price of oil to a record high, and most Americans only seem concerned about one aspect of energy: its price.People can be forgiven for being upset when their gas bill doubles, but we have two presidential candidates who support a carbon-trading scheme; basically a complex carbon tax. If politicians can admit that this scheme, while good policy, is going to increase the price of energy, then we would be closer to dealing with our real energy problems – problems that will still be here even if the price of oil creeps back downward.
(08/26/08 3:40am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I just don’t like conservatives. They make supposedly principled calls for personal responsibility, freedom and American values that come across to me as either macho and narcissistic or crotchety and irrelevant.It seems like all conservatives, no matter what’s actually being discussed, always reference values and, alas, abortion. It’s hard to think of a group that has lowered the caliber of our political debates more than pro-life organizations armed with emotionally appealing but logically backward arguments. Right by my desk in the Indiana Daily Student newsroom there is a calendar dedicated to Ronald Reagan. It’s a relic of previous editors who were a little more right-leaning than I am. I will probably keep it up for its ironic humor, but I can barely believe that the calendar, which displays Reagan doing manly conservative things like cutting taxes, driving big trucks and cutting down trees, is something someone would actually purchase.I remember 2000. I was young and didn’t really care about politics, but my mom woke me up at about five in the morning to tell me that no one had won the presidential election. After a few weeks of watching Al Gore and George Bush fight over a recount, I decided who I wished would win, and it wasn’t the man the Supreme Court decided to make president. I also remember 2004. I cared a lot about that election and was both shocked and crushed that John Kerry lost. I probably don’t like Kerry nearly as much these days, but if given another chance, I would still vote for him over the competition he had that year. I still remember the frustration I had with friends who were happy about Bush’s victory, and I remember feeling Kerry’s concession speech came way too early. In 2008 I will be casting my vote in Bloomington. Before I first moved down to Bloomington last year I imagined I was moving to a liberal bastion surrounded by a sea of conservatism. After seeing the unique cultural quirks of this town and the signs that line I-65 trying to guilt or scare me into going to church, I am pretty sure I was right. Bloomington is a town Indiana Democrats love. Obama organizers will push voter registration because they know they don’t really have to convince a lot of us to vote Democrat. They just have to make us deliver big.Rep. Baron Hill, D-9th, will come here because we are one of the most liberal parts of his district. I don’t think Mike Sodrel, Hill’s Republican opponent, will be stopping by in his trademark 18-wheeler very often. Neither Obama nor Hill are perfect, but I know for a fact there are copies of “The Obama Nation” sitting on tables in southern Indiana. This state goes red for the wrong reasons. I don’t think I will have trouble remembering 2008 if for the first time in 40 years Indiana goes blue for the right reasons.
(07/27/08 9:47pm)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I bear no illusions as to what the state of the campus will be in the fall. It is all too likely that in a few weeks the people badgering me outside Ballantine Hall will be Obama supporters. Perhaps ‘badgering’ is a little harsh. Most of the Obamites I ran into during the primary were overzealous, but also very nice. Still, a man can only take so many flyers before he grows tired of the whole thing. I suspect that the trash cans overflowing with said flyers indicate I wasn’t alone. Despite all the festivities, I don’t think I saw a single McCain supporter camped out encouraging people to register or rally. The Republican primary wasn’t very competitive, but then again I still saw plenty of Ron Paul supporters out and about. I can’t help but wonder if there even are any McCain supporters on campus. Perhaps they are simply laying low – not a bad idea given that my own editor has seen his McCain bumper sticker vandalized multiple times (now it just says “fuck” on it).It still amazes me how fast some people have come to see McCain as just another dishonest double-talking politician. When I endorsed John McCain for the Republican nomination, I did so because I thought he had principally opposed his own party on several issues including global warming and torture. I followed up by mocking “real conservatives” who pretended they opposed McCain because he wasn’t one of them (but supported a formerly pro-life, pro-gay governor of Massachusetts).Back then people liked it; these days, not so much. I now encounter people who constantly berate the fact that I ever said anything halfway flattering about McCain. It usually goes something like this: “Did you hear what John McCain said today? He is such a liar. I can’t believe you don’t realize he’s a liar. I always knew he was a liar. I told you he was a liar. I told you he was just like Bush.”This is often fairly frustrating, in part because I am fairly sure none of them actually told me any of those things (at least not until McCain actually got the nomination) and also because I never actually endorsed McCain for the presidency. Alas, I cannot blame this prompt and vicious anti-McCain response on pure partisanship alone. McCain has been a thoroughly disappointing Republican nominee from his waffle on torture to his gas-tax holiday to his opposition to a withdrawal from Iraq.I had hoped McCain could brush aside the more obnoxious right-wing tools and get his party back on track. Unfortunately he now seems to think he needs those hacks.McCain’s work on bipartisan immigration and campaign finance reform were not dreams, they really happened. McCain’s story seems to the story of a man who missed his shot in 2000 but sold some of his principles for another shot.But principle is a dear thing. Now I can almost forgive the “Bush = McCain” mantra.
(07/14/08 4:00am)
____simple_html_dom__voku__html_wrapper____>I happen to love Buffalo Wild Wings. So when I finally arrived back home after the first summer session, I was overjoyed to learn that one had just been constructed less than five minutes away from my house.I was excited to finally take advantage of such an amazing opportunity, but when I finally pulled into the parking lot I was met with confusion.From a distance I could make out two open parking spaces right by the main entrance. However, just as I was about to pull in I found myself faced not with a handicap-parking sign or a “reserved for staff” sign but rather with this peculiar specification: “Preferred: Fuel Efficient Vehicles.”Now I was driving a Toyota Highlander – not exactly the leanest nor most fuel efficient car on the road – so feeling unwelcomed by the signs I sped off to a much more welcoming but distant space. As I sat inside devouring boneless chicken wings of assorted flavors (it was cheap wing night) I saw plenty of other bulky cars drive up to those two spots only to turn away when they realized their cars were, like mine, not known for their gas mileage.Even after a delicious meal I couldn’t put the signs out of my mind; perhaps because of the flood-class rain that drenched me as I took the much longer journey to my parking space. Maybe God wanted me to get a hybrid. Then again, maybe he just wanted me to blow off those lame signs that, with the word “preferred” on them, were probably not legally binding. I am still wondering what the point of those signs are. If it’s supposed to be Buffalo Wild Wings’ way of showing that it cares about the environment I’m certainly not impressed. I have found that when it comes to environmentalists, there are some that espouse using economic stimuli to solve problems like global warming, and there are those rely more in creating a sense of moral responsibility.How many times have we all been told not to leave our water running or the lights on because we are killing the planet? The problem with trying to create a sense of personal responsibility is that it often devolves into a game of guilt. Meanwhile some people actually have decent reasons to own large cars and some people lead lives busy enough that they could probably be forgiven for forgetting to turn off the lights every once in a while. On the other hand, solutions more based in economics, like a tax on carbon or a cap-and-trade solution, where polluters are issued permits and are free to trade them, avoid dishing out blame but simply make everyone pay their fair share for the emissions they produce. I certainly think that’s a better solution than arbitrarily punishing drivers through exclusive parking spaces for “fuel efficient” vehicles.
(06/29/08 9:58pm)
I believe it something of a virtue to be willing to change your mind about what candidate you’re voting for this late into the election. That being said, I find it highly likely that come November I will cast my ballot for Barack Obama. Given the liberal skew of our age demographic and the activity I have seen around campus, I doubt I will be alone. \nBut how will our campus vote when it comes to the gubernatorial race? If all the Obama voters out there check their ballot for Jill Long Thompson simply because they see that reassuring (D) by her name, surely she will do well in Monroe County. However, I think if more people on campus do their homework about her, the (R) next to Mitch Daniels’ name will not look as menacing. \nThe biggest source of my doubts about Mrs. Thompson remains her economic policies. She criticizes Mr. Daniels for only focusing on certain parts of Indiana and claims that her plan will bring growth to far-flung rural communities. She wants to categorize all 92 counties in Indiana into different tiers.\nDepending on the tier, businesses within each county would get tax credits for each new job they create with the lower tiers getting a bigger tax credit for each new job. Businesses would also qualify for a tax credit on certain property expenditures. \nIf this sounds to you like a great way to encourage business growth, you should be aware that there are plenty of qualifiers on the tax credits. For example, business must offer health insurance, they must pay above the county average wage (not simply minimum wage), they cannot have had a significant environmental violation within the last five years, and retail businesses or companies that move from one county to another would not be eligible. \nIf by these requirements, you think a fairly large number of businesses wouldn’t make the cut, you’re probably right. The disqualification against businesses that have moved from county to county all but assures that larger businesses will be disqualified. Perhaps the most disappointing part of the whole plan is the claim that because the tax credits go toward new jobs they “won’t cost taxpayers anything.” Apparently other uses for our tax revenue or the fact that we are getting taxed in the first place do not constitute “costs.”\nMitch Daniels has focused on providing incentives for bigger companies – especially those abroad – based on the belief that they could create more jobs. A recent IU report concluded that due to extensive foreign direct investment, Indiana has enjoyed tremendous job growth in recent years, something Mr. Daniels probably deserves a lot of credit for. \nBut if there seems to be evidence that Mr. Daniels has had a successful economic policy, Mrs. Thompson leaves plenty of doubt about whether we would say the same of her in four years.
(06/15/08 8:39pm)
Some of them have been held for as long as six years without charge, but the Supreme Court decided last Thursday that detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay could indeed appeal their detention in U.S. Federal courts. \nSuch was exactly the decision I had hoped for when I found out the Court had decided to hear the case last December. Many critics claimed that extending full habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo prisoners would be setting a precedent to give such rights to prisoners being held in actual warzones (say Iraq or Afghanistan). I thought it was clear that given the long-term lease the U.S. has over Guantanamo Bay and the fact that it exercised exclusive sovereignty meant that U.S. constitutional rights still applied there. Even putting constitutional issues aside, I had long felt that supporters of Guantanamo Bay downplayed how much the facility, and its exceptional legal standing, served as a symbol of hypocrisy to those abroad, to whom we most needed to appeal.\nIt is not clear just how important this Supreme Court ruling will turn out to be. George Bush will no longer be president in a matter of months and both Barack Obama and John McCain seem much more concerned about the legal and ethical dilemmas involved with fighting terrorism. In effect, the ruling has come at a time when Guantanamo already doesn’t seem to have much of a future. \nStill, it is important that the Court has at least set the record straight. The most disappointing part of the ruling was not that it came so late but rather that it was such a close decision. \nJustice Anthony Kennedy joined Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer – generally considered to represent the more liberal wing of the court. They formed the majority against the more conservative Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia as well as John Roberts and Samuel Alito – Bush’s own two appointees. \nThe fact that this was a 5-4 decision does not make it easier to swallow when one closely examines the arguments of the dissenters. John Roberts included plenty of harsh words for “judicial activists” whom he claims were taking powers rightly vested in elected officials. Justice Roberts should keep in mind that even though judges can cause problems by entangling themselves in tricky public policy issues, courts cannot stand by without ruling against something clearly unconstitutional without committing a different kind of sin – one that is more the equivalent of judicial inactivism. \nJustice Antonin Scalia’s argument proved the most disappointing. The man wrote about our “war with radical Islamists” and the potential of the decision to cost American lives as though he had already prejudged the case. \nPerhaps McCain was the real disappointment. By trying to frame this Supreme Court decision as an excess of judicial activism, he is simply pandering. \nHe has recently suggested that he would appoint judges who would have decided as Roberts did. I can’t say I would look forward to that.
(05/26/08 7:02am)
In my lifetime, most of the new states that have come into existence have been the culmination of long-differed dreams. Timor-Leste was the first new state of this millennium, but it would have seen independence much sooner had it not been annexed by Indonesia after the Portuguese left. Kosovo, the most recent addition to the international community, was born out of ethnic conflict that has rocked the Balkans since the early nineties.\nIf and when a Palestinian state does come into existence it will be the example of a dream differed much longer than most. The celebration of Israel’s sixtieth anniversary has been a sobering affair precisely because it serves as a reminder that the Arab-Israeli conflict has lasted that entire sixty years without any satisfying resolution. In that regard, Israel’s sixtieth anniversary should serve as a sobering occasion for the United States as well, because lately we have done far too little to push a needed peace process forward.\nIgnoring the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of George Bush’s great mistakes. It is still barely possible to imagine that Bush’s plan to transform the Middle East might have come to something. He would have had to have done two things differently: One would have been to show more competence in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq. The other would have been to push for a breakthrough between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Helping to lay the groundwork for a Palestinian state might have helped Bush to convince the Arab masses that his intentions for the region were benign, not exploitative. \nForeign policy conservatives and religious conservatives alike produce all kinds of arguments that hamstring the peace process. Many commentators decry the idea of negotiating with Hamas (even though Israel often does so indirectly) and insist that it is up to the Palestinians to clean up their militias before Israel should give up any concessions. \nThis line of thinking gets us nowhere. The continued growth of Israeli settlements in the West Bank makes disbanding the militias almost politically impossible. Hamas may support terrorist tactics and claim it wants to eliminate the Jewish state, but it controls the entire Gaza strip and will have to be negotiated with eventually. \nThe gap between the Palestinians and the Israelis is too large. Negotiations need a third party. The United States needs to put forth a specific plan of its own. \nThis plan will inevitably involve concessions on both sides. Palestinian refugees will probably have to give up their right to return to Israel. Israel will have remove many of its settlement and compensate the Palestinians for parts of the West Bank that were annexed. Jerusalem may yet end up being the capital of both countries. \nIf the United States could help implement these compromises, it would truly transform the Middle East.
(04/23/08 1:59am)
Few things affect us more than the loss of human life. For this reason, I can only imagine the kinds of emotions that must have often swirled through death-row chaplain Carroll Pickett’s head. This man often dealt with convicted murderers mere hours before they themselves were to die.\nOn Dec. 6, 1989, Pickett explained every step of the execution process – including the number of steps it took to get to the execution chamber – to yet another prisoner. The prisoner’s name was Carlos De Luna.\nSome inmates make final confessions, but De Luna still said he was innocent. The chaplain escorted him to the execution chamber and held De Luna’s hand as he laid down upon the gurney. Then the chaplain witnessed a horrible sight.\nIt took 10 minutes for De Luna to die, and during the first minute, he repeatedly lifted his head and looked at Pickett. The chaplain who had promised De Luna that the execution wouldn’t hurt was scarred.\nLast week, the Supreme Court ruled that Kentucky’s method of lethal injection did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Within hours of the decision, Virginia and Florida announced they were lifting their death penalty moratoriums.\nThe execution of De Luna highlights two of death penalty abolitionists’ most common arguments. One is that prisoners can occasionally suffer extreme pain. The other is that the legal process is often flawed. According to the Chicago Tribune, De Luna claimed all along that another man, Carlos Hernandez, was responsible for the murder with which he was being charged. Even though the prosecutors had dealt with Hernandez before, they tried to convince the jury he didn’t exist.\nFor me, one of the best arguments against the death penalty is its cost. According to the Economist, it costs North Carolinians $2 million more to execute a prisoner than to put the prisoner away for life.\nSince 1976, when the death penalty was reinstated, 19 people have been put to death in Indiana. Supporters of executions often claim their method acts as deterrence. But about 30 percent of murders remain unsolved in the United States. Clearly, taking the money we spend putting people to death and investing it in more police and detectives would make a better deterrent.\nArguments about the death penalty really come down to the issue of justice versus vengeance. Many claim the death penalty needs to exist as an expression of our ultimate outrage. Others even cite religious convictions. When a prosecutor in Texas was asked about his support for the measure, he actually quoted Genesis 9:6: “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed.”\nValues and personal satisfaction at seeing a criminal executed hardly seem to excuse another criminal getting away because of police funding issues.\nPickett eventually became an anti-death penalty activist. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who voted to reinstate executions in 1976, said he thought the penalty was “anachronistic” in his written opinion on the Kentucky case.\nDo you really think executing prisoners is worth the price we pay?
(04/16/08 4:15am)
Little 500 has come and gone. I am not sure if it lived up to my expectations, but I awoke on Sunday morning feeling as though I had had one of those definitive college experiences. Now that I am done with that, I can go back to musing about the political mysteries of our time. Little 500 is actually the perfect catalyst for such thinking because of two events in particular. \nOne was Illinois Sen. Barack Obama’s visit. He has now fully adorned himself with that aura of inevitability. Students fawned over Obama’s appearance – not surprisingly. He is supposedly getting the youth involved with politics at levels we have not seen in decades. \nThe other event was not as pleasant as an Obama visit. The amount of arrests the IUPD made was comparable to last year’s Little 500 weekend. Excise officers, however, claim they issued almost twice as many summonses as they did during last year’s Little 500. As always, it is disappointing to see people getting in trouble with the law for committing the apparently horrendous act (in this country, anyway) of drinking or possessing alcohol while under the age of 21.\nSo what do a bunch of drinking tickets have to do with Obama visiting IU? Everything!\nPeople say that the drinking age should be 21 for all kinds of reasons. One reason cited is to reduce drunken driving accidents, and another is to prevent damaging brains that haven’t fully developed yet. But the real reason the drinking age is 21 is that 18- to 21-year-olds have not attached a lower drinking age as a condition for their votes.\nObama often uses the slogan “Yes, we can.” He seems to imply that he and his supporters are equal partners in his campaign. When it comes to the youth, I can’t help but feel his conversation about America is a little one-sided. \nI think my generation, on the whole, tends to be more socially liberal than those before it. No one younger than 30 cares about the fact that Obama is black or that Sen. Hillary Clinton is a woman (which is why we are so tired of hearing older political commentators talk about both of those things).\nWhen I think of myself as a social liberal, a few issues in particular come to mind. I fully support gay rights (including marriage), I am very uncomfortable with the death penalty and I support treating substance abuse as more of a public health issue than a criminal issue. \nI believe most young Obama supporters completely agree with me, yet strangely enough, Obama rarely mentions those issues. On the other hand, Obama seems all too eager to trash free-trade agreements and companies that shift operations overseas. He needs to do this to get the votes of the older working class. What does he need to get us?\nIt is OK to get excited about Obama, but that doesn’t mean we can’t be hard on him, too. Young people can be a paradigm-shifting voting bloc only if they really want to be.
(04/09/08 3:05am)
I don’t suppose seeing Bill Clinton should have been that big of a deal. Sure, the guy is an ex-president, but I had seen plenty of other big-name politicians speak, including Sen. Barack Obama. Is an ex-president really as exciting as a future president?\nI guess so. For whatever reason, I spent most of last Wednesday totally psyched to see the man. It sounds stupid to me just writing it. I know that seeing the charming and smooth Bill Clinton giving speeches doesn’t give you the whole truth about the man’s presidency. \nA few nights before Bill Clinton’s speech, I was reading “We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will be Killed with Our Families,” written by Philip Gourevitch, for my African Politics class. The book chronicles the history and aftermath of the Rwandan genocide. \nGourevitch’s account of how the international community responded to the killings was more disturbing and upsetting than any description of the massacre itself. I was reminded of how the Clinton administration shamelessly avoided labeling the killings in Rwanda as genocide in order to avoid its obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. It really shouldn’t have been hard for me to curb my enthusiasm about Bill Clinton.\nHowever, when you’re becoming politically aware during the incompetence and cronyism of the Bush administration, it really isn’t that hard to idealize Bill Clinton. By thinking of Bill Clinton’s presidency and the 1990s as a period of great American progress, I was able to escape the unresponsive Bush administration. \nObama provided me with the same service. That is until I became wary of him, as well. His movement is indeed exciting, and it provided me with my first volunteer experience. Alas, the more idealistic a movement is, the easier it is to become disillusioned.\nHillary Clinton was a nice antithesis to Obama’s charisma-driven movement for a while, but now I can’t help but seek refuge from her conniving and disingenuous tactics. Maybe I will end up back with Obama. Too bad New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg isn’t running. \nIt seems like it always has to be someone, though. I could just say that all the candidates are garbage and that you should not support a single one of them, but that just seems too cynical. It just feels like I am not taking a stand if I don’t support one candidate or the other in a political contest.\nEven if our support for individual candidates obscures our view of their flaws, such support can often generate an uncommon amount of energy. Just look at those Ron Paul supporters who chalk all over campus even though they know, just as much as we do, that he had no chance of winning. When we come to see politicians for who they are, it is still hard not to have a special appreciation for the politicians who first got you really excited about politics. \nI guess that’s what Bill Clinton and Obama – whatever my reservations about them – are to me.
(04/02/08 1:21am)
When it comes to global warming, we have come a long way. The last president we elected, George W. Bush, never took global warming seriously. Going into this presidential election, the three remaining candidates all believe global warming is a serious threat and have plans to deal with it. \nI can only hope the days of people trying to debunk global warming with junk science have come to an end. Any time someone tells you the name of some “reputable” scientist who argues global warming isn’t occurring, do some research. You will likely find an amazing correlation between those who deny global warming, those who endorse intelligent design, and, in some of the more amusing cases, those who supported the tobacco companies in the 1980s and 1990s. \nIf things are looking up, green activists still have plenty of issues to deal with. Every day it isn’t raining here on campus, dozens of green student organizations come out of the woodwork. I can’t tell you how many times I get stopped going to class with prompts such as “Do you have a minute for the environment?” \nThe problem with these grassroots groups is that there doesn’t seem to be any kind of consensus on how global warming should be fought. When one of my friends stopped to indulge one of the eager activists, I heard little substance in the activist’s response. This person only spoke of past task forces, emissions benchmarks and how other universities had signed similar pledges. \nI didn’t hear anything about how such benchmarks would be met or about how they could be met without incurring significant expenses. As someone who already pays out-of-state tuition, I wouldn’t want to bear anymore costs.\nNow that there is something of a consensus on the existence of global warming, Democrats and Republicans should focus on how they will fight it differently. To some extent, this is already happening. \nAll three candidates support cap-and-trade schemes that would use permits to cap carbon emissions. Sen. John McCain, however, only wants to cut carbon emissions 60 percent below the 1990 levels by 2050, while the Democratic candidates call for an 80 percent decrease. McCain also staunchly opposes ethanol subsidies and is supportive of nuclear power.\nSen. Barack Obama is somewhat ambiguous on nuclear power, while Sen. Hillary Clinton says she opposes it. Obama has called for a clean technologies venture capital fund, and Clinton wants to double federal investment in basic energy research.\nAs Republicans balk over costs and Democrats fight for more public spending, the debate on global warming will hardly end, nor should it. Many supposedly environmental policies, such as ethanol subsidies, do little to combat global warming. Particularly flawed regulations might do more harm than good. \nI, for one, am disappointed that none of the candidates support a carbon tax. Taxing a firm’s carbon emissions is a far simpler process than trying to maintain a carbon market. Europe’s carbon market has been far too influenced by special interests. One can only hope that any future U.S. carbon market will meet a better fate.
(03/26/08 2:27am)
On Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton laid out a plan in Philadelphia to slow mounting foreclosures. She called for greater lender transparency and for $30 billion in federal assistance for individual homeowners. She clearly hopes to woo enough Pennsylvanians to keep her bid for the Democratic nomination alive. \nIn many ways, this represents the complete evolution of her strategy. She has gone from clumsily swiping Sen. Barack Obama’s calls for change and hope to establishing herself as the more economically progressive candidate. She won big with working-class Ohioans and Texans. And Pennsylvania is the sixth most populous state in the country, full of working-class voters. \nLike Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and West Virginia, Pennsylvania lies within the Rust Belt. Rust Belt cities such as Flint, Mich., and Buffalo, N.Y., have long been synonymous with urban blight and industrial gloom. Other cities such as Cleveland have survived but have clearly been hurt. \nPennsylvania’s two major metropolises, Pittsburgh and Philadelphia, have done better than others in part because Pennsylvania has long had a strong urban agenda. The current governor of Pennsylvania is Ed Rendell, a former mayor of Philadelphia.\nCooperation between cities and their surroundings can break the competition between cities and suburbs for jobs. Embracing service industry jobs and information technologies might also offer a way out for the Rust Belt. \nClinton has hardly been emphasizing such transformative policies, and in truth, neither has Obama. Both have hinted that “fair trade” could rejuvenate the region, while the real culprits of decay are ignored. \nUnions thought they could transfer bigger and bigger chunks of prosperity to their members. State and local governments thought they could treat the auto and steel industries under their jurisdiction as cash cows. Many industrial jobs have moved south not only to Mexico but also to America’s Sun Belt, where workers haven’t always been as enthusiastic about unions.\nThe Democratic candidates have supported some imaginative schemes. They are backing Connecticut Sen. Chris Dodd and Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel in their efforts to create a National Infrastructure Bank. This could address some of the structural economic issues for the Rust Belt. Such a bank could solve problems with funding the Pennsylvania Turnpike.\nUnfortunately, it doesn’t seem to play as well with the voters as populist rhetoric does. That might be why public expenditure on infrastructure is so low in the first place. \nPennsylvania’s choice is whether its primary will endorse the policies of old-style Democrats – policies that have previously led to stagnation instead of growth. It’s too bad that Clinton is looking almost exclusively to working-class Democrats when we need a Democratic nominee like her husband. He could bring working-class and idealistic Democrats together while supporting a good policy like NAFTA. Pennsylvania Gov. Rendell has thrown his support behind Clinton. If this is because of some of her recent economic rhetoric, I must respectfully disagree with him.
(03/20/08 2:34am)
Lately Sen. Hillary Clinton, with her plagiarism charges against Sen. Barack Obama and her dark 3 a.m. phone call advertisement, has reminded us how conniving the Clintons can be. With her wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island, she has also reminded us how good the Clintons are at getting what they want, even when the odds are against them. \nFor the first time anyone reading this can probably remember, even the Indiana primary might be important. As a result, both candidates have taken to the trenches. Expect a string of endless potshots between now and the Pennsylvania primary. \nSince Iowa, the two Democratic candidates have straddled a precarious line and have tried not to take certain criticisms (i.e. those that can be related to race) too far. I have always been hesitant to bring up this issue in this election, but it seems Clinton is acquiescing to racial criticism of Obama. She once again runs the risk of letting the wrong issues go too far. \nThis isn’t just about Geraldine Ferraro’s comments that seemed to suggest Obama’s success was the result of some kind of racial affirmative action – that he was “very lucky to be who he is”. It goes back to rumors started by her aides that Obama is a “closet Muslim”. I am still waiting for either Clinton or Obama to ask why it would be such a big deal to be a Muslim, anyway.\nObama is also in trouble because of comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, made. Clinton has shown no inclination of pointing out the obvious. Even though Wright’s rant about how blacks should sing “‘God Damn America’ instead of ‘God Bless America’” is neither productive nor intellectually sound, it is not born out of an inherent anti-patriotism but rather out of real racial wounds. \nThere may be plenty of reasons to be skeptical of Obama; he has little experience in the federal government, he has a tendency to spout off populist rhetoric and his foreign policy is often curiously vague. But Obama’s race, as well as the religion of his grandfather and questions about his patriotism, are the worst reasons to oppose the man. \nI suspect that Clinton is aware that comments from Ferraro and her husband that remind voters that Obama is black and had Muslim ancestors alienate voters she has already lost. But this could lure the marginal amount of voters who question Obama’s loyalties.\nI have long been sympathetic of Clinton’s candidacy, but she needs to take a firmer stance on comments that slander Obama’s racial or religious identity. I probably do not need to elaborate on the consequences of an Obama loss that can in any way be connected back to his race.\nClinton probably needs to stay away from negativity at this point. If nothing else, she could remember that Bill Clinton’s racial comments in South Carolina probably had a lot to do with Sen. Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama.
(03/05/08 4:36am)
Sen. Hillary Clinton says she wants a “new manufacturing policy” that would involve renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement. Sen. Barack Obama paints a picture of blue-collar workers losing their health care while competing with their children for minimum-wage jobs. \nDespite claiming to offer messages of hope, the two Democratic candidates for president have been awfully depressing lately. The only message I have been hearing is one of populism. \nI suppose it isn’t too surprising. The Democratic primary race is very close. It’s also taking place during an economic downturn. Still, after John Edwards dropped out of the race I was hoping the populism would die down. \nObama now says he wants to renegotiate NAFTA or bail out of it. He has been slamming the agreement, claiming it cost America nearly a million jobs, including 50,000 in Ohio. He seems to forget that while increased trade hurts some, it benefits many more. Canadian officials, no doubt concerned about such talk from their southern neighbor, like to remind people that some 276,500 Ohio jobs are currently supported by cross-border trade.\nObama also touts his Patriot Employer Act. The Act would increase the corporate tax on income earned abroad while giving a tax break to more domestic “patriot” employers. Alas, making American companies less competitive abroad will hardly lead to them creating high-paying jobs back home. In fact, offshore activities of U.S. companies tend to increase rather than reduce domestic business. \nIn the past, Obama talked more of a centrist economic game. He was honest about how his cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions would increase prices for consumers. His economic advisers are non-ideological and pragmatic. Even if he is a moderate at heart, he cannot play it both ways by exploiting anti-globalization sentiment. \nClinton has been just as bad lately, though she has long tried to appeal to the working class. Recently, an Obama mailing called Clinton a “champion” of NAFTA. “Shame on you, Barack Obama” was her response . Apparently, she expects us to believe she always wanted to change the agreement. I do not believe her, which, ironically, was one of the reasons I endorsed her in the first place. \nClinton has also probably crafted more radical solutions to the subprime mortgage crisis than her rival. She has proposed a deeply unsound five-year freeze on interest payments for sub-prime borrowers, one that will surely result in higher interest rates.\nAs is the case with Obama, there are plenty of reasons to suspect that Clinton will not be as radical as she sounds. That doesn’t mean either candidate should be let off the hook. \nThey seem terrified of being considered too left on social issues such as gay rights, the death penalty or gun-control. You won’t see either candidate calling for an end to the embargo on Cuba or for a more balanced policy towards Israel. However, if an unsound economic policy will garner a few votes, they eagerly trumpet it. \nThat isn’t real leadership – too bad, we could use some.
(02/27/08 3:13am)
In Thursday, The New York Times ran a story about John McCain’s close ties to a female lobbyist who did business before the Senator’s committee. Conservative pundits like Sean Hannity, who had been giving McCain a lot of flak, rushed to his defense. It seems that even conservatives who are critical of McCain are more than eager to rush to battle against a common foe, a newspaper they consider such a bastion of liberalism, The New York Times.\nIt’s almost odd that conventional wisdom says the Republican Party is largely unhappy with McCain. He swept the Potomac primaries and, more recently, won Wisconsin. His support among Republicans is below the historic average of front-runners, but it is about where Ronald Reagan’s was when he became the party’s clear nominee in 1980. Still, with more radical talking heads like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh denouncing McCain’s every move, you might think McCain was some kind of fundamentally-flawed Republican. In truth, conservative arguments against McCain are mostly a sham. \nOne of the biggest charges against McCain is that he is a moderate on immigration. I think realistic is a better way to describe his stance. McCain’s plan to provide a path to citizenship is what will eventually have to happen anyway. Critics certainly don’t seem to be able to come up with a better idea. \nMore criticism from the right is related to his stance on Bush’s tax cuts. Commentators point out that he voted against them twice. They apparently don’t care that he supports them now, nor do they care about his plan to abolish the Alternative Minimum Tax (a hefty tax paid by nearly 25 million middle-class families) or lower the corporate income tax. \nHe also gets bashed for his opposition to torture. Perhaps he simply understands that we should follow the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights because those agreements protect our soldiers, too.\nAs a liberal, I can tell you that John McCain is pretty conservative. His stances on abortion and his idea of what makes a good Supreme Court justice both make me squirm. I would argue that he has been more consistent than most in his party when it comes to the issue of national security. He just actually understands how to run a war. On the issue of health care, McCain’s plan to increase competition by smoothing out different regulations between states is easily the best alternative to universal healthcare policies. \nConservative pundits don’t hate McCain for ideological reasons; they hate him for reasons of loyalty. Unlike President Bush, McCain has had a successful political career without them. They want to know he will come to them if he is swept into the highest office in the land.\nIt’s all about power, but unfortunately other so-called Republicans have started repeating their mantras. That’s a shame. If McCain bends over backwards to appease these critics he will surely lose the votes of many, like myself, who have plenty of respect for the real John McCain.
(02/13/08 4:38am)
It seems Tom Cruise is still going crazy, or is just further along than we thought he was a few years ago.\nMany of you have probably already seen the video, prepared for a private Scientology award ceremony, in which Tom Cruise rants about Orgs, SPs and other nonsensical phrases. Most telling, Cruise claims he is proud to be a Scientologist because, when it comes to problems like car accidents, “you know you’re the only one that can really help.” Thank you, Mr. Cruise, for being so modest.\nAll of this comes on top of Will Smith’s possible conversion to Scientology and Jerry Seinfeld’s recent admission that he dabbled in the faith. Sometimes I wish Scientology would stop ruining my movies and TV shows. But the actions of a recent anti-Scientology organization, known only as Anonymous, seem a bit extreme to me. \nAnonymous is really just a group of Internet activists that have organized a Web site, known as “Project Chanology,” which can be edited Wikipedia-style. By using this Web site and its chatrooms, these activists spread the “truth” about Scientology without becoming easy targets of the faith’s often overzealous lawyers. \nIt might sound innocent so far, but the group also engages in cyber warfare against Scientology using bogus requests for data to crash the Church’s servers. Most significantly, the group also launched major protests outside many Scientology offices worldwide on Sunday. \nProtestors handed out pamphlets that highlighted many admittedly questionable practices by the Church. One should certainly be skeptical of any religion that will point out problems you have for free, but charge you money for their solutions.\nI have often seen Scientology as nothing but a business, and I still laugh when I see the infamous “South Park” episode in which Scientology, along with Cruise’s sexuality, are deeply ridiculed. Still, some attacks on Scientology make me uncomfortable. Certainly the fact that Germany has banned Scientology seems extreme. Should Tom Cruise really not be allowed to shoot scenes from his upcoming WWII film “Valkyrie” because of his personal beliefs?\nI am not sure Scientology deserves its U.S. tax exemption status, especially because of the way in which it sells its copyrighted doctrine, but as a faith it probably deserves a certain amount of respect. While I hate to invoke the slippery slope argument, I think it must be acknowledged that drawing a line in terms of which faiths are rational enough and which aren’t is tricky business. \nThese days, it seems like pluralism is the only way to go in terms of religious beliefs. Any supposed exceptions to religious tolerance should be viewed with apprehension. \nThe Church of Scientology might very well do some unethical things, and if that’s the case, it should be slammed for them. Yet, as unconventional as Scientology might seem to be, we should learn to accept that many people are going to continue to believe in it.\nThose people deserve as much respect as those of any other faith.
(02/06/08 4:13pm)
Rudy Giuliani dropped out of the race for the Republican presidential nomination after a poor showing in Florida, and thus the man who led national polls for months played no role in Super Tuesday aside from supporting Sen. John McCain. For that, his awkward campaign strategy will likely be regarded as one of the most flawed in history. \nThat being said, Giuliani, for all the high aspirations some may have had for him, is not someone I will miss. \nWho was Giuliani anyway? Because he is a Republican from New York, one could possibly say he was still to the left of the average American. Rudy believed in gay rights, was pro-choice and pro-gun control and yet still managed to be a contender for the GOP nomination. He also managed to clean up New York City when it was considered by many to be ungovernable. His combination of economic conservatism and social liberalism should have been right up my alley. \nThere are many reasons he was not. He has a secretive and vindictive style. It’s also not clear how much credit he deserves for New York City’s turnaround. The major reason, however, involves how he abused the event most associated with himself, the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.\nGiuliani has mostly run on a foreign policy that is apocalyptic but not terribly impressive.\nIn many ways, it’s just repackaged Bush policy. Giuliani emphasizes the risks of dealing with hostile regimes diplomatically and stresses that we should not put unrealistic constraints on intelligence gathering.\nHis foreign policy is also a reflection of neoconservative orthodoxy. He still thinks Iraq was a good call, and he even goes so far as to suggest that the U.S. was on the verge of winning in Vietnam. \nHe does not address the inconsistencies of some of the Bush administration’s policies. He continues to suggest that civilization itself is under attack by radical Islamists without saying anything about our close ties to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, all countries in which democracy and other freedoms are suppressed by more secular means.\nHe appears ambivalent about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. When he outlined his views for the publication Foreign Affairs, he had the gall to suggest that Palestinians had to earn statehood but then started his next paragraph with “The next president must champion human rights and speak out when they are violated.”\nGiuliani epitomizes the part of the Republican Party that seeks to build a new electoral consensus around the “war on terror.” Politicians, as a rule, have a tendency to care more about getting elected than they do about getting policy right, and Giuliani knew that his appeals to what he calls “the 9-11 generation” were getting him votes.\nIf global terrorism is bringing many challenges, it’s clear that one of them is the challenge voters now have to face in differentiating between politicians who offer real solutions and those who are just savvy political entrepreneurs seeking to inspire shallow patriotism.
(01/30/08 12:33am)
This certainly isn’t how I expected to feel about the Democratic presidential primary.\nI remember the good old days, back in high school, when I would carry around my autographed copy of “The Audacity of Hope,” when I volunteered with Barack Obama’s campaign over the summer. After Obama finally announced he was going to run for president, I really felt like everything was going to be OK after all. \nUnfortunately, dreams don’t last forever. Instead of campaigning for him in Iowa like I planned, I suddenly found myself “busy” with other things to do over winter break. I didn’t learn of the man’s victory in Iowa by being on the front line. Instead, I just got a call from my mom while I was driving home from Chicago. \nMy shift toward Hillary probably started when I began to realize how shallow some of her critics (including the press) were, especially those who bash her in sexist ways. I am also not very impressed when I hear Obama supporters complain about Hillary’s policies; the two candidates’ policies are essentially the same on almost every major issue. \nThe actual differences between the two candidates, for now, hurt Obama. When it comes to being president, Mr. Obama is not a man with a particularly impressive resume. \nThe gap is particularly large when it comes to foreign policy. The man has some of the right ideas, especially when it comes to engaging our enemies more, but sometimes the devil is in the details. His comment about taking unilateral action in Pakistan was probably just made to make him sound tougher. Because he is unwilling to acknowledge how ridiculous it is to breach the sovereignty of a nuclear-armed and unstable Muslim country, it seems to have become his policy. \nHillary is clearly a woman of uncanny intelligence and drive. She has experience in government that dates back decades, plus she already has an extensive political apparatus in place. While Barack has tried to downplay Hillary’s experience as first lady, Mr. Obama is probably well-aware of how important a role Hillary played in her husband’s presidency. \nHillary Clinton certainly has her faults. She hasn’t campaigned in a way I would describe as particularly dignified. I have often gotten the feeling that she thought the primaries were supposed to serve merely as her coronation and even her greatest admirers should be able to admit that the last time she was in the White House, she made her fair share of mistakes. \nThere are times (too few lately) when I find Hillary just as likeable as Obama. It makes me wonder why she goes to such great lengths to be disingenuous. After some of her campaign’s recent attacks, Obama would be tough to resist if he came with better work experience. But, alas, Obama just isn’t ready. \nGood thing I like the idea of electing the first woman president just as much as I like the idea of electing the first black one.
(01/23/08 4:04am)
John McCain’s win in the South Carolina presidential primary was important for plenty of reasons – in a race where four different candidates could conceivably seize the nomination, surely every state counts. Most importantly to me, it represented the triumph of one part of the Republican party over another. \nIt is not always easy to categorize the different interest groups, ideologies and movements that make up America’s two political parties in ways that are both insightful and useful, but I have always been fond of seeing the Republican party as having both a Southern evangelical half and a Western libertarian half. It is not that difficult to pick out which sides John McCain and Mike Huckabee, the preacher-turned-politician who battled McCain for South Carolina, represent.\nAnyone who has read my columns before should have an easy time guessing which side of the party I support more.\nBut this column is not about my personal feelings about the evangelical movement. Rather I would like to point out that the disarray of the current Republican party is largely the fault of its evangelical branch. \nThe evangelical movement has its pet issues such as abortion, “protecting” the traditional family and preserving the role they think Christianity has played in this country. The pursuit of their goals in these areas has not taken place in a vacuum.\nEvangelicals voted for Bush in droves in 2004, endorsing the kind of incompetence that led us into Iraq on the basis of less than spectacular intelligence while botching the war itself. At the same time, evangelical proselytization of our foreign policy makes a just settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – which generates so much animosity towards the United States across the Arab world – almost impossible. \nHuckabee’s win in Iowa seems to suggest that some evangelicals would like to see one of their own lead the party at the expense of sensible economic policies. After all, the man regularly derides the effects of free trade while calling for American self-sufficiency in food (sounds like political speak for farm subsidies.) His Fair Tax plan, which calls for the replacement of the income tax with a steep national income tax, has so many problems that if it had a chance of passing, which it does not, America’s economic future would be cloudy at best.\nThis isn’t to suggest that American voters should not vote on the basis of their moral or religious beliefs. I am forced to admit that they have that right and that the practice probably won’t be going out of fashion anytime soon. This is, rather, an accusation against values voters of sinking their own party. It is also a hope that economic conservatives, and yes, perhaps even foreign policy conservatives (neoconservatives excluded) will take back control of their own party. \nAlas, they would probably have to start talking pretty loud to be heard over all the sermonizing.