It is no secret that America is unpopular with the rest of the world. In addition to a long history of international interference (see: Vietnam War), after launching two costly and perhaps unsanctioned wars that harmed innocent civilians and led to innumerable human rights violations, the United States has tarnished its name, lending itself to global resentment. After the events of the past Tuesday, however, America may be poised to improve its reputation. "From the front lines of Iraq to...Paris," Alan Cowell writes in The New York Times, "the election of Barack Obama unlocked a floodgate of hope that a new American leader will redeem promises of change, rewrite the political script and, perhaps as important as anything else, provide a kind of leadership that will erase the bitterness of the Bush years."
It is also no secret that Barack Hussein Obama shares one of his names with the infamous dictator Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti. Though, amid the unfortunate anti-Muslim sentiment in America, the McCain-Palin campaign attempted to use this to their advantage by drawing tenuous links between Obama and terrorism - Palin, for instance, has accused him of "palling around with terrorists" - the identical name did not prevent the Democratic candidate from winning Tuesday. In fact, it may have held an advantage for Obama and for America; that is, it may help the Middle East view America in a new light.
As Moroccan Ahmed R. Benchemsi writes in Newsweek, America has garnered plenty of hate. "Under the George W. Bush presidency, an Arab-Islamic country was attacked for no valid reason," he said, adding: "American citizens didn't see many of the unbearable images of wailing mothers and angry mobs that have been broadcast every day for the past five years on Al-Jazeera and other pan-Arab channels. We did. How could we not be hypnotized by them? How could we not sympathize with them?" For this reason, the US needs a radical shift in leadership. It needs someone who will remove troops (as Obama promises to do) and ease tension, someone with whom the international community can relate and like. "It would be far tougher for the Islamists to point the finger at America if it were led by a man whose middle name is Hussein," Benchesmi concludes.
"Hussein" tells the world that the leadership is not just in the hands of "conservative WASP upper-class folks," as Benchesmi calls the tradition of American leaders. Now, the eyes of the entire world are on Obama, waiting for the changes he promises to bring.
Saturday, November 8, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
My Post-Election Hangover
Since I obviously missed the deadline for me to post this comment (sorry about that by the way) I have the advantage of posting after the 2008 presidential election. Here is the story of my experience.
All the freshmen in my building congregated in one room, filling the three available couches, all four desk chairs, and most of the floor space. With the exception of one friendly Texan, every one of us was rooting for Obama. Needless to say, spirits were pretty high as state after state turned blue on MSNBC’s map. Cheers broke out when the election was called at 11:00 p.m. We even got a “Yes We Can!” chant going that seemed to shake the floor a bit. McCain’s concession was well received, but some side-conversations and celebrations continued. When Obama came to the podium, however, all was silent; all eyes were on the TV. I’ll admit I got chills a few times, considering the profound nature of that moment and listening to our President-Elect speak.
I went to sleep feeling hopeful for America.
Wednesday morning I woke up and idly checked my Facebook (I promise this post is going somewhere). I was expecting the standard fare: a wall post or two, extraneous invites from people I barely know, maybe something in my inbox. What I found was far more interesting, and disturbing.
Dozens of people had updated their statuses. But these were not mundane details or unintelligible song lyrics. Each was a political statement, all variations on the same theme: Obama is not my President.
A few examples:
David is time to move to canada or something.
Mark says don't vote for OSAMA!
Christopher is Lord Jesus, please remain with us these next years and allow your plan to unfold. Help the people of our country follow you next time. Amen.
Laura. . . well, we might as well move to china.
Morgan feels sick... God put your hands over us.
Now, these are all people from my high school, which was (if you hadn’t noticed) very conservative. And most were conservative in that juvenile “I don’t care about politics, but just trust my parents” way, so at first I didn’t give it too much thought. But when I realized how many of the smart kids, people I really respected, had taken similar steps, then I got worried.
Here’s the best example: one of the smartest girls in our class had joined a group entitled, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For McCain.” The group picture is a flag a half-mast. The description begins, “First let me say, let's pat ourselves on the back. We did what we could and it's time to point fingers at irresponsible citizens known as liberals.”
Now you can probably see why my hopeful enthusiasm of the night before began to fade. Do people really feel this way? I was unhappy when Bush won elections, but never would call those who voted for him “irresponsible citizens.” The sort of rhetoric I’ve just shown you makes me fear what democracy has come to mean for so many young people. Is it just about who can come up with the best one-liner? The best sarcastic put-down? So many are not even willing to give Obama a chance, it seems. Even though a majority of Americans support him, many clearly hate him. They hate him two months before he even takes office.
The next four years are going to be tough. As glad I am Obama won the election, he’s going to be faced with major challenges, and I fear that he could fail. Now, more than ever, we need a united America – e pluribus unum. We need the new politics Obama has been talking about for so long – concern for the best policy, not just scoring political points. I hope he can win over some of these people, but, in this case, I don’t see much hope for change.
Sorry for the wall of text.
All the freshmen in my building congregated in one room, filling the three available couches, all four desk chairs, and most of the floor space. With the exception of one friendly Texan, every one of us was rooting for Obama. Needless to say, spirits were pretty high as state after state turned blue on MSNBC’s map. Cheers broke out when the election was called at 11:00 p.m. We even got a “Yes We Can!” chant going that seemed to shake the floor a bit. McCain’s concession was well received, but some side-conversations and celebrations continued. When Obama came to the podium, however, all was silent; all eyes were on the TV. I’ll admit I got chills a few times, considering the profound nature of that moment and listening to our President-Elect speak.
I went to sleep feeling hopeful for America.
Wednesday morning I woke up and idly checked my Facebook (I promise this post is going somewhere). I was expecting the standard fare: a wall post or two, extraneous invites from people I barely know, maybe something in my inbox. What I found was far more interesting, and disturbing.
Dozens of people had updated their statuses. But these were not mundane details or unintelligible song lyrics. Each was a political statement, all variations on the same theme: Obama is not my President.
A few examples:
David is time to move to canada or something.
Mark says don't vote for OSAMA!
Christopher is Lord Jesus, please remain with us these next years and allow your plan to unfold. Help the people of our country follow you next time. Amen.
Laura. . . well, we might as well move to china.
Morgan feels sick... God put your hands over us.
Now, these are all people from my high school, which was (if you hadn’t noticed) very conservative. And most were conservative in that juvenile “I don’t care about politics, but just trust my parents” way, so at first I didn’t give it too much thought. But when I realized how many of the smart kids, people I really respected, had taken similar steps, then I got worried.
Here’s the best example: one of the smartest girls in our class had joined a group entitled, “Don’t Blame Me, I Voted For McCain.” The group picture is a flag a half-mast. The description begins, “First let me say, let's pat ourselves on the back. We did what we could and it's time to point fingers at irresponsible citizens known as liberals.”
Now you can probably see why my hopeful enthusiasm of the night before began to fade. Do people really feel this way? I was unhappy when Bush won elections, but never would call those who voted for him “irresponsible citizens.” The sort of rhetoric I’ve just shown you makes me fear what democracy has come to mean for so many young people. Is it just about who can come up with the best one-liner? The best sarcastic put-down? So many are not even willing to give Obama a chance, it seems. Even though a majority of Americans support him, many clearly hate him. They hate him two months before he even takes office.
The next four years are going to be tough. As glad I am Obama won the election, he’s going to be faced with major challenges, and I fear that he could fail. Now, more than ever, we need a united America – e pluribus unum. We need the new politics Obama has been talking about for so long – concern for the best policy, not just scoring political points. I hope he can win over some of these people, but, in this case, I don’t see much hope for change.
Sorry for the wall of text.
Monday, November 3, 2008
Party Backlash
Assuming Obama wins tomorrow (although I will still watch election coverage while nervously biting fingernails), there is still one question I have not heard much discussion of: how will our two parties change? It seems probable to me that Obama’s victory will actually have more of a bipartisan impact on our countries dual-party political system than if John McCain were to win.
Consider the options each party had for their presidential candidate. The Democrats went with Obama. And the Republicans chose McCain, who was the most moderate of the bunch in the running (Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, etc.). As a Democrat, I remember thinking on the day McCain won, that “well, at least my worst nightmares can’t come true now.” What worries me now, though, is that if McCain loses the Republican base will see this as a failing of their efforts to reach towards the middle. And consequently snap back to the right.
These ideas are implied in the recent slew of articles on Palin going “rogue.” Op-ed contributors certainly see in her a desire to climb as high as possible, building upon her easy popularity with certain sections of the Republican base. If Republicans leave this election unhappy with the direction McCain tried to lead them in, who will they look too? Like it or not, Palin is now the second most visible Republican on the national stage, and, by playing things right, she can still come away from this election looking like "McCain should have listened to me." Such a position could give her an even stronger sway on Republican politics, by influencing the public that will listen to her, rather than by exercising legislative political influence.
It is inevitable that this election will cause the losing party to question their identity. Should Obama win, I think he has (yet another) responsibility to quickly reach out to Republicans, and ensure that his dream of “Change” will include the entire country.
Consider the options each party had for their presidential candidate. The Democrats went with Obama. And the Republicans chose McCain, who was the most moderate of the bunch in the running (Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, etc.). As a Democrat, I remember thinking on the day McCain won, that “well, at least my worst nightmares can’t come true now.” What worries me now, though, is that if McCain loses the Republican base will see this as a failing of their efforts to reach towards the middle. And consequently snap back to the right.
These ideas are implied in the recent slew of articles on Palin going “rogue.” Op-ed contributors certainly see in her a desire to climb as high as possible, building upon her easy popularity with certain sections of the Republican base. If Republicans leave this election unhappy with the direction McCain tried to lead them in, who will they look too? Like it or not, Palin is now the second most visible Republican on the national stage, and, by playing things right, she can still come away from this election looking like "McCain should have listened to me." Such a position could give her an even stronger sway on Republican politics, by influencing the public that will listen to her, rather than by exercising legislative political influence.
It is inevitable that this election will cause the losing party to question their identity. Should Obama win, I think he has (yet another) responsibility to quickly reach out to Republicans, and ensure that his dream of “Change” will include the entire country.
Media, Propaganda, and Public Opinion: Election 2008
Amidst the hoopla of the recent election season, the new and politics-based media has become an absolute circus. Of course, there have been very positive events- nominations for the first Republican female vice president and the first minority candidate for president in a major party are huge landmarks in our history. However, there have been stumbling blocks as well, wedges dividing an already polarizing nation.
In the course of the past twenty months, the media has propagated a slew of generalizations and misconception, spanning across the social spectrum. Even worse, many of these remarks have come from the candidates themselves, bringing our country a step back from the ideal of social cooperation.
Some may remark that such a thing is typical, that politicians need not be held accountable for how their audiences may interpret their propaganda. However, when America is seen as divided between Real and Other, when corruption in our highest offices is widely accepted to be inevitable, when one’s moral fiber is dictated by their loose affiliations or political party, when ethnic and religious descriptors such as “Muslim” and “Arab” are deemed undercutting insults, I cannot help but believe that something is seriously amiss.
Who’s to be held accountable for the new character of public opinion? The candidates who provoked the ideology? The media for over-analysis and biased commentary, essentially prolonging the discussion and legitimizing such views? Or is this bitter division just part of our political ritual, when potential voters are excited as if screaming sports fans, invariably waving their team’s flag solely for loyalty and tradition? For the sake of our continued social progress, I hope November 5th brings us back to reality.
In the course of the past twenty months, the media has propagated a slew of generalizations and misconception, spanning across the social spectrum. Even worse, many of these remarks have come from the candidates themselves, bringing our country a step back from the ideal of social cooperation.
Some may remark that such a thing is typical, that politicians need not be held accountable for how their audiences may interpret their propaganda. However, when America is seen as divided between Real and Other, when corruption in our highest offices is widely accepted to be inevitable, when one’s moral fiber is dictated by their loose affiliations or political party, when ethnic and religious descriptors such as “Muslim” and “Arab” are deemed undercutting insults, I cannot help but believe that something is seriously amiss.
Who’s to be held accountable for the new character of public opinion? The candidates who provoked the ideology? The media for over-analysis and biased commentary, essentially prolonging the discussion and legitimizing such views? Or is this bitter division just part of our political ritual, when potential voters are excited as if screaming sports fans, invariably waving their team’s flag solely for loyalty and tradition? For the sake of our continued social progress, I hope November 5th brings us back to reality.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Obama's Spending Plans Simply Don't Add Up
Barack Obama, whom at this point seems to be a shoo-in for the White House, certainly has high hopes. He has plans for multiple new government projects, totaling around $200 billion each year. Barack claims to have carefully calculated exactly where all the money to fund these projects will come from; which is primarily from ending the war in Iraq and increasing taxes on the wealthiest two percent of Americans. The problem is, however, that there is simply no way that this plan can add up to still include tax cuts for the majority of middle class Americans.
Some of the highlights from Obama’s plan, quoted from the Washington Times, include a $65 billion-a-year health plan, $15 billion in green energy spending, $85 billion in tax cuts and credits, a $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid, and $18 billion a year in education spending. This American government- plagued by overspending for the past 8 years under George Bush- would now have Barack Obama at the helm of government overspending. To quote Joe Biden, “That’s not change! That’s more of the same!”
Unfortunately for Obama, there simply is no money to spend. Raising taxes during this sort of recession, even if it is only on the upper strata of Americans, is a dangerous move. Obama has set his goals much too high, especially with America’s current economic crisis. If Obama does happen to get his way with these spending plans, the brunt of the tax burden will ultimately be shifted off to the middle class, as it always is. The wealthiest simply do not have enough to give, no matter how much Obama plans on taxing them.
The problem with the American voter is that no one is asking these questions. Everyone just seems to be willing to believe Barack Obama when he claims that he will come up with the money to fund these grand programs and cut their taxes. Unfortunately for them, Barack Obama’s big plans simply do not add up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/
Some of the highlights from Obama’s plan, quoted from the Washington Times, include a $65 billion-a-year health plan, $15 billion in green energy spending, $85 billion in tax cuts and credits, a $25 billion-a-year increase in foreign aid, and $18 billion a year in education spending. This American government- plagued by overspending for the past 8 years under George Bush- would now have Barack Obama at the helm of government overspending. To quote Joe Biden, “That’s not change! That’s more of the same!”
Unfortunately for Obama, there simply is no money to spend. Raising taxes during this sort of recession, even if it is only on the upper strata of Americans, is a dangerous move. Obama has set his goals much too high, especially with America’s current economic crisis. If Obama does happen to get his way with these spending plans, the brunt of the tax burden will ultimately be shifted off to the middle class, as it always is. The wealthiest simply do not have enough to give, no matter how much Obama plans on taxing them.
The problem with the American voter is that no one is asking these questions. Everyone just seems to be willing to believe Barack Obama when he claims that he will come up with the money to fund these grand programs and cut their taxes. Unfortunately for them, Barack Obama’s big plans simply do not add up.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/feb/22/obamas-spending-plan/
Monday, October 20, 2008
Guantánamo has gotta go
The detainment center at Guantánamo Bay is shameful. It is cruel, it is unfair, it is unsanctioned. And despite the calls from the international community and from within the U.S. to shut it down, it remains as a horrible blemish of the already-unpopular United States foreign policy.
First off, Cuba hates it. The naval base is situated in land taken from Cuba against its will in a "one-sided treaty," according to the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Cuba. To the natives, the site stands as a place of aggression and provocation, of violence and crime. Cubans have declared emphatically that "they will not accept any other negotiation concerning this territory illegally occupied unless the unconditional withdrawal of the foreign troops quartered there against Cuba's people will."
Members and groups within the U.S. government have also challenged the legality and humaneness of the prison. In June, according to William Glaberson of The New York Times, the Supreme Court "stripped away the legal premise for the remote prison camp that officials opened six years ago," allowing prisoners to challenge their detainment in federal courts. Granting detainees the right to habeas corpus means "that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists." This highlights the fact that many of the prisoners are there without significant proof of guilt, perhaps being held captive arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the human rights violations absolutely necessitate the cessation of the center. A report from Amnesty International describes the instances of cruelty and torture; prisoners were taken "hooded, shackled and tied down" and have been subjected to high levels of stress and isolation. "Contrary to international standards, the cells have no access to natural light or air, and are lit by fluorescent lighting which is on 24 hours a day and controlled by guards," the report continues, and the government has ignored the "severe psychological impact on detainees" of the stifling, madness-inducing conditions. It's repulsive that now, in the twenty-first century, in the nation that calls itself most civilized, most democratic, that such centers still exist.
But despite all of this, Bush has still failed to shut down the center. According to Steven Lee Myers (also in The New York Times), our president has adopted the view that closing down the center "would involve too many legal and political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon" and it could "remain open not only for the rest of Mr. Bush’s presidency but also well beyond." Our leaders, then, are continuing to run this center of torture because it would be inconvenient to close it. For a government supposedly built on the preservation of individual rights, it is insulting, even terrifying, to know that an institution like Guantánamo Bay still exists; hopefully, with the promise of change that surrounds the 2008 presidential election, we will see an end to this bastion of inhumanity.
First off, Cuba hates it. The naval base is situated in land taken from Cuba against its will in a "one-sided treaty," according to the Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de la República de Cuba. To the natives, the site stands as a place of aggression and provocation, of violence and crime. Cubans have declared emphatically that "they will not accept any other negotiation concerning this territory illegally occupied unless the unconditional withdrawal of the foreign troops quartered there against Cuba's people will."
Members and groups within the U.S. government have also challenged the legality and humaneness of the prison. In June, according to William Glaberson of The New York Times, the Supreme Court "stripped away the legal premise for the remote prison camp that officials opened six years ago," allowing prisoners to challenge their detainment in federal courts. Granting detainees the right to habeas corpus means "that federal judges will now have the power to check the government’s claims that the 270 men still held there are dangerous terrorists." This highlights the fact that many of the prisoners are there without significant proof of guilt, perhaps being held captive arbitrarily.
Furthermore, the human rights violations absolutely necessitate the cessation of the center. A report from Amnesty International describes the instances of cruelty and torture; prisoners were taken "hooded, shackled and tied down" and have been subjected to high levels of stress and isolation. "Contrary to international standards, the cells have no access to natural light or air, and are lit by fluorescent lighting which is on 24 hours a day and controlled by guards," the report continues, and the government has ignored the "severe psychological impact on detainees" of the stifling, madness-inducing conditions. It's repulsive that now, in the twenty-first century, in the nation that calls itself most civilized, most democratic, that such centers still exist.
But despite all of this, Bush has still failed to shut down the center. According to Steven Lee Myers (also in The New York Times), our president has adopted the view that closing down the center "would involve too many legal and political risks to be acceptable, now or any time soon" and it could "remain open not only for the rest of Mr. Bush’s presidency but also well beyond." Our leaders, then, are continuing to run this center of torture because it would be inconvenient to close it. For a government supposedly built on the preservation of individual rights, it is insulting, even terrifying, to know that an institution like Guantánamo Bay still exists; hopefully, with the promise of change that surrounds the 2008 presidential election, we will see an end to this bastion of inhumanity.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Powell, McCain, and Obama
Colin Powell’s endorsing of Obama is significant in that he is the highest ranking Republican to support Obama in this presidential election. Powell is high-profile with respect to not only the White House but also the military. A popular Secretary of State in the eyes of the people, Powell clashed often with other members of Bush’s cabinet during his first term, more so than ordinary citizens knew until his public falling out with the rest of the cabinet near the beginning of Bush’s second term. The falling out was made all the more ironic because Powell is seen to differ from the neoconservatives who populated Bush’s cabinet (Rumsfeld and Cheney to name a few prominent examples), yet one of the sharpest moments in Powell’s legacy is his speech before the UN attesting to the fact that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction in an effort to convince the international community of the need for military action against Saddam Hussein. This memory is a tarnishing mark upon the record of such a distinguished individual, and the irony lies in the strong possibility that Powell was pushed to make his impassioned case for war based on the opinions of more hard-lined neoconservatives in the cabinet, who held wider influence and were more adept than Powell at political manipulation and “playing the game.”
Indeed, Powell’s falling out with the neoconservatives highlights an important difference between the neoconservatives and moderate conservatives. Powell is noted for some “liberal” positions (compared to the positions that hard-liner conservatives take), for example regarding abortion and gun control. He also disagrees with the way the Iraq War was waged and initially attempted to persuade the President not to invade Iraq. Based on these deviations from what can be seen as “standard” positions of conservatives, Powell might even fit the description of a RINO, a disparaging term used by Republicans to deride fellow liberal-leaning members of the GOP as “Republican in Name Only.”
It seems, as a result, that Powell and McCain have something in common, as McCain was often labeled as not a true Republican before receiving the 2008 nomination; he has always been seen as a maverick who has opposed party lines on issues, which is why he received so much support in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Although one may accuse McCain of bowing to pressure based on his newfound support for off-shore drilling and support for the Bush tax cuts, one should not mistake the positions he take that happen to be in accord with Bush’s as positions he takes because they are in accord with Bush’s. Sure, McCain might be trying to appeal to core party supporters in terms of extending the tax cuts, but he was also trying to appeal to core party supporters (albeit really core party supporters) when he was adamantly in support of the surge in Iraq, but no one can deny that supporting the surge was a mark of a maverick. Being a maverick does not necessarily always mean opposing one’s party; it can also mean opposing the overall popular sentiment of the time—in this case, the overall popular sentiment of the American people against the surge. Regardless, McCain has still done more in terms of bucking party lines; refer to his unpopularity and the scathing attacks directed at him for his sponsorship of campaign finance reform, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold Act (2002). McCain, in fact, has been just as much of a political maverick as Powell that, in the past, McCain has been labeled a RINO by a variety of right-leaning blogs and discussion boards (see this and this, for example).
Now examine the reasons for Powell’s support for Obama. Powell’s comments include, among others, that:
-Obama “reach[es] out in a ‘more diverse and inclusive way across our society’ and offer[s] a ‘calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach’ to the nation’s problems.” (New York Times)
-McCain’s ads have become too negative and “beyond just good political fighting back and forth” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
-“As gifted as he is, [McCain] is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it.” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
The third comment can reflect rather negatively on Powell himself by painting him as a hypocrite. Given that mavericks fight for the ideals in which they believe, regardless of whoever else holds those ideals, Powell is accusing McCain of the ability to execute the ideals in which McCain believes, ideals (for example, fighting the war in Iraq) which happen to coincide with that of the Republican agenda. It is clear that Powell himself disagrees with this agenda. But why then, did he help execute the Republican agenda when he was Secretary of State under Bush, given that he, unlike McCain, did not actually believe in those ideals of going to war in Iraq? First, Powell explicitly praises McCain’s competency by saying McCain would “be quite good” at what he wants to do. Then, Powell implicitly praises McCain by admitting that regardless of whether McCain’s goals are right or wrong, at least McCain believes he is doing the right thing – that’s why McCain is a maverick. Finally, Powell paints himself as a hypocrite because both did what Powell is accusing McCain of doing: furthering the Republican agenda, albeit at different times and different ways. Except McCain seems to be the better man, because at least he is doing what he believes to be the right action, whereas Powell helped Bush make the case for war even though Powell believed war was the wrong action. Powell’s comment, therefore, does not bolster his message as much as it could; it might not be the best thing to say when endorsing another candidate for the presidency.
But even if we ignore the implication of Powell’s comment, the overall message presented by Powell, at least what is implied in the obviously summarized perspective of the New York Times article, is twisted in a whole different way by Obama’s campaign. Looking at the first and second comments referenced before the above paragraph, Powell basically praises Obama’s freshness of character and his appeal to very different groups and highlights specific qualities (intellectual, patient, etc), in essence arguing that Obama will bring a new face to Washington. McCain, on the other hand, is resorting to an increasingly negative campaign, implying that McCain will bring the same old politics back to Washington. These claims are legitimate, and notice that they focus more on the character of the candidates and the candidates as symbols, what can be seen as big-picture qualities as opposed to small-picture policy details. Refer again to Powell’s third comment, which accuses McCain of his execution of the “orthodoxy Republican agenda” (New York Times). Given Powell’s phrasing and tone, and given knowledge about his stance on issues, it is clear that Powell expresses personal discontent with the details of this Republican orthodoxy. Furthermore, given Powell’s disapproval with certain neoconservative figures affiliated with McCain’s foreign policy advising staff, it was obvious “to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment” that Powell would eventually endorse Obama (New York Times). Based on his past public clash with neoconservatives, Powell certainly would not endorse a presidential candidate who was becoming more affiliated with those neoconservatives. In essence, Powell’s endorsement of McCain can be seen as a message of disapproval to the direction that McCain has chosen in the path of foreign policy, not as a message of approval about Obama’s ability to direct foreign policy. Added to the idea that the first two comments made by Powell praise Obama’s character and the freshness and symbolism of his prospective presidency to bring, one can see that Powell is not giving an active adulation regarding Obama’s foreign policy ability, at least not within the scope of the New York Times article.
But the “Obama campaign welcomed [Powell’s endorsement] as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials” (New York Times). If anything, Powell is mostly reassuring voters of the path Obama plans to take (ie, the opposite of the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda) rather than how well Obama is going to take Americans along the path, which is reflected in the idea of “credentials.” Of course, Powell would not claim that his endorsed candidate is not ready, but based on Powell’s comments described in the New York Times article and his past experiences with political disagreement within the Bush administration, it is most likely that Powell is endorsing Obama more as a sign of discontent that the McCain camp is being taken over by neoconservatives than a vote of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy experience, which the Obama campaign is suggesting and promoting.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5423.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Colin_Powell.htm
http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf
Indeed, Powell’s falling out with the neoconservatives highlights an important difference between the neoconservatives and moderate conservatives. Powell is noted for some “liberal” positions (compared to the positions that hard-liner conservatives take), for example regarding abortion and gun control. He also disagrees with the way the Iraq War was waged and initially attempted to persuade the President not to invade Iraq. Based on these deviations from what can be seen as “standard” positions of conservatives, Powell might even fit the description of a RINO, a disparaging term used by Republicans to deride fellow liberal-leaning members of the GOP as “Republican in Name Only.”
It seems, as a result, that Powell and McCain have something in common, as McCain was often labeled as not a true Republican before receiving the 2008 nomination; he has always been seen as a maverick who has opposed party lines on issues, which is why he received so much support in New Hampshire in the 2000 primary. Although one may accuse McCain of bowing to pressure based on his newfound support for off-shore drilling and support for the Bush tax cuts, one should not mistake the positions he take that happen to be in accord with Bush’s as positions he takes because they are in accord with Bush’s. Sure, McCain might be trying to appeal to core party supporters in terms of extending the tax cuts, but he was also trying to appeal to core party supporters (albeit really core party supporters) when he was adamantly in support of the surge in Iraq, but no one can deny that supporting the surge was a mark of a maverick. Being a maverick does not necessarily always mean opposing one’s party; it can also mean opposing the overall popular sentiment of the time—in this case, the overall popular sentiment of the American people against the surge. Regardless, McCain has still done more in terms of bucking party lines; refer to his unpopularity and the scathing attacks directed at him for his sponsorship of campaign finance reform, more commonly known as McCain-Feingold Act (2002). McCain, in fact, has been just as much of a political maverick as Powell that, in the past, McCain has been labeled a RINO by a variety of right-leaning blogs and discussion boards (see this and this, for example).
Now examine the reasons for Powell’s support for Obama. Powell’s comments include, among others, that:
-Obama “reach[es] out in a ‘more diverse and inclusive way across our society’ and offer[s] a ‘calm, patient, intellectual, steady approach’ to the nation’s problems.” (New York Times)
-McCain’s ads have become too negative and “beyond just good political fighting back and forth” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
-“As gifted as he is, [McCain] is essentially going to execute the Republican agenda, the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda, with a new face and a maverick approach to it, and he’d be quite good at it.” (McCain qtd in New York Times)
The third comment can reflect rather negatively on Powell himself by painting him as a hypocrite. Given that mavericks fight for the ideals in which they believe, regardless of whoever else holds those ideals, Powell is accusing McCain of the ability to execute the ideals in which McCain believes, ideals (for example, fighting the war in Iraq) which happen to coincide with that of the Republican agenda. It is clear that Powell himself disagrees with this agenda. But why then, did he help execute the Republican agenda when he was Secretary of State under Bush, given that he, unlike McCain, did not actually believe in those ideals of going to war in Iraq? First, Powell explicitly praises McCain’s competency by saying McCain would “be quite good” at what he wants to do. Then, Powell implicitly praises McCain by admitting that regardless of whether McCain’s goals are right or wrong, at least McCain believes he is doing the right thing – that’s why McCain is a maverick. Finally, Powell paints himself as a hypocrite because both did what Powell is accusing McCain of doing: furthering the Republican agenda, albeit at different times and different ways. Except McCain seems to be the better man, because at least he is doing what he believes to be the right action, whereas Powell helped Bush make the case for war even though Powell believed war was the wrong action. Powell’s comment, therefore, does not bolster his message as much as it could; it might not be the best thing to say when endorsing another candidate for the presidency.
But even if we ignore the implication of Powell’s comment, the overall message presented by Powell, at least what is implied in the obviously summarized perspective of the New York Times article, is twisted in a whole different way by Obama’s campaign. Looking at the first and second comments referenced before the above paragraph, Powell basically praises Obama’s freshness of character and his appeal to very different groups and highlights specific qualities (intellectual, patient, etc), in essence arguing that Obama will bring a new face to Washington. McCain, on the other hand, is resorting to an increasingly negative campaign, implying that McCain will bring the same old politics back to Washington. These claims are legitimate, and notice that they focus more on the character of the candidates and the candidates as symbols, what can be seen as big-picture qualities as opposed to small-picture policy details. Refer again to Powell’s third comment, which accuses McCain of his execution of the “orthodoxy Republican agenda” (New York Times). Given Powell’s phrasing and tone, and given knowledge about his stance on issues, it is clear that Powell expresses personal discontent with the details of this Republican orthodoxy. Furthermore, given Powell’s disapproval with certain neoconservative figures affiliated with McCain’s foreign policy advising staff, it was obvious “to people who know him well and within Washington’s foreign policy establishment” that Powell would eventually endorse Obama (New York Times). Based on his past public clash with neoconservatives, Powell certainly would not endorse a presidential candidate who was becoming more affiliated with those neoconservatives. In essence, Powell’s endorsement of McCain can be seen as a message of disapproval to the direction that McCain has chosen in the path of foreign policy, not as a message of approval about Obama’s ability to direct foreign policy. Added to the idea that the first two comments made by Powell praise Obama’s character and the freshness and symbolism of his prospective presidency to bring, one can see that Powell is not giving an active adulation regarding Obama’s foreign policy ability, at least not within the scope of the New York Times article.
But the “Obama campaign welcomed [Powell’s endorsement] as a powerful reassurance to voters about Mr. Obama’s national security credentials” (New York Times). If anything, Powell is mostly reassuring voters of the path Obama plans to take (ie, the opposite of the orthodoxy of the Republican agenda) rather than how well Obama is going to take Americans along the path, which is reflected in the idea of “credentials.” Of course, Powell would not claim that his endorsed candidate is not ready, but based on Powell’s comments described in the New York Times article and his past experiences with political disagreement within the Bush administration, it is most likely that Powell is endorsing Obama more as a sign of discontent that the McCain camp is being taken over by neoconservatives than a vote of confidence in Obama’s foreign policy experience, which the Obama campaign is suggesting and promoting.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/powell-endorses-obama/
http://wirednewyork.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-5423.html
http://www.state.gov/secretary/former/powell/remarks/2003/17300.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Colin_Powell.htm
http://www.aifestival.org/library/transcript/Powell-Lehrer_transcript.pdf
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Education? I Can Vouch for That
The government spends an inordinate amount of money on education, ranging from a low of $5,257 a year per student in Utah to a high of $14,119 per student per year in New York. Spending has increased, adjusted for inflation, over 100% since 1971. Still, American children are being left behind in the pursuit of decent education. A recent international test found American students score twelfth in the world in 4th grade, but fall to 28th by 8th grade. Schools vouchers, in theory and in practice, have been shown to be an effective and cheap way of educating the public by means of the private market. Vouchers, rather than interminable calls for further funding, should be the foundation of American educational policy in the 21st century.
Though the issue of vouchers is one incredibly important to education, a recent study found that up to 40% of American adults admit to not understanding vouchers completely, if at all. School vouchers, in essence, are a means by which public money would be used to fund the education of students in the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private. For example, if a lower income student wished to attend a private school—and was accepted—public funds would be allocated for this student’s education. School vouchers offer a means by which all schools are in direct competition with one another; schools that do not attract enough students eventually close while schools that do attract students thrive, and expand.
It has been said that the private market, with exception, offers the most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people. Education is no different. The exceptions offered above present clear instances in which the government should step in to regulate the invisible hand: when a certain good is non-excludable and/or non-rival. Non-excludable goods are such that one cannot be excluded from enjoying them, like the benefits of national military protection. Non-rival goods are such that one person utilizing the good does not detract from another’s ability to do so, like certain kinds of cable television. Education, however is both excludable and rival. Clearly, one can be excluded from a formal education, and formal education is rival insofar as there are a limited number of seats in a classroom. Standard economic theory dictates, then, that the private market should be able to provide education more efficiently.
Opponents of school vouchers systems claim that the system would create a vicious cycle, in which the smarter students end up attending the best schools and the less talented students are relegated to worse schools. This would be true at the onset of a voucher system (though maybe not much different than the system now). However, parents would not indefinitely send their children to bad schools. New schools would spring up—and/or better schools would expand—to address the increased demand for quality education (now that students have the funds to attend these schools). This is the case with college education; private, public, and parochial schools have been competition with one another and have constantly improved to attract students. Eventually, with competition, the level of education would increase for all.
Other opponents of a voucher system argue against it from a First Amendment standpoint, or specifically the clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This argument is based on the fact that, under a voucher system, parochial schools, like Catholic schools, would most likely receive public money if students decided to attend these schools. First, this argument is spurious, as the government would not be actively supporting religious institutions, but only directly, and through individual choice. Secondly, public financing would not only go to a particular religious sect, or even religion. Students would elect to attend—yes Catholic schools—but also Jewish schools, Muslim schools, and many more would attend secular or non-denominational schools. The government, through indirect financing, would not be actively supporting “the establishment of religion.” This interpretation was legally verified with the Supreme Court ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.
Empirically, school vouchers have been shown to work not only in the United States, but around the world. Milwaukee has led the nation in the implementation of school vouchers in a program that has existed for more than 15 years. Sweden, a country hardly known for its political conservatism and stalwart adherence to the free market, has had a partial, though significant, voucher system since 1992. Though there have been minor problems, school vouchers, in a short time, have been shown to work.
School vouchers are,an intelligent way to improve American education. With education as a private good—one funded by the government to ensure universality—competition among schools would raise the tide, lifting all boats.
Sources:
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/education/publicview/redflags
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=639
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010218.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Though the issue of vouchers is one incredibly important to education, a recent study found that up to 40% of American adults admit to not understanding vouchers completely, if at all. School vouchers, in essence, are a means by which public money would be used to fund the education of students in the school of their choice—public, parochial, or private. For example, if a lower income student wished to attend a private school—and was accepted—public funds would be allocated for this student’s education. School vouchers offer a means by which all schools are in direct competition with one another; schools that do not attract enough students eventually close while schools that do attract students thrive, and expand.
It has been said that the private market, with exception, offers the most efficient engine for delivering the most goods to the most people. Education is no different. The exceptions offered above present clear instances in which the government should step in to regulate the invisible hand: when a certain good is non-excludable and/or non-rival. Non-excludable goods are such that one cannot be excluded from enjoying them, like the benefits of national military protection. Non-rival goods are such that one person utilizing the good does not detract from another’s ability to do so, like certain kinds of cable television. Education, however is both excludable and rival. Clearly, one can be excluded from a formal education, and formal education is rival insofar as there are a limited number of seats in a classroom. Standard economic theory dictates, then, that the private market should be able to provide education more efficiently.
Opponents of school vouchers systems claim that the system would create a vicious cycle, in which the smarter students end up attending the best schools and the less talented students are relegated to worse schools. This would be true at the onset of a voucher system (though maybe not much different than the system now). However, parents would not indefinitely send their children to bad schools. New schools would spring up—and/or better schools would expand—to address the increased demand for quality education (now that students have the funds to attend these schools). This is the case with college education; private, public, and parochial schools have been competition with one another and have constantly improved to attract students. Eventually, with competition, the level of education would increase for all.
Other opponents of a voucher system argue against it from a First Amendment standpoint, or specifically the clause that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This argument is based on the fact that, under a voucher system, parochial schools, like Catholic schools, would most likely receive public money if students decided to attend these schools. First, this argument is spurious, as the government would not be actively supporting religious institutions, but only directly, and through individual choice. Secondly, public financing would not only go to a particular religious sect, or even religion. Students would elect to attend—yes Catholic schools—but also Jewish schools, Muslim schools, and many more would attend secular or non-denominational schools. The government, through indirect financing, would not be actively supporting “the establishment of religion.” This interpretation was legally verified with the Supreme Court ruling of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002.
Empirically, school vouchers have been shown to work not only in the United States, but around the world. Milwaukee has led the nation in the implementation of school vouchers in a program that has existed for more than 15 years. Sweden, a country hardly known for its political conservatism and stalwart adherence to the free market, has had a partial, though significant, voucher system since 1992. Though there have been minor problems, school vouchers, in a short time, have been shown to work.
School vouchers are,an intelligent way to improve American education. With education as a private good—one funded by the government to ensure universality—competition among schools would raise the tide, lifting all boats.
Sources:
http://www.publicagenda.org/citizen/issueguides/education/publicview/redflags
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=536&page=639
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/3717744.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx4pN-aiofw
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/010218.html
http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=1500338
http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm
Monday, October 13, 2008
Republicans Bash Obama’s Abortion Views
Sarah Palin spent ten minutes of a short 30-minute speech she delivered in Pennsylvania last Saturday (October 11) “painting Sen. Barack Obama as a radical on abortion rights.” Obama and Palin agree that the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and Palin has voted against abortion under all circumstances, including rape and incest—except when the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life. In opposition, Obama disagrees with the overturning of Roe v. Wade and voted against an act to ban partial birth abortions.
In the speech, Palin emphasized a remark about sex education made by Obama in March. Obama told a voter that if teenagers are not educated about sex and STDs, they might unknowingly make mistakes and end up “punished with a baby” or “punished with an STD”—a valid argument. She quoted him out of context:
"So I listened when our opponent defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions and he said he said that a woman shouldn't have to be 'punished with a baby’. Ladies and gentlemen, he said that right here in Johnstown. 'Punished with a baby.' It's about time we called him on it."
Why would suddenly Palin focus on such a controversial topic to gain support? Up until now, she has mostly avoided the topic in her campaign. Palin’s very conservative views on abortion alienate many voters, especially moderates and the women voters her nomination was expected to draw to McCain’s side. Could it be that Palin is slipping up again, or is this some sort of tactic to win over voters? Hard to tell, but it certainly is drawing more attention to both campaigns as we approach the November election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html
In the speech, Palin emphasized a remark about sex education made by Obama in March. Obama told a voter that if teenagers are not educated about sex and STDs, they might unknowingly make mistakes and end up “punished with a baby” or “punished with an STD”—a valid argument. She quoted him out of context:
"So I listened when our opponent defended his unconditional support for unlimited abortions and he said he said that a woman shouldn't have to be 'punished with a baby’. Ladies and gentlemen, he said that right here in Johnstown. 'Punished with a baby.' It's about time we called him on it."
Why would suddenly Palin focus on such a controversial topic to gain support? Up until now, she has mostly avoided the topic in her campaign. Palin’s very conservative views on abortion alienate many voters, especially moderates and the women voters her nomination was expected to draw to McCain’s side. Could it be that Palin is slipping up again, or is this some sort of tactic to win over voters? Hard to tell, but it certainly is drawing more attention to both campaigns as we approach the November election.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/11/campaign.wrap/index.html
“Drill, Baby, Drill”
As energy demands increase and gas prices stay above $3 a gallon at the pump, Americans are pressuring the federal government to take action in the wake of the escalating energy crisis. Although the price of oil has seen a sizeable drop from its near $150 high to $75 per barrel due to recent economic troubles, (1) consumer confidence is at a record low (2) and the average citizen is still feeling the pinch in their pocketbook.
Senator Obama and Senator McCain outline very similar plans to address America’s growing energy demands in the name of the country’s economic and national security. Commendably, both candidates understand the necessity in pursuing and promoting research for alternative, renewable fuels in ultimately achieving long-term energy independence. However, commercialization of such technology does not come quickly and the markets are hungry now for more oil. As ideal as it would be to have the United States petroleum-independent within twenty years, Americans demand an immediate solution.
In response to these growing needs, both candidates have scrambled for a short-term resolution. And, in lieu of a viable answer, they’ve offered us offshore drilling.
While the plan seems good on paper- opening up a domestic supply of oil, creating more job openings for skilled labor, keeping more petrol dollars in the country, support from 57% of Americans (3)- the proposal costs us one thing we don’t have- time. Analysts say that the newly procured oil would take a decade to reach the consumer (4) and would not impact prices until 2030. (5) Definitely far from what one would call a short-term solution. Further, the Department of Energy estimates that by that time, the price impact to consumers would be relatively insignificant. (6) Not to mention the potential environmental impact on our coastlines and marine life.
So why would the candidates support a policy that would have no positive impact on the average American, but could result in 10,000 barrels spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every four years? (7) Senator Obama says that he would only agree to offshore drilling as part of a greater bipartisan negotiation for energy reform, stating that drilling alone is not the answer to our short or long-term needs. (8) Senator McCain, however, sets domestic drilling as its own initiative, (9) satisfying the American people with a cheap façade of swift, timely governmental action.
Simply to secure the votes of the American people, both candidates are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the coastal environment for a cheap, political gimmick by supporting offshore drilling. Perhaps it is deceitful. Perhaps neither candidate is intent to follow through with little more than their political ambitions. Regardless, both candidates will continue be pressured by 57% of American voters, “drill, baby, drill.”
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107827/Gallup-Daily-Consumer-Confidence.aspx
3, 4. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570077
6., 7. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
8. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
9. http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Senator Obama and Senator McCain outline very similar plans to address America’s growing energy demands in the name of the country’s economic and national security. Commendably, both candidates understand the necessity in pursuing and promoting research for alternative, renewable fuels in ultimately achieving long-term energy independence. However, commercialization of such technology does not come quickly and the markets are hungry now for more oil. As ideal as it would be to have the United States petroleum-independent within twenty years, Americans demand an immediate solution.
In response to these growing needs, both candidates have scrambled for a short-term resolution. And, in lieu of a viable answer, they’ve offered us offshore drilling.
While the plan seems good on paper- opening up a domestic supply of oil, creating more job openings for skilled labor, keeping more petrol dollars in the country, support from 57% of Americans (3)- the proposal costs us one thing we don’t have- time. Analysts say that the newly procured oil would take a decade to reach the consumer (4) and would not impact prices until 2030. (5) Definitely far from what one would call a short-term solution. Further, the Department of Energy estimates that by that time, the price impact to consumers would be relatively insignificant. (6) Not to mention the potential environmental impact on our coastlines and marine life.
So why would the candidates support a policy that would have no positive impact on the average American, but could result in 10,000 barrels spilling into the Gulf of Mexico every four years? (7) Senator Obama says that he would only agree to offshore drilling as part of a greater bipartisan negotiation for energy reform, stating that drilling alone is not the answer to our short or long-term needs. (8) Senator McCain, however, sets domestic drilling as its own initiative, (9) satisfying the American people with a cheap façade of swift, timely governmental action.
Simply to secure the votes of the American people, both candidates are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of the coastal environment for a cheap, political gimmick by supporting offshore drilling. Perhaps it is deceitful. Perhaps neither candidate is intent to follow through with little more than their political ambitions. Regardless, both candidates will continue be pressured by 57% of American voters, “drill, baby, drill.”
1. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801/
2. http://www.gallup.com/poll/107827/Gallup-Daily-Consumer-Confidence.aspx
3, 4. http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/06/20/new_offshore_drilling_not_a_quick_fix_analysts_say/
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92570077
6., 7. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2008-07-13-offshore-drilling_N.htm
8. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
9. http://www.johnmccain.com//Informing/Issues/17671aa4-2fe8-4008-859f-0ef1468e96f4.htm
Politics of an Economic Nobel
Princeton’s own Paul Krugman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economic Science this morning, a fact that should make us all proud, and which made my microeconomics lecture this morning considerably more fun. Professor Krugman received the prize for his “work on international trade and economic geography”(1). In particular, his theories of “intra-industry trade” and “new economic geography” deserved merit. This first theory explains why countries import and export the same type of goods, an assertion Krugman made in the 1970s, when the standard model of international trade was based solely on comparative advantage. The latter idea deals with how economic incentives literally shape our landscapes, describing why core urban areas inevitably spring up, the implications of such a heterogeneous landscape, and what this means for trade at a small (intra-country) level.
While there is no doubt that Krugman is a brilliant economist, and deserving of recognition, there have been some negative whispers in the press. Krugman, a Democrat and liberal, has gained popular appeal as a Op-Ed columnst for the New York Times, a forum in which he has strongly and consistently opposed the Bush administration. Considering the current (Bush induced?) global market crisis, perhaps the Nobel Committee also made their decision with a some bias, wanting to thumb their noses at someone? Indeed, none of the major “Nobel betting pools” listed Krugman as a favorite for the honor.(2)
I’d like to think that the Nobel Committee does not avidly read the Times, or stoop to political maneuvering, and that Professor Krugman’s recognition is wholly justified. But I think the topic should be open for debate.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?hp
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/13/nobel.economics.prize.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
While there is no doubt that Krugman is a brilliant economist, and deserving of recognition, there have been some negative whispers in the press. Krugman, a Democrat and liberal, has gained popular appeal as a Op-Ed columnst for the New York Times, a forum in which he has strongly and consistently opposed the Bush administration. Considering the current (Bush induced?) global market crisis, perhaps the Nobel Committee also made their decision with a some bias, wanting to thumb their noses at someone? Indeed, none of the major “Nobel betting pools” listed Krugman as a favorite for the honor.(2)
I’d like to think that the Nobel Committee does not avidly read the Times, or stoop to political maneuvering, and that Professor Krugman’s recognition is wholly justified. But I think the topic should be open for debate.
(1)http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/14/business/economy/14econ.html?hp
(2)http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/10/13/nobel.economics.prize.ap/index.html?eref=rss_latest
Tuesday, October 7, 2008
Majors
An article in today’s Prince describes a University study on the relationship between a student’s social class and his major. The Committee on Background and Opportunity released statistics that 30% of lower-class students believed that “expected financial prospects” was a “significant factor” in choosing a major, compared to 12% of self-identifying upper-class students. “Finding a job” was a significant factor for almost a third of low-class students but only 22% of upper-class students. The implication was that the University–run Major Choices initiative started in 2004 has not succeeded in convincing students that they can find a fulfilling job regardless of their major. Maybe the issue does not begin with lower-class versus upper-class students. Maybe the issue has deeper roots to begin with.
While it is true that exceptional students can find jobs in any industry they wish, exceptional students are just that: the exception. The fact is that some majors lead to specific jobs. The reason that “toolshed” was defined by the Prince as a synonym for the Woodrow Wilson School in the “common terms” list that all freshmen received before school is that so many Woody Woo graduates have an easy time going into i-banking and consulting that the School has built a pre-professional reputation. Irrespective of whether this reputation is deserved, the fact that this reputation exists was also a major reason behind the Robertson lawsuit, which accused the Woodrow Wilson School for graduating too many seniors into lucrative private industry jobs instead of public service. Similarly, ORFE is also seen as another pre-professional major because of the percentage of students who go to Wall Street (definitely not as much starting from this year, haha). Reputations are not founded on air, and that these reputations exist and have perpetuated until today serve as a reminder that yes, if you are looking for a certain job after graduation, you have a better chance at obtaining those jobs through certain departments.
I remember students telling me during Prefrosh weekend that employers want to hire students who learn how to think, and that any Princeton education teaches one to think. This idea, although true in circumstances, is not categorically true. In fact, very few companies besides from consulting firms advertised as welcoming “all majors” on the website of the Princeton job fair that took place last Friday. It is not as if companies seek only science and engineering majors; humanities majors are also explicitly sought after by companies that came to the job fair. The point is that the explicit advertising of specific majors by companies, regardless of what those majors are, suggests that companies care about one’s major. Otherwise companies would not bother listing the majors for which they are looking.
Furthermore, this issue would be less contentious at other schools that do not have Princeton’s reputation. The message of Major Choices—that students should pick majors based on interest—is too broad; Major Choices should emphasize that Princeton students are lucky to consider this choice. The method by which students during Prefrosh tried to convince me to attend Princeton is important. I paraphrased their arguments, but what they kept emphasizing was the fact that Princeton classes teach one how to think, that all Princeton majors achieve this goal, and that employers would understand the nuances of a Princeton education. They were predicating their arguments upon the Princeton name, just as other famous schools probably do the same with their name. Insofar as some companies and industries do recruit on campus, the benefit of an Ivy-League name becomes important. Although students at other schools are just as bright and are just as flexible going into the real world regardless of what their majors were, those students are at a disadvantage because they do not have an easy exposure to a variety of companies that recruit on campus. These companies do not give those exploring students the benefit of the doubt of a “Princeton” education, even though they received just as good of an education. The result is that these students would end up choosing majors to facilitate their job search. So Major Choice’s message is deceptive in that it implies that all students can choose their majors based on academic passion and graduate with a job at Goldman Sachs, whereas in reality not all students are as lucky as we are.
But let us focus on the students who do choose to major in their academic passion and graduate with a high-paying job on Wall Street. The question is, even if this can be done, should it be done? It seems to me that someone who has an academic passion in a particular subject should not give it up after graduation simply to make as much money as possible. From the condescending silences that surround me whenever I tell someone that I am a prospective ORFE major, I get the feeling that they believe I am taking the low road and, therefore, that they are taking the high road. But if those students patronize me for caring too much about a job, then they would be hypocrites if they graduated from the high road of Princeton only to take a job for practical benefit. If those students were really the better people, then they should not lose dream of their academic passion—the same academic passion that they so thoroughly defended during their time at Princeton—after graduation and do exactly what they criticize me for doing. Maybe we have more in common after all.
I realize this was more a haphazard exploring of thoughts than an actual blog post. I also realize that my points were assertions and not statistics, so feel free to disagree with every point that I have made.
Source: Benner, Kate and Erbe, Anastasia. “Study Finds Social Class, Majors Link.” Daily Princetonian, Page 1. October 7, 2008.
While it is true that exceptional students can find jobs in any industry they wish, exceptional students are just that: the exception. The fact is that some majors lead to specific jobs. The reason that “toolshed” was defined by the Prince as a synonym for the Woodrow Wilson School in the “common terms” list that all freshmen received before school is that so many Woody Woo graduates have an easy time going into i-banking and consulting that the School has built a pre-professional reputation. Irrespective of whether this reputation is deserved, the fact that this reputation exists was also a major reason behind the Robertson lawsuit, which accused the Woodrow Wilson School for graduating too many seniors into lucrative private industry jobs instead of public service. Similarly, ORFE is also seen as another pre-professional major because of the percentage of students who go to Wall Street (definitely not as much starting from this year, haha). Reputations are not founded on air, and that these reputations exist and have perpetuated until today serve as a reminder that yes, if you are looking for a certain job after graduation, you have a better chance at obtaining those jobs through certain departments.
I remember students telling me during Prefrosh weekend that employers want to hire students who learn how to think, and that any Princeton education teaches one to think. This idea, although true in circumstances, is not categorically true. In fact, very few companies besides from consulting firms advertised as welcoming “all majors” on the website of the Princeton job fair that took place last Friday. It is not as if companies seek only science and engineering majors; humanities majors are also explicitly sought after by companies that came to the job fair. The point is that the explicit advertising of specific majors by companies, regardless of what those majors are, suggests that companies care about one’s major. Otherwise companies would not bother listing the majors for which they are looking.
Furthermore, this issue would be less contentious at other schools that do not have Princeton’s reputation. The message of Major Choices—that students should pick majors based on interest—is too broad; Major Choices should emphasize that Princeton students are lucky to consider this choice. The method by which students during Prefrosh tried to convince me to attend Princeton is important. I paraphrased their arguments, but what they kept emphasizing was the fact that Princeton classes teach one how to think, that all Princeton majors achieve this goal, and that employers would understand the nuances of a Princeton education. They were predicating their arguments upon the Princeton name, just as other famous schools probably do the same with their name. Insofar as some companies and industries do recruit on campus, the benefit of an Ivy-League name becomes important. Although students at other schools are just as bright and are just as flexible going into the real world regardless of what their majors were, those students are at a disadvantage because they do not have an easy exposure to a variety of companies that recruit on campus. These companies do not give those exploring students the benefit of the doubt of a “Princeton” education, even though they received just as good of an education. The result is that these students would end up choosing majors to facilitate their job search. So Major Choice’s message is deceptive in that it implies that all students can choose their majors based on academic passion and graduate with a job at Goldman Sachs, whereas in reality not all students are as lucky as we are.
But let us focus on the students who do choose to major in their academic passion and graduate with a high-paying job on Wall Street. The question is, even if this can be done, should it be done? It seems to me that someone who has an academic passion in a particular subject should not give it up after graduation simply to make as much money as possible. From the condescending silences that surround me whenever I tell someone that I am a prospective ORFE major, I get the feeling that they believe I am taking the low road and, therefore, that they are taking the high road. But if those students patronize me for caring too much about a job, then they would be hypocrites if they graduated from the high road of Princeton only to take a job for practical benefit. If those students were really the better people, then they should not lose dream of their academic passion—the same academic passion that they so thoroughly defended during their time at Princeton—after graduation and do exactly what they criticize me for doing. Maybe we have more in common after all.
I realize this was more a haphazard exploring of thoughts than an actual blog post. I also realize that my points were assertions and not statistics, so feel free to disagree with every point that I have made.
Source: Benner, Kate and Erbe, Anastasia. “Study Finds Social Class, Majors Link.” Daily Princetonian, Page 1. October 7, 2008.
A Secular Society?
A designation between church and state: it is the main foundation of American society, and something that has set us apart from so many other nations in the past. But are we abiding by this distinction that we so proudly uphold? Recently the largest group of atheists and agnostics in the United States, The Freedom From Religion Foundation, sued various governmental leaders, including President Bush, for designating a National Day of Prayer. The group claims that President Bush’s call for a day of prayer violates the ban on governmental officials sanctioning religion.
This day of prayer, signed into law in 1952, calls for Americans of any and all religions to gather on the first Thursday in May to pray for their country. But what about the nonbelievers of America? Although no one is required to participate in prayer, and all actions are voluntary, the lawsuit is claiming that the day of prayer creates a “hostile environment for nonbelievers, who are made to feel as if they are political outsiders.” On the contrary, one might argue that this is an extreme view of this National Day of Prayer. No such “hostile environment” is created; it may be felt hostile due to the self inflicted feelings of a nonbeliever, but to state that we should disband the National Day of Prayer because it might cause a small amount of the American population to feel like “political outsiders” is a stretch. For a day that is meant to bring peace and unity to America is now just another center of controversy. And we have to ask ourselves: are there not bigger fish to fry in the world today than arguing over the National Day of Prayer?
sources: http://pewforum.org/news/display.php?NewsID=15522
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-10-06-prayer-day_N.htm?loc=interstitialskip
Sunday, October 5, 2008
Palin adopts new campaign strategy: name-calling
Seeing as how criticizing Obama's lack of political experience is not a strategy Palin can employ, she has instead turned to stretching the truth about her rival's past. Obama lives in the same Chicago neighborhood as radical activist Bill Ayers, who in the 1960s led militant group Weather Underground in the bombings of several government buildings, and the two men have crossed professional paths several times. Palin, however, has tried to significantly exaggerate the extent of the relationship to make specious insinuations about Obama's character.
Sure, the two have worked together. According to The Los Angeles Times in April, both were part of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a group focused on combating the area's poverty. But as Laura Washington, chairwoman of the organization, said, it is "ridiculous to suggest there's anything inappropriate" about the two serving together on the board; last year, the organization gave $3.4 million to local arts, civic, and housing groups. It hardly seems that Obama's participation in the charitable, well-intentioned organization should frighten the American people.
While it is clear that Obama has tried to downplay his connections with Ayers, the two were definitely not tight. As Scott Shane writes in The New York Times on Friday, "...the two men do not appear to have been close," and Obama has never "expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" It is absurd to claim that Ayers has remotely influenced the presidential candidate's political beliefs.
A separate NYT article reports Palin as saying in Colorado, “Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” But let's be clear: Obama did not participate in the terrorist acts. His involvement with Ayers is unrelated to issues of terrorism or violence. The two are not close, and Obama has not adopted Ayers' beliefs. Palin's allusions to the senator's anti-patriotism are thus unjust and outright ludicrous.
Sure, the two have worked together. According to The Los Angeles Times in April, both were part of the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago, a group focused on combating the area's poverty. But as Laura Washington, chairwoman of the organization, said, it is "ridiculous to suggest there's anything inappropriate" about the two serving together on the board; last year, the organization gave $3.4 million to local arts, civic, and housing groups. It hardly seems that Obama's participation in the charitable, well-intentioned organization should frighten the American people.
While it is clear that Obama has tried to downplay his connections with Ayers, the two were definitely not tight. As Scott Shane writes in The New York Times on Friday, "...the two men do not appear to have been close," and Obama has never "expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.'" It is absurd to claim that Ayers has remotely influenced the presidential candidate's political beliefs.
A separate NYT article reports Palin as saying in Colorado, “Our opponent...is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.” But let's be clear: Obama did not participate in the terrorist acts. His involvement with Ayers is unrelated to issues of terrorism or violence. The two are not close, and Obama has not adopted Ayers' beliefs. Palin's allusions to the senator's anti-patriotism are thus unjust and outright ludicrous.
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Death Penalty: An Economic Analysis
The death penalty is an extremely divisive issue, shown by the fact that there is no clear consensus on its moral validity even in the United States; 34 states permit the death penalty while 16 do not. However, putting aside the moral implications of the death penalty, there is substantial evidence to show that it is economically inefficient, and wrong.
One could argue that the death penalty, viewed through an economic lens, is justifiable because the death penalty acts as a strong deterrent. In the words of Gary Becker, an economist from the University of Chicago: "[f]or each murderer not given capital punishment, approximately three generally innocent victims would die. This argument means that the government would indirectly be 'taking' many lives if it did not use capital punishment. The lives so taken are usually much more worthwhile than that of the murderers who would be spared execution. For this reason, the State has an obligation to use capital punishment if such punishment significantly reduces the number of murders and saves lives of innocent victims."
Let us approach the issue in economic terms as Professor Becker does. Though I tend to doubt his statement about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, assuming it is accurate, I think his economic analysis fails to take into account a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost. In Becker’s analysis, through the death penalty, society saves 3 innocent lives as 3 potential murders are deterred. However, the cost of executing a criminal is not $0. Indeed, recent research has shown that, due to the mandatory appeals process that can—and often does—take decades to complete, the incremental cost of executing a person compared to keeping that person in prison for life is, in New York and Florida, approximately $23 million (not to mention that the $23 million will grow in decades to come). I don't know how to put a precise value on a human life. Maybe no one does (though there have been impressive attempts by well-known Princeton economics professors). However, I would guess that the $23 million saved by not executing each prisoner could be spent on a number of extremely worthwhile projects such as funding preventative medicines and medical procedures or cleaning up toxic waste sites that could be shown to save far more than the 3 lives that Becker claims are saved by each execution. In economic terms, therefore, the death penalty costs our society lives many more lives than it saves.
There are other fundamental economic problems with the pro-death penalty position, most notably the probability that in a small but meaningful number of cases, the death penalty results in the execution by the State of innocent people. Amnesty International lays claim to the fact that there have been, since 1973, 125 people released from death row due to “evidence of their wrongful convictions”. However, the loss of the lives of these innocent people is real as compared to the theoretical deterrent savings of lives through executions.
The death penalty is a controversial and emotional issue. If one removes him or herself, however, from instinctual reaction, it is clear that, economically at least, the death penalty simply does not make sense.
Sources:
Ashenfelter, Orley. "Measuring the Value of a Statistical Life: Problems and Prospects," The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, March 2006.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=25995
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/12/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Claims_Innocent_Lives/page.do?id=1101086&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
One could argue that the death penalty, viewed through an economic lens, is justifiable because the death penalty acts as a strong deterrent. In the words of Gary Becker, an economist from the University of Chicago: "[f]or each murderer not given capital punishment, approximately three generally innocent victims would die. This argument means that the government would indirectly be 'taking' many lives if it did not use capital punishment. The lives so taken are usually much more worthwhile than that of the murderers who would be spared execution. For this reason, the State has an obligation to use capital punishment if such punishment significantly reduces the number of murders and saves lives of innocent victims."
Let us approach the issue in economic terms as Professor Becker does. Though I tend to doubt his statement about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, assuming it is accurate, I think his economic analysis fails to take into account a fundamental economic concept: opportunity cost. In Becker’s analysis, through the death penalty, society saves 3 innocent lives as 3 potential murders are deterred. However, the cost of executing a criminal is not $0. Indeed, recent research has shown that, due to the mandatory appeals process that can—and often does—take decades to complete, the incremental cost of executing a person compared to keeping that person in prison for life is, in New York and Florida, approximately $23 million (not to mention that the $23 million will grow in decades to come). I don't know how to put a precise value on a human life. Maybe no one does (though there have been impressive attempts by well-known Princeton economics professors). However, I would guess that the $23 million saved by not executing each prisoner could be spent on a number of extremely worthwhile projects such as funding preventative medicines and medical procedures or cleaning up toxic waste sites that could be shown to save far more than the 3 lives that Becker claims are saved by each execution. In economic terms, therefore, the death penalty costs our society lives many more lives than it saves.
There are other fundamental economic problems with the pro-death penalty position, most notably the probability that in a small but meaningful number of cases, the death penalty results in the execution by the State of innocent people. Amnesty International lays claim to the fact that there have been, since 1973, 125 people released from death row due to “evidence of their wrongful convictions”. However, the loss of the lives of these innocent people is real as compared to the theoretical deterrent savings of lives through executions.
The death penalty is a controversial and emotional issue. If one removes him or herself, however, from instinctual reaction, it is clear that, economically at least, the death penalty simply does not make sense.
Sources:
Ashenfelter, Orley. "Measuring the Value of a Statistical Life: Problems and Prospects," The Economic Journal, Vol. 116, March 2006.
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=25995
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/costs-death-penalty
http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2005/12/
http://www.amnestyusa.org/Fact_Sheets/The_Death_Penalty_Claims_Innocent_Lives/page.do?id=1101086&n1=3&n2=28&n3=99
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Put Away the Champagne, Dems
Any objective person realizes that Palin’s performance in the campaign so far has been dismal (see Katie Couric interview for details). But here’s the thing: most voters aren’t objective. As argued convincingly in this salon.com article, the Palin pick was never about picking someone qualified to be Vice President – it’s about bringing back the culture war.
Given Palin’s poor performance so far, it’s not surprising that the liberal pundits are predicting that she will embarrass the McCain campaign in the debate. More importantly, Biden is an experienced and knowledgeable debater who would be a tough opponent for even a strong VP nominee. He should be able to blow her off the stage, right?
Well, that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. Biden could drown Palin with statistics and exploit her mistakes, allowing him to “win” the debate. But the people who like Palin don’t like her because of her debate skills; they like her folksy charm, her values, and the fact that she seems like them. For the conservative base, Biden dominating the debate would just look like an elitist liberal jerk beating up on a wholesome small-town girl.
I expect the Obama campaign knows this and Biden has been told to hold back. On the other side, McCain's advisers have been working with Palin and they know allowing her to speak her mind is dangerous. Bottom-line? Don't expect Biden's extemporaneous honesty or Palin's Red-State charm to make appearances. This debate will probably involve both candidates sticking to their talking points, and neither side will be popping champagne afterwards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/us/politics/30palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
http://www.startribune.com/nation/29862744.html?page=1&c=y
Given Palin’s poor performance so far, it’s not surprising that the liberal pundits are predicting that she will embarrass the McCain campaign in the debate. More importantly, Biden is an experienced and knowledgeable debater who would be a tough opponent for even a strong VP nominee. He should be able to blow her off the stage, right?
Well, that’s exactly what I’m afraid of. Biden could drown Palin with statistics and exploit her mistakes, allowing him to “win” the debate. But the people who like Palin don’t like her because of her debate skills; they like her folksy charm, her values, and the fact that she seems like them. For the conservative base, Biden dominating the debate would just look like an elitist liberal jerk beating up on a wholesome small-town girl.
I expect the Obama campaign knows this and Biden has been told to hold back. On the other side, McCain's advisers have been working with Palin and they know allowing her to speak her mind is dangerous. Bottom-line? Don't expect Biden's extemporaneous honesty or Palin's Red-State charm to make appearances. This debate will probably involve both candidates sticking to their talking points, and neither side will be popping champagne afterwards.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/us/politics/30palin.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp
http://www.startribune.com/nation/29862744.html?page=1&c=y
Monday, September 29, 2008
Good For All, Available for None- Universal Health Care in America
According to a 2007 U.S Census survey, 45.7 million people living in the United States are uninsured.(1) That’s 45.7 million people that cannot become ill without risking everything they’ve worked so hard to gain- their house, their jobs, and for about 18,000 people every year, their lives.(2) 45.7 million people, among them 8.1 million children,(3) that have fallen through the cracks of a broken system.
Some argue that a universal system would result in poorer quality health care for all and scorn the notion of “socialization.” Although I can certainly not answer to all the critics of universal health care, I cannot believe that any person would support the death and struggle of uninsured Americans simply to justify the prolongation of an ineffective system.
While the majority of Americans support universal coverage for all US citizens, there still exists controversy over the implementation of an effective solution.(4) Both presidential candidates have addressed the issue in a moderate way- make more options available and let the free market lower the costs. Senator McCain is in favor of credits for the insured.(5) Senator Obama prefers extending the current employer-based system and creating government standards for insurance providers, thus making premiums more affordable for businesses and consumers.(6)
Although both plans are a step in the right direction, neither candidate supports mandates for, nor guarantees, universal coverage. At the end of the day, the average Joe would still be left to his own devices in securing medical care (leaving some Americans still uninsured). In spite of the candidates’ platforms, Americans can only hope for meager, if any, gains towards complete coverage. Between the United States’ antisocialist sentiment and the recent economic crisis universal health care will inevitably be on the political back burner.
Universal health care is a moral and economic imperative. Yet, it seems that a national solution is not on the horizon. Perhaps we should put our faith in the ability of Congress to put aside partisan dispute for the greater good of its citizens (we’ve seen how well that cooperative notion has succeeded in the recently rejected economic recovery bill). Until then, moving to Canada is always an option.
1, 3. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html
2. http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848
4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
5. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
6. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Some argue that a universal system would result in poorer quality health care for all and scorn the notion of “socialization.” Although I can certainly not answer to all the critics of universal health care, I cannot believe that any person would support the death and struggle of uninsured Americans simply to justify the prolongation of an ineffective system.
While the majority of Americans support universal coverage for all US citizens, there still exists controversy over the implementation of an effective solution.(4) Both presidential candidates have addressed the issue in a moderate way- make more options available and let the free market lower the costs. Senator McCain is in favor of credits for the insured.(5) Senator Obama prefers extending the current employer-based system and creating government standards for insurance providers, thus making premiums more affordable for businesses and consumers.(6)
Although both plans are a step in the right direction, neither candidate supports mandates for, nor guarantees, universal coverage. At the end of the day, the average Joe would still be left to his own devices in securing medical care (leaving some Americans still uninsured). In spite of the candidates’ platforms, Americans can only hope for meager, if any, gains towards complete coverage. Between the United States’ antisocialist sentiment and the recent economic crisis universal health care will inevitably be on the political back burner.
Universal health care is a moral and economic imperative. Yet, it seems that a national solution is not on the horizon. Perhaps we should put our faith in the ability of Congress to put aside partisan dispute for the greater good of its citizens (we’ve seen how well that cooperative notion has succeeded in the recently rejected economic recovery bill). Until then, moving to Canada is always an option.
1, 3. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html
2. http://www.iom.edu/?id=17848
4. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/03/01/opinion/polls/main2528357.shtml
5. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/19ba2f1c-c03f-4ac2-8cd5-5cf2edb527cf.htm
6. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
The Apotheosis of John Rawls
Today's stock market tumble did not seem imminent until the afternoon; indeed, investors were generally optimistic in the morning about the chances of receiving a much-needed injection of 700 billion dollars from Congress. President Bush (a Republican), Henry Paulson (an economist), Nancy Pelosi (a Democrat), and the leaders of the Republicans in the Senate and House (fiscally conservative, Bush-hatin' cowboys), all seemed to agree that the stimulus package was a necessary if unfortunate measure. They even gave speeches (in the case of Pelosi, two of them) declaring their belief that the bill would pass. As the votes started coming in however, traders got more and more nervous. Eventually, the package was defeated. Congress packed up and went home for the holiday. The DOW plummeted by a lucky 777 points, or 7 percent of its total. What happened?
The underlying problem is that the idea of the public funding a 700 billion dollar bailout for greedy bankers was unconscionable for House Republicans and some Democrats. Surely they felt that to pay wealthy bankers 700 billion dollars for billions in assets would be to reward them twice over, which is not the role of the government, you say? That to reward those already gifted in the arts of magical numbers is contrary to the interests of the poorest? Nay, nay, it was simply a case of self-interest. Even though the stimulus bill is vital for the economy's stability, some Republicans are so afraid of being labeled a "tax-raiser" by their constituents that they will cause millions of these same folks to lose their employment. These politicians will do anything to get elected, but they would do better by their country if they remembered: one must sometimes aid the rich to save the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?hp
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard UP, 2005.
The underlying problem is that the idea of the public funding a 700 billion dollar bailout for greedy bankers was unconscionable for House Republicans and some Democrats. Surely they felt that to pay wealthy bankers 700 billion dollars for billions in assets would be to reward them twice over, which is not the role of the government, you say? That to reward those already gifted in the arts of magical numbers is contrary to the interests of the poorest? Nay, nay, it was simply a case of self-interest. Even though the stimulus bill is vital for the economy's stability, some Republicans are so afraid of being labeled a "tax-raiser" by their constituents that they will cause millions of these same folks to lose their employment. These politicians will do anything to get elected, but they would do better by their country if they remembered: one must sometimes aid the rich to save the poor.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/30/business/30bailout.html?hp
Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. New York: Harvard UP, 2005.
Debate Off
The first presidential debate, set against the backdrop of great national financial crisis, arising from the all-for-nothing drama of the McCain campaign, considered to be a major factor in determining 4 out of 10 voters’ decision at the ballot box*, pitting a fiery, off the cuff speaker against a cool, cerebral intellect (you can guess who was who), ultimately came to…an undecided outcome. Newspapers all have a differing opinion as to who was the winner, and different writers for the same newspaper disagree even more. The Iowa Electronic Markets barely registered a blip. It’s amazing, but I think this represents a win for McCain.
Consider the past week. The world started to discover that Sarah Palin has no idea what she’s talking about. McCain seems to have failed to impress the public with his heroics, trying to rush back to D.C. and single-handedly put together a bailout package. It should also be noted that McCain probably tired himself out with all this drama, and that standing through a 90-minute debate is especially exhausting when you’re already 72. Consider that Obama should be able to link any major catastrophe (Wall Street) to the governing Republic party (McCain). Not only that, but recent news has found strong ties between McCain and our now-defunct financial giants, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. And that while this was supposed to be the foreign policy debate, an advantage for McCain, it ended up being 50-50 with the economy, an area in which voters place more faith in Obama. Plus, Obama is hands down the better orator, while McCain seemed to break out a few too many rehearsed phrases (my favorite one involving the letters K, G, and B). That Obama was not able to decisively win the debate comes as a disappointment. It was a missed opportunity for the Democratic team to permanently link all this bad news to the McCain ticket.
I will say that the overall quality of the debate was better than four years ago; the candidates did, on occasion, and after a little prodding, address each other directly. In terms of how much fun these debates are, though, I’m looking forward to Thursday night.
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247204209780953.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?th&emc=th
*Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll
Consider the past week. The world started to discover that Sarah Palin has no idea what she’s talking about. McCain seems to have failed to impress the public with his heroics, trying to rush back to D.C. and single-handedly put together a bailout package. It should also be noted that McCain probably tired himself out with all this drama, and that standing through a 90-minute debate is especially exhausting when you’re already 72. Consider that Obama should be able to link any major catastrophe (Wall Street) to the governing Republic party (McCain). Not only that, but recent news has found strong ties between McCain and our now-defunct financial giants, Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae. And that while this was supposed to be the foreign policy debate, an advantage for McCain, it ended up being 50-50 with the economy, an area in which voters place more faith in Obama. Plus, Obama is hands down the better orator, while McCain seemed to break out a few too many rehearsed phrases (my favorite one involving the letters K, G, and B). That Obama was not able to decisively win the debate comes as a disappointment. It was a missed opportunity for the Democratic team to permanently link all this bad news to the McCain ticket.
I will say that the overall quality of the debate was better than four years ago; the candidates did, on occasion, and after a little prodding, address each other directly. In terms of how much fun these debates are, though, I’m looking forward to Thursday night.
Sources:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122247204209780953.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28rich.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/opinion/28dowd.html?th&emc=th
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/29/us/politics/29campaign.html?th&emc=th
*Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll
Sarah Staggers Under Stress
Uh oh, Sarah Palin better do some serious studying this week. The close presidential race between Obama and McCain has put Governor Palin's campaign for vice president into the spotlight. After Friday's Obama/McCain debate, 52% of viewers said Obama had the better proposals to fix the country's problems, while only 35% favored McCain. Apparently, McCain needs all the help he can get.
The Republican Party hopes that Palin's debate with Obama's vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, will be a "game changer." McCain even assigned his own debate coach, Brett O'Donnell, to work with Palin this week. She is staying with McCain at his ranch in Arizona to prepare for Thursday's debate.
Why the big fuss? It seems that since Palin's surprising nomination a month ago, she has only brought close scrutiny to McCain's campaign. Several "shaky performances" by Palin have lead to the disapproval of many republicans, and this lack of confidence in the Alaskan governor has negatively affected her ratings in recent polls. Last week, almost 50% of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll stated that in their opinion, Palin is not qualified to serve as vice president.
Recent disappointments by Palin include her weak interview with Katie Couric and her statements about Pakistan that McCain had to personally retract. However, some prominent Republicans have expressed concern that all this coaching is compromising Palin’s expression of her own views on important matters.
Well, we don’t have long to wait until we see if all this coaching pays off. Because Palin is such a new face on the national scale, everyone will be watching to see if she stands her own against Biden.
So will she crack under pressure, as she has so many times before? Or will she prove the critics wrong? Personally, I can’t wait to see her next slip up.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265784614384667.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.juancole.com/
The Republican Party hopes that Palin's debate with Obama's vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden, will be a "game changer." McCain even assigned his own debate coach, Brett O'Donnell, to work with Palin this week. She is staying with McCain at his ranch in Arizona to prepare for Thursday's debate.
Why the big fuss? It seems that since Palin's surprising nomination a month ago, she has only brought close scrutiny to McCain's campaign. Several "shaky performances" by Palin have lead to the disapproval of many republicans, and this lack of confidence in the Alaskan governor has negatively affected her ratings in recent polls. Last week, almost 50% of respondents to a Wall Street Journal/NBC news poll stated that in their opinion, Palin is not qualified to serve as vice president.
Recent disappointments by Palin include her weak interview with Katie Couric and her statements about Pakistan that McCain had to personally retract. However, some prominent Republicans have expressed concern that all this coaching is compromising Palin’s expression of her own views on important matters.
Well, we don’t have long to wait until we see if all this coaching pays off. Because Palin is such a new face on the national scale, everyone will be watching to see if she stands her own against Biden.
So will she crack under pressure, as she has so many times before? Or will she prove the critics wrong? Personally, I can’t wait to see her next slip up.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/28/mccain-retracts-palins-pakistan-comments/
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122265784614384667.html?mod=rss_Politics_And_Policy
http://www.juancole.com/
Monday, September 22, 2008
Why Your Vote Doesn't Count
Election. It’s the word on everyone’s lips, and has been for the better part of the year. Everyone has his candidate, and most people aren’t bashful about announcing who his or hers is. Unfortunately, come November, only about three-fiftieths of the population will have a true say in deciding the next President of the United States.
This, of course, is a result of the electoral college. Yes, the electoral college, the outdated and outmoded mechanism that traditionalists seem willing to lay down and die for, is what truly decides the election. You see, the truth, as demonstrated by the New York Times, is that only about 7 of our 50 great states, representing a whopping one-tenth of the nation’s population, are truly in contention come November. Factor out voter participation and you are left with three-fiftieths (19.77 million) of our nation’s population that truly calls the shots this fall.
While I am all for honoring the constitution and the founding fathers’ intentions, I think we can all agree that given the current circumstances, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and the rest of the founders would not have developed the same system that they did hundreds of years ago. Advocates of the college argue that eliminating it strips the states of yet another of their dwindling rights. But shouldn’t the will of the people come ahead of the rights of the states?
One can argue the electoral college until heart’s content, but boil the truth down to this: The college has changed the results of several elections throughout our history. If you were to sit down and redevelop how we elect the president, could you possibly develop the electoral college and find it equitable?
Ultimately, the apathy of the states as well as the Congress needs to be ended, by a constitutional amendment that gives the vote back to 274 million of us that don’t live in the battleground states this fall.
Sources:
The New York Times
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html
Populations (US Census 2000) via
http://www.wikipedia.org
This, of course, is a result of the electoral college. Yes, the electoral college, the outdated and outmoded mechanism that traditionalists seem willing to lay down and die for, is what truly decides the election. You see, the truth, as demonstrated by the New York Times, is that only about 7 of our 50 great states, representing a whopping one-tenth of the nation’s population, are truly in contention come November. Factor out voter participation and you are left with three-fiftieths (19.77 million) of our nation’s population that truly calls the shots this fall.
While I am all for honoring the constitution and the founding fathers’ intentions, I think we can all agree that given the current circumstances, Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton and the rest of the founders would not have developed the same system that they did hundreds of years ago. Advocates of the college argue that eliminating it strips the states of yet another of their dwindling rights. But shouldn’t the will of the people come ahead of the rights of the states?
One can argue the electoral college until heart’s content, but boil the truth down to this: The college has changed the results of several elections throughout our history. If you were to sit down and redevelop how we elect the president, could you possibly develop the electoral college and find it equitable?
Ultimately, the apathy of the states as well as the Congress needs to be ended, by a constitutional amendment that gives the vote back to 274 million of us that don’t live in the battleground states this fall.
Sources:
The New York Times
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/whos-ahead/key-states/map.html
Populations (US Census 2000) via
http://www.wikipedia.org
A new (green)house for homeless i-bankers?
It is safe to say that a $700 billion proposed bailout signifies the end of even the pretense of small government in any sense for either political party. So now that the federal wallet is out, why don’t we spend money on something worthwhile?
Tomorrow the Senate will vote on a bill that determines if tax credits for using renewable energy sources will be extended. In a way, it is lucky that the vote is occurring at all, as just last week many news sources speculated that it would be left to die at the hands of election fever and not go to vote before Congress adjourns on the 26th.
However, the scope of the bill leaves much to be desired. Although it allows for homeowners to claim tax credit for the partial costs of installing solar panels, energy efficient insulation, windows, and heating and cooling equipment, the meat of the legislation focuses on corporations. Why is this not ideal? Germany provides the answer. Its
Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), or Renewable Energy Sources law, subsidizes private citizens who produce their own energy from renewable sources, and allows them to sell surplus back to the grid.
A similar plan in the United States could serve as a spark to bring that good-ole American ingenuity into the environmental sector. Perhaps as companies spring up to fill the needs of homeowners looking for energy efficient home additions, capitalism could make a comeback. Calling all former Lehman’s employees . . .
Sources: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809162343DOWJONESDJONLINE000810_FORTUNE5.htm
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/printout/0,29239,1730759_1734222_1734213,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2231304820080922?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel
Tomorrow the Senate will vote on a bill that determines if tax credits for using renewable energy sources will be extended. In a way, it is lucky that the vote is occurring at all, as just last week many news sources speculated that it would be left to die at the hands of election fever and not go to vote before Congress adjourns on the 26th.
However, the scope of the bill leaves much to be desired. Although it allows for homeowners to claim tax credit for the partial costs of installing solar panels, energy efficient insulation, windows, and heating and cooling equipment, the meat of the legislation focuses on corporations. Why is this not ideal? Germany provides the answer. Its
Erneuerbare-Energien-Gesetz (EEG), or Renewable Energy Sources law, subsidizes private citizens who produce their own energy from renewable sources, and allows them to sell surplus back to the grid.
A similar plan in the United States could serve as a spark to bring that good-ole American ingenuity into the environmental sector. Perhaps as companies spring up to fill the needs of homeowners looking for energy efficient home additions, capitalism could make a comeback. Calling all former Lehman’s employees . . .
Sources: http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200809162343DOWJONESDJONLINE000810_FORTUNE5.htm
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/printout/0,29239,1730759_1734222_1734213,00.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2231304820080922?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel
race in the Big Race
So far in this race for the White House we have seen a woman almost become a presidential nominee, and now we have the first black man to not only run for the presidency with the possibility of winning, but also to become the Democratic presidential nominee. But we have to ask ourselves, even though most Americans seem to welcome the fresh face and race of the nominee, what role will Obama’s race really play in the election? A recent poll organized by Stanford University proposed that the percentage of American voters who may turn away from Obama because of his race could be larger than that of the margin of victory in the 2004 election.
As the margin of victory becomes slimmer with each modern election, any slight discrepancy in the voters’ minds can determine the difference between a win or loss, especially for Obama. A recent AP-Yahoo News poll found that one-third of white Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks. As much as we would hope that the election is based on policy, experience, diplomacy and character, we have to accept the fact that race still plays a vital role in American society. Experts state that republicans are not denying Obama their votes because he is black; they are simply turned off by the fact that he is a democrat.
So where does the race card come in to play? Independent voters and questioning democrats will easily decide this election. Studies found that Obama’s ratings over McCain would be 6 percent higher if there were no apparent white racial prejudice; a racial prejudice that is apparent in his own party. But Obama’s race card has two sides: regardless of the number of voters that are turned off by his race, just as many could cast their vote strictly based on the fact that he is black. Obama has almost unanimous support from the black population, and we would be ignorant to think that this is because of his policies and qualifications.
We claim to be a nation based upon equality and justice for all, but are we really? We may not ever know what goes through a voter’s mind when he casts his ballot, but speculations will be looming regardless of the outcome. This is the biggest and perhaps final test for black Americans wondering if the racial divide has actually closed, and only time will tell.
Sources: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-20-Poll-Obama_N.htm
Be the change you wish to see in the world, unless you're running for president
Once upon a time, presidential candidate John McCain fought to diminish the role of "big money" in federal elections. In an effort to crush the potentially corrupting effects of large donations, he spearheaded, along with fellow Senator Russ Feingold, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, which, as the Supreme Court stated in its opinion of McConnell vs FEC, addressed "the increased importance of soft money, the proliferation of issue ads, and the disturbing findings of a Senate investigation into campaign practices related to the 1996 federal elections." Now, however, in the midst of an outrageously expensive campaign season, McCain has fallen under criticism for what Michael Luo describes in The New York Times as "wring[ing] the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed."
True, his efforts so far have been legally permissible. But they have also been sketchy. Luo notes, for example, that fund-raisers have largely devoted themselves to soliciting contributions of up to $70,000 for a "special joint fund-raising account," and that Web advertisements for the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, permitted under the auspices of funding legal and accounting costs, ask for donations to finance "a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising."
Of course, on one hand, the need to raise money is evident. Luo writes in another NYT article that the Obama campaign "shattered fund-raising records," spending $53 million in the month of August alone. Raising obscene amounts of money has become an integral part of the campaigning process. But, at the same time, it is disheartening to see a has-been hero of fund-raising righteousness stoop to finding loopholes in the legislation he once championed.
True, his efforts so far have been legally permissible. But they have also been sketchy. Luo notes, for example, that fund-raisers have largely devoted themselves to soliciting contributions of up to $70,000 for a "special joint fund-raising account," and that Web advertisements for the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, permitted under the auspices of funding legal and accounting costs, ask for donations to finance "a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising."
Of course, on one hand, the need to raise money is evident. Luo writes in another NYT article that the Obama campaign "shattered fund-raising records," spending $53 million in the month of August alone. Raising obscene amounts of money has become an integral part of the campaigning process. But, at the same time, it is disheartening to see a has-been hero of fund-raising righteousness stoop to finding loopholes in the legislation he once championed.
Oh, Those Bailouts
In the span of the last six months, bulge bracket investment banks have been disappearing. Bear Stearns collapsed in March; Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy last week. Merrill has made plans to be bought by Bank of America, while Morgan Stanley is supposedly in talks with Wachovia. Criticism has rebounded in the past week about the US government's push for socialism. Government should not interfere in the private sector. We can overlook certain policies that have been in effect for so long that the denouncement of said policies would incur the involuntary horror of citizens, for example minimum wage, much like Isaiah Berlin's opinion of impregnable, individual spheres of liberty. But the direct intervention by government into the public sphere - cash infusions for companies - is taking things too far. We should not create moral hazard, an atmosphere that seduces corporations into believing that taxpayers will always cover for them. But all right. If our ultimate end is to protect taxpayers from irresponsible corporations, then the best choice might not always be to let those corporations fail, if allowing their failure would cause even deeper damage to taxpayers. Given that these banks inter-invested and that pensions and IRAs held stock of these banks as well as stock of companies who in turn had invested in these banks, and given that the vast majority of Americans plan for retirement, then bailing out these banks was on some level justifiable. Potentially bailing out the Detroit automakers, however, is not. Americans would still have cars to buy even if GM, Chrysler, and Ford tanked. No reason exists for these three companies to get $25 billion in loan from the US government. They are not crucially intertwined in the financial word; they are not tied to most Americans. So why make most Americans support the burden of the potential layoffs of a few? The Big Three should bite their lips and learn from their more successful competitors instead of begging for an unfair boost.
Source: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/19/AR2008091903183.html?sub=AR]
Sunday, September 21, 2008
What Has the Amethyst Initiative Been Drinking?
On September 3rd, 2008, Tammy Wallis was killed as she stepped out of her car to retrieve her mail. The alleged culprit: Jonathan Burke, a drunk driver who veered out of his lane and struck Ms. Wallis with his vehicle, only to subsequently flee the scene. Ms. Wallis leaves behind a young daughter of 5, Alexandria, who still cannot comprehend this terrible tragedy. Unfortunately, the circumstances of Ms. Wallis’ death are not individual to her: there are almost 16,000 drunk-driving related fatalities a year, more than four times the total American casualties of the current Iraq war. Still, a group calling itself the Amethyst Initiative, comprised of presidents and chancellors from institutions of higher learning in the United States, is campaigning to change the current drinking age from 21 to 18, hoping to restore the drinking age to its pre-1984 level. Though I, a student under 21, studying at an American university, can certainly relate to the visceral desire to lower the drinking age, doing so would be—like Ms. Wallis’ death—tragic, leading to more alcohol consumption and therefore a greater number of alcohol-related incidents and deaths, automobile or otherwise.
The Amethyst Initiative’s position is two-fold: an ideological belief that gaining many rights at 18 should also give one the right to consume alcohol at the same time, as well as a practical belief that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Both of these positions are incorrect. However, while the former is debatable, the latter is not. The Amethyst Initiatives claim is this: “adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.” First, though it is true that each American citizen does gain a number of rights and responsibilities when he or she turns 18, there is no reason to believe that all rights should be granted at this age. In fact, boys and girls as young as 12 have been charged as adults in American criminal court. Should those as young as 12 be legally allowed to consume alcohol? Secondly, the belief that lowering the drinking age will lower alcohol consumption sounds counterintuitive—and for good reason. The Amethyst Position is that due to the current drinking age “a culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.” Actually, there is virtually no reason to believe that, by lowering the drinking age to 18 and removing alcohol’s allure as “taboo,” so called “binge drinking” would subside. Indeed, in Great Britain, a country in which the drinking age is 16, 53,844 under-25’s, the vast majority between 16 and 25, were admitted to hospitals for dangerous binge drinking. It is probably true that some under-aged drinkers do consume alcohol because they are legally forbidden to do so, but the evidence shows that lowering the drinking age would only make the problem of underage drinking worse. Not only is the Amethyst Initiative’s position demonstrably false, there are stark benefits to keeping the drinking age as it is—if not making it higher.
Raising the drinking age to 21 has led to clear societal advantages, namely safer physical development as well as a reduction in alcohol-related automobile fatalities. First, underage drinking, or drinking by those whose brains are not yet fully developed, is also incredibly detrimental to one’s health. Underage drinking can result in problems with brain development, memory, and can lead to alcohol dependence. Unrelated to development, the loss of inhibition associated with alcohol consumption that can lead to one placing him or herself in situations of compromised safety, often sexual situations. Finally, alcohol consumption is heavily associated with traffic fatalities. Three statisticians—Ralph W. Hingson, Jonathan Howland and Suzette Levenson—found that:
"There is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines in alcohol related traffic fatalities. Well-controlled studies of increases in the legal drinking age revealed that although the effects varied from State to State, in States that raised their drinking ages, night fatal crashes in targeted age groups declined 10 to 15 percent relative to States that did not."
Indeed, the higher drinking age has led to fewer automobile fatalities. MADD estimates that, on aggregate, the higher drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since it was put into place in 1984. Raising the drinking age to—and keeping the drinking age at—21 provides society with myriad benefits from safer physical development for children to a decrease in alcohol-related deaths.
There are too many Tammy Wallis’, too many who are harmed or die because of alcohol’s poisonous deluge. The Amethyst Initiative is irresponsible in its movement for a lower drinking age—wrong because a lower drinking age causes more drinking and more deaths. If anything, we should work to stem the tide of alcohol influence, not release the floodgates.
Sources:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-090608-sjf-newtonvigil.4f79b022.html
http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051160/Revealed-The-50-000-young-people-drink-way-hospital-year.html
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa59.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-arson-death_x.htm
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4628559?seq=2&Search=yes&term=21&term=traffic&term=fatalities&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D21%2Btraffic%2Bfatalities%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DDrinking%2Bage%2B21%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=3&ttl=1053&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/
The Amethyst Initiative’s position is two-fold: an ideological belief that gaining many rights at 18 should also give one the right to consume alcohol at the same time, as well as a practical belief that lowering the drinking age will reduce drinking. Both of these positions are incorrect. However, while the former is debatable, the latter is not. The Amethyst Initiatives claim is this: “adults under 21 are deemed capable of voting, signing contracts, serving on juries and enlisting in the military, but are told they are not mature enough to have a beer.” First, though it is true that each American citizen does gain a number of rights and responsibilities when he or she turns 18, there is no reason to believe that all rights should be granted at this age. In fact, boys and girls as young as 12 have been charged as adults in American criminal court. Should those as young as 12 be legally allowed to consume alcohol? Secondly, the belief that lowering the drinking age will lower alcohol consumption sounds counterintuitive—and for good reason. The Amethyst Position is that due to the current drinking age “a culture of dangerous, clandestine “binge-drinking”—often conducted off-campus—has developed.” Actually, there is virtually no reason to believe that, by lowering the drinking age to 18 and removing alcohol’s allure as “taboo,” so called “binge drinking” would subside. Indeed, in Great Britain, a country in which the drinking age is 16, 53,844 under-25’s, the vast majority between 16 and 25, were admitted to hospitals for dangerous binge drinking. It is probably true that some under-aged drinkers do consume alcohol because they are legally forbidden to do so, but the evidence shows that lowering the drinking age would only make the problem of underage drinking worse. Not only is the Amethyst Initiative’s position demonstrably false, there are stark benefits to keeping the drinking age as it is—if not making it higher.
Raising the drinking age to 21 has led to clear societal advantages, namely safer physical development as well as a reduction in alcohol-related automobile fatalities. First, underage drinking, or drinking by those whose brains are not yet fully developed, is also incredibly detrimental to one’s health. Underage drinking can result in problems with brain development, memory, and can lead to alcohol dependence. Unrelated to development, the loss of inhibition associated with alcohol consumption that can lead to one placing him or herself in situations of compromised safety, often sexual situations. Finally, alcohol consumption is heavily associated with traffic fatalities. Three statisticians—Ralph W. Hingson, Jonathan Howland and Suzette Levenson—found that:
"There is evidence to suggest that legal changes have produced declines in alcohol related traffic fatalities. Well-controlled studies of increases in the legal drinking age revealed that although the effects varied from State to State, in States that raised their drinking ages, night fatal crashes in targeted age groups declined 10 to 15 percent relative to States that did not."
Indeed, the higher drinking age has led to fewer automobile fatalities. MADD estimates that, on aggregate, the higher drinking age has saved 25,000 lives since it was put into place in 1984. Raising the drinking age to—and keeping the drinking age at—21 provides society with myriad benefits from safer physical development for children to a decrease in alcohol-related deaths.
There are too many Tammy Wallis’, too many who are harmed or die because of alcohol’s poisonous deluge. The Amethyst Initiative is irresponsible in its movement for a lower drinking age—wrong because a lower drinking age causes more drinking and more deaths. If anything, we should work to stem the tide of alcohol influence, not release the floodgates.
Sources:
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/stories/wcnc-090608-sjf-newtonvigil.4f79b022.html
http://www.madd.org/Drunk-Driving/Drunk-Driving/Statistics.aspx
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1051160/Revealed-The-50-000-young-people-drink-way-hospital-year.html
http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publications/aa59.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-01-05-arson-death_x.htm
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4628559?seq=2&Search=yes&term=21&term=traffic&term=fatalities&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3D21%2Btraffic%2Bfatalities%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DDrinking%2Bage%2B21%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=3&ttl=1053&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle
http://www.amethystinitiative.org/statement/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
