Tell me again: why don't we pay teachers well?

I read this article in the Times. I think it was also on Digg. I have heard no less than 3 co-workers discussing the same New York Times article about a charter school in New York. The basic premise of the newly approved charter school is that the best teachers turn out the most well educated students, and the way to attract the best teachers is to pay them well. “Well” meaning, well paid--in absolute terms--not relatively “well paid for teachers.” The starting salary is $125,000. The implications of this are far more significant than what is covered in the short article.

I say it is brilliant. Schools with the highest needs, which are usually in areas with the smallest tax base, are bleeding young, quality teachers. Teachers fresh out of school, inexperienced, head to these schools for a couple years and then look for a position in a higher paying district. Once they are equipped to best teach, they leave.

The profession of teaching struggles to attract smart, edgy career seekers because it is seen as a life of self-punishing service, in constant financial struggle. There is no way, regardless of talent and performance, for a teacher to make a salary that allows for a comfortable life in a major city. There is just no way to make a life in New York (or San Francisco or L.A. or Chicago, etc.) on $40,000. How could I ever buy a house on that? Granted, experienced teachers in my district make $70-80,000--which makes home-ownership more realistic. But going into teaching, while requiring a master’s degree, will never produce the salary that pursuing a career in i-banking, or engineering, or law will.

Teachers rely on a union to protect them from the district (government) and the administration. So by diminishing the administration, there is one less force attacking them. Then, in theory, if they are doing a good job (which is significantly easier with adequate compensation, for a variety of reasons, need I list them?) good teachers shouldn’t need the protection of a union. After all shouldn’t the students and parents protect them? And the bad teachers… well they will be fired. They will not be worth $125,000 a year to tax payers. But the good teachers can let their art in a classroom speak for itself.

There are more problems in the education system in this country than passengers on the Titanic. But paying teachers well is perhaps one step towards fixing at least one or two of the existing problems.

A Man Makes $4 Billion, as Much as All NYC Teachers. Should he be taxed less than them?

Yes, this is a capitalist country whereas people can risk, apply their efforts, and reap huge rewards. Unless, of course, you don't have access to opportunity. Unless, you are already at the top...

But, besides this, if we are all patriots and want to support this country called the United States of America, then the question is: how much everyone should chip into to pot? According to earnings and ability to pay? Is that fair? Whatever you think, this is not how it's done here.

This investor who gambled made $4 billion a year, just as much as all teachers in the NY City public schools made collectively! But, the super-rich have their capital gains taxed at 15% whereas teachers (and other workers) are taxed at twice or more this rate!

Here's an article by Alternet that makes the case. You may disagree with the author's conclusion and suggestions, but the facts remain the facts.

"The United States has the highest inequality rate in the developed world. 28 million Americans -- almost 1 in 10 -- are using food stamps. The average worker has seen virtually no real increase in wages since 1970.

Some hedge fund managers made over a billion dollars last year. Hedge fund manager John Paulson, who made a clever bet against subprime mortgages, made close to $4 billion.
How much is 4 billion dollars? If you work as a sales clerk in a retail store, you'd have to work 200,000 YEARS to make 4 billion dollars.

If you have a steady $50,000 a year job as a laborer and work for 50 years, in all that time you'd make as much as the hedge fund manager gets in one hour at the office."

The Politics of Tax & Spend and the Role of Government. Pay Your Taxes But Ask for Accountability too!

Ah, the tax-filing deadline is fast approaching. Have you done your taxes? You should file if you want to receive a "rebate" from our government, because this money (that we don't have but will borrow at great expense) will stimulate the slumping economy--or, that's the idea during this election year! Sure, why not. Our government wastes so much money anyway, what's a few hundred more billions of dollars? What most people don't get is that our political system is responsive to those who get access to it--the multitude who decide to organize and participate or those who buy influence through lobbying and personal connections.

As humans see the benefit of organizing themselves into a civil society--hopefully with a good social contract--the question arises of what the role of the government should be. I think it should be to protect and empower the commonwealth, that is, for the benefit of the greatest number of people possible. Yes, of course, I recognize the principle of protecting the minorities, however small they are, so you can not exploit the few for the benefit of the many either. This philosophical (and I maintain, practical) approach to the role of government is one of the important differences between the progressives and the conservatives today. But, in order for our government to do all the good things for us, it needs money, hence the ..dreadful taxes.

Have you noticed who has the strongest voice against taxes? Those who are better off. They usually get their way of tax breaks and lower taxation as a percentage and ability to pay. This week, NOW produced an excellent piece on the tax policies many states have embraced--policies that place most of the tax burden on those who can least afford it! See, for example, what NOW discovered in Alabama [click on the link to watch the NOW video] one of the most regressive states in the US, where a family of four with as low income as $12,600 has to pay taxes.

The connection to poverty & hunger is crystal clear. Next Friday, the farm bill expires and Congress is working on a new one. In light of our huge budget deficit, this farm bill is "the most lavish subsidies in American history" the Wall Street Journal has decried! The Senate Majority Leader Reid (D-NV) has acknowledged that the insurance companies and the commodities industry are the two most powerful groups that carry great influence with both parties in Congress. Most of the farm subsidies go to rich farmers, big corporations-- a practice which is both wasteful and unethical. This is one of the many cases where we have to stop and think, and ultimately call it as it is.

The smaller government advocated by conservatives means a big enough government to maintain a trough that feeds the few, but small enough that cannot regulate, inspect, and ensure a more fair distribution of the public wealth! This is the bottom line. Oh, OK, there's an exception regarding the size of the government: those conservatives that want the government to be strong enough to shove down our throats a particular religious morality they advocate.Why is there so much hunger in the US today? Why do we increase the farm subsidies to the rich farmers [there's a fight to limit payments to farmers making up to a $1 mil. instead of the present $2.5 ceiling] but we don't increase food stamps to poor Americans? Most rural poor that get food stamps have little food after the 3rd week of the month. We're talking about working people here, who simply do not make enough to feed their families.

There's a great hunger in rural America, 35 million of out citizens, but this is not even an issue discussed in the current presidential race! Bill Moyers has another excellent piece on the farm bill this week. Cash Cows and Cowboy Starter Kits from EXPOSÉ illustrates, some of the subsidies in the current iteration of the bill don't go to the stereotypical small American farmer — or even to farmers at all. See how the farm bill gives billions to people who don't farm, or "drought aid" to people who didn't suffer any drought conditions! Or, how people got money from the space shuttle explosion over Texas for a bogus "livestock compensation"!!!

Poverty exists in the US and it's bigger than we want to admit or pay attention to.There's another class, the missing class, of the near-poor. Katherine S. Newman has a great book on this subject. This video explains more about those Americans who are also forgotten, who live on the margins of the mainstream economy, and on the edge of economic disaster. We can cut hunger in the US by half in one year by eliminating the waste in just one area: farm subsidies. But, we need leadership and political commitment. Oh, yes, we also need a politically educated public, and that Americans start behaving as they are in the economic scale not as they'd like to be or "see" themselves in the undetermined future.

We should have a serious discussion on the role of the government and to dispel some misconceptions about the infallibility of capitalism. The free marketplace is a great but imperfect mechanism and like a good car needs to maintained and occasionally steered in the right direction. We have to examine ways make it work for the commonwealth and not to privatize the profit while we socialize the risk. There is no rational or moral argument to continue doing what we've been doing on many levels of public policy. We should start with our intense focus on being very militaristic and the costs associated with such a strategy, and move on to allocation of resources and benefits in our commonwealth.

Bears, Bulls, and other Animals in our Forest

It's Spring break, but I'm already planning my next week's classes! See what some free time does to me... (looking for trouble). It's fun, coming up with stories and exam questions..

Class exam: Analyze the concept: socializing the risk and privatizing the profit. Include examples. You should also reference the ideological framework as to the role of the state (gov) in a modern capitalist system. Does the marketplace need the government to operate, or does the latter function as an impediment to the former?

Now, the following is a story I just made up but will use in class to ease the students back into rigorous learning, and, of course, to ..indoctrinate them.

Once upon a time, there was a small club of friends who dined and played (golf, bridge, etc) together no matter what happened in the world. They were considered wise men by their peers, and had advised other people to be aggressive in their investments--normally with other people's money!

They all made millions in salaries & bonuses, because they deserved it--and because a small group of their peers agreed that those who move lots of money around have lots of stress. Money always shows how much a person is appreciated was the dictum.

There are certain story tellers who convinced the majority of the village people that welfare--often called, the social safety net--for the working & indigent classes is a very bad thing. They also said that the government is a necessary evil and that, for our sake, it should be so small as to be drowned in a bathtub... Private companies, usually after huge over runs of the original estimate, would provide the bathtub and the taxpayers would gladly buy it.

On the other hand, assisting the hard-working and money-making businesses (ie, corporate welfare) was is a good thing they told us. The preferred to be mum, retreating in the quiet of the backrooms as they made their deals. After all, who needs all those statistics, numbers (oh, the horrors of ..math), and the legaleze--all very boring. Who could argue against this: American companies are patriotic and would never deliver inferior products, waste taxpayers money, put any American in danger, and charge us higher prices through no-bid contracts. The free market would never allow that, would it?

Those who have more money, wealth and power got even more money & legal benefits since apparently they deserve it. They owed their success to their own efforts alone, something like pulling their own bootstraps. Of course, they needed bigger tax breaks too! They had more expenses you know!... End of this little story.

So to better understand all this, I brushed up on Adam Smith recently. I had to discuss his ideas in class too--Moral Sentiment, and Wealth of Nations. I understand that profit is the engine of capitalism. Smith said something about competition and how it's good for the marketplace, but measures had to be taken to prevent predatory markets and companies. Ah, well. I'm sure the modern capitalists and those in power know that.

I also read, Free Lunch by David Cay Johnston, and watched him on Bill Moyers Journal. [here's a clip on YouTube]. I suggest you check those short videos. Very informative. Anyway, I'm wondering why those who demonize the (our) governmnet often turn to it for help & salvation when they screw up?

Do you have an answer?

Finish Tying the Knot in the “Enron Loophole”

By Katherine Wollny [POL 301D-Spring 2008]


My father’s past mumbling echoes in my mind as I think back to all the times I’ve asked him for a few bucks to grab a cup of coffee before school or work. As he’d fork over the cash, I would always hear the same story—how a cup of coffee used to be ten cents and it is outrageous that my extra large regular from Dunkin Donuts cost almost $2.25 (I wonder if the story would have been more exaggerated if I was a Starbucks latte lover instead). It was a ritual that came standard when asking to borrow money for almost anything. In recent years, the latest and greatest version has been about the price of gasoline and the cringing thought of giving me two twenty dollar bills and hoping that it would be enough to fill my itty-bitty thirteen gallon tank. I never thought the day would come so soon when I would share the same sick feeling with my father every time I pull up to the pump.

In 2001, being among the sixteen year olds who experienced a bad license picture for the first time, I clearly remember the gas price posted when pulling in the station after the landmark event: $1.26 per gallon. Luckily, the Gulf station down the road from my apartment, now seven years later, is one of the cheapest places to gas up in the county at $3.17. Twenty minutes south to the next town where my parents live, it’s a whopping $3.39. Just the fact the price is over three dollars amazes me—over two dollars for that matter. How did this happen?

It all started with one name we all know: Enron! In 2000, the Enron Loophole Act was passed with the original intent of deregulating energy futures trading facilitated by the now defunct “Enron Online.” This loophole has been taken advantage of, causing the energy commodity markets to be dubbed “dark” by the lack of oversight, and creating excessive speculation and energy price manipulation. The price for crude and heating oil, gasoline, natural gas, and propane effects every American in their day to day lives.

My parents are a perfect example. Both are retired and living on fixed income, which is significantly smaller now compared to when they first entered retirement five years ago. Now with the surge in heating oil prices, they have become considerably more conservative: so layer up because your hand will be cut off if you dare touch the thermostat. But seriously, the oil bill took up a large chunk of their monthly budget this winter and it shows by their new pattern of spending autonomously. I cant grocery shop in my mother’s pantry anymore because it is starting to look as pathetically bare as mine, filled with minimal generic brand necessities. It should never have come to this!

Why hasn’t anything been done to correct this major problem that has been an infection in our economy for so long? There are a handful of reasons, but here is what I think is the big answer: the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), who would be responsible for regulating actions in the energy commodity markets has been severely crippled by a significant decrease in funding, resulting in insufficient resources necessary to do its job effectively. Even worse, the advisory committees assigned to the CFTC commissioners are conquered by financial players, who depend on the little oversight, and do not include the vital input of the majority—consumers and small businesses.

At least Congress has taken notice of these shenanigans in recent months. Last June, a bipartisan report came out of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations acknowledging price distortions in the energy futures market, being supported by “a broken regulatory system that has left our energy markets vulnerable to any trader with sufficient resources to alter energy prices for all market participants.”

Thank you, Senator Carl Levin, for bringing this to the Senate floor and introducing the Close the Enron Loophole Act in September. You started the ball rolling, so please continue it down the right path to quickly cover the entire hole. By next winter, I expect to be able to visit my parents in a toasty warm house.

The Blackwater Bomb: The Detrimental Effects of Private Military

By Kerriann Stout [POL 301D-Spring 2008]

The current White House administration has been widely utilizing private security companies. Currently many of the top officials in Iraq are protected, not by the United States military, but by Blackwater USA, a private security company. This is a result of a push towards military privatization by former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. While in office Cheney had plans to weaken the pentagon’s power, and outsource some of their jobs to the private sector. With the market ripe for the taking, Blackwater owner Erik Prince stepped up to the job. Paul Bremer’s, former director of reconstruction in Iraq, arrival in Iraq in 2003 gave Rumsfeld the perfect reason to utilize Blackwater in the war. Blackwater was given a contract for all of Bremer’s security.

The White House and Department of Defense are bending, twisting, and sometimes outwardly breaking laws in order to accommodate Blackwater, all with complete disregard for public opinion. Their inability, or rather lack of desire, to regulate Blackwater remains dangerous because the Blackwater Contractors remain without liability for their actions. Bremer protected them under order 17, of his 100 orders made while in Iraq, providing them immunity from persecution. Essentially there are thousands of armed contractors in Iraq without any responsibility for their actions, and the Bush Administration finds this to be perfectly legal. A September 2007 shooting by Blackwater contractors who opened unprovoked fire on Iraqi citizens is further proof of the detrimental affects this type of military brings with it. The Blackwater men are being paid double and triple what the United States military makes, and is being held accountable for nothing.

Furthermore Blackwater is being given no bid “sweetheart contracts”. Given the country’s current economic problems it seems highly suspect that the government is handing out billion dollar contracts without putting them out to bid. Bidding out the contract would be far more economically sound, but Prince’s donations to the Republican Party seem to prevent this from happening.

Iraq is not the only place private security has been used by the United States. Blackwater’s involvement in Hurricane Katrina is suspicious at best. Where was the National Guard and Military? Even if it was necessary for extra help in the beginning why didn’t Blackwater leave after local law enforcers were able to control the situation? And the most important question is where was FEMA? The people of New Orleans had suffered a massive natural disaster and lacked everything needed to sustain life. These people were hungry, hungry people need food, not guns. Especially not guns attached to mercenaries. The fact that Blackwater was deployed on American soil begs the question just how much power does Erik Prince have over the current administration?

Looking to the future, Blackwater is currently courting NATO and the UN to get contracts that would allow them to go into Darfur. This speaks directly to the ineffectiveness of UN peacekeeping troops. It is yet another example of sending a private security company somewhere it does not belong. The growth of such a powerful private army could be extremely dangerous, with their loyalties not being national, but to one person.

In order to fix these problems the United States needs to scale back on the use of private contractors and take a look at revamping the Military in order to meet its needs. The cost now may be high, but the risk of allowing private contractors to be responsible for American safety is higher. Prince has already been giving too much control and as long as Blackwater remains in bed with the Republican Party, this situation will only continue to get worse.

Bush Vetoes Health Care Coverage to Protect the Poor (he claims)

By Rebecca DePaoli [POL 301D-Spring 2008]

This is an editorial intended for people reading a daily newspaper. It has a leftist bias; however, it is informative about a health care issue.

On October 18, 2007, the House of Representatives failed to override the President’s veto that denied health care to under-privileged children. Thirteen votes shy of the two-thirds majority vote needed to override a Presidential veto, the House proved to be ineffective in the fight for children’s health care. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) was created under the Clinton Administration for children whose parents earned too much to be eligible for Medicaid, yet who made too little to able to afford private insurance. Since its creation in 1997, SCHIP has been responsible for providing means to health care to approximately six million children in the United States.

In September of 2007, the United States Congress passed a bill that would expand SCHIP in order to cover four million more children by 2012. In order to finance this broadening, $35 billion would be needed in addition to SCHIP’s current cost projections of $25 billion, totaling $60 billion over the next five years. This extra funding would stem from a national cigarette tax increase of 61 cents per pack.

Even though this plan seems like a no brainer, President Bush vetoed the expansion in the name of “poor kids”. He argued that the new legislation will focus on middle class children, leaving poorer children behind. This is simply not true. First, poor children are not and never were covered by SCHIP, but by Medicaid and secondly, the expansion of SCHIP would only cover more children, not less. If the family qualifies for the coverage granted by SCHIP, they will receive it; it is not a zero sum game.

It is extremely unethical for the President to be playing politics with the lives of American children. Children need annual visits to physicians and dentists and the government should be pushing for preventative medicine rather than reactive. If children are able to have check ups, it will be less likely uninsured children will have to visit emergency rooms for illnesses, this will ultimately decrease private insurance premiums for other Americans.

President Bush also stated that the bill would cost too much. Yes, a President who is willing to spend $2 billion a week or around $520 billion over the next five years on an unsubstantiated war, is unwilling to protect his country’s own youth for a mere $60 billion in the same time period. This is a great way to show fiscal constraint.

Perhaps the boldest reason President Bush gave to rationalize his heartless veto was that he was protecting the country against socialized medicine. He believes that the private sector should control the health care system in America and why not, they have been doing a great job up until now. What is really driving our American health care system is greed, by the pharmaceutical and insurance companies. They care more about profits than they do about children whose parents simply cannot afford proper medical treatment. It’s capitalism at its worst.

Why then, do you ask did the House of Representatives not override the veto? The House Republicans stuck with their party line of fiscal conservatism and a free market economy. They were not able to see past their political agendas toward the helpless children begging for an answer.

From Vietnam to Iraq: A Repeat of History, A Repeat of Mistakes

By Ashley Studley. [Pol 301D-Spring 2008]

Up until 9/11/2001, I rarely paid any heed to politics or worldly issues. I was slightly aware of current events, but I was far more preoccupied with my adolescent self to be truly bothered by any larger matter. Once the events of September the Eleventh occurred, I was shaken awake. I was distraught, confused, and wanting justice within every part of my being.
When President George W. Bush announced that Iraq had a direct correlation to 9/11, I almost ate it up as quickly as it had been served. I assumed Saddam Hussein had always been a threat, to his people and our own, and I was about to jump on Bush’s bandwagon like so many have now regretted doing.

But my high school social studies teacher deterred me from doing so. As he introduced us to the major issues surrounding the War in Iraq, he reminded us of the issues that revolved around the Vietnam War. That war, which lasted 16 years-the longest in American history, was one which we should not have involved ourselves in, and is eerily similar to the circumstances regarding our effort in the Middle East.

I found an article written by then-student Charlie Dering, dated March 30, 1971 in Pace’s former school newspaper, Sunshine. The headline reads as “War Atrocities”, and in it Dering makes note of the unmistakable actions taken by American forces in Vietnam. If it wasn’t for minor distinctions here and there, it would be easy to believe that Dering was ranting about today’s conflict.

In 1959, the United States sent troops to Southern Vietnam to assist in the stabilizing of their government. This part of Vietnam was having difficulty separating itself from the Communist party which controlled Northern Vietnam. In an attempt to settle this conflict, millions of Vietnamese soldiers and civilians were killed, along with thousands of Americans. The U.S. finally pulled out in 1975, having failed to resolve anything.

Similar to today, the President has claimed that our new mission is to build and promote democracy within Iraq. Since his weapons of mass destruction theory didn’t pan out as well as he’d hoped, the goal now is to stabilize their government-the one which we destroyed by invading the country in March of 2003. We were only supposed to occupy for two years at most, a time span which has more than doubled as it reaches its fifth year anniversary in just a month. According to the Washington Post, American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimate that the combined death toll has reached 655,000. It is sad that our President knowingly misled us into an un-winnable war, and it is even worse that we have allowed it to go on for so long.

Dering’s article touches upon the sanitization of the news, and how up until Seymour Hersh exposed the Mai Lai massacre in 1969, Americans were not being informed of the truths of the war. Dering makes note that foreign media outlets were far more truthful in facts and photos with their presentations of the war. The same applies to today’s media, which is constantly criticized for its failure to give an accurate look into the Middle East. All we are given from day to day is a death toll, one without names or faces. Is the media attempting to keep us as detached from these casualties as possible? Or is it simply the government controlling what we see and what we hear? Whatever the unjustified reasoning, the public deserves truth, no matter how ugly or how bad it makes the country appear.

The student ends his article by saying “An end to these atrocities can be realized only by an end to the war. Evidently our President doesn’t want that.” Upon reading this, I realized that our country has not learned from its previous mistakes. It’s almost as if Charlie Dering looked into the future 37 years ago, and knew that our country would make the same blinding errors and never learn from them. Sadly, I wonder how many lives it will take and how many history books will need printing in order to end and prevent such atrocities from ever occurring again.

The Pulitzer prize photo: Kim Phuc - Vietnam Napalm bombing, South Vietnam 1972

The Tragedy that is Darfur. When Will the US Intervene?

By Matthew Herlihy. The following is an editorial for the general public. [Pol 301D, Spring 2008].

The War in Darfur, also known as the Darfur Genocide, is a battle that has been ravaging the western region of Sudan since 2003. Yet, for some reason, the citizens of the United States have not learned as much on this genocide as I think is necessary. It has been the habit of our government to engage in global endeavors to police our globe, to control genocidal acts in essence, but, still, the United States has no involvement in the growing problem that is plaguing the African continent. Civil wars are not uncommon to the continent; however genocide, considered a heinous war crime, is is an evil that must be tamed.

One side of this armed conflict is the Janjaweed, a group formed mostly of Sudanese military. The Janjaweed is a group based around the religion of Islam and shuns those who do not believe in the Islamic ways. Since 2003 they have been fighting with several rebel groups, primarily the Sudan Liberation Movement among others, all comprised of non-Arab persons. Statistics vary vastly on the number of deaths that have occurred from 2003 to now, but the majority of experts, including the United Nations, estimate that “as many as 200,000 are dead”(Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur Conflict, BBC News), and quite possibly many more. The United Nations however does not mark this conflict as genocide, whereas the United States has classified it as such.

How could this happen, some people will ask; how is it possible that such a terrible war can fly so easily under the American radar? Well, the United States still remains a part of the United Nations and therefore acts in compliance with the U.N. in efforts to relieve the situation of some of the tension. The roots of the War in Darfur though lie in the government. Rebel forces, in addition to enormous overpopulation and what is called “desertification”, or more simply put, the loss of serviceable crop land, have claimed that the government was favoring Arab Africans over black Africans. This type of sentiment led to various rebel groups forming, all with different leaders and different agendas, but all with the same general intent of overthrowing the government.

So what is the issue really, this is nothing more then a civil war it would seem on the surface, but in reality, it is the civilians of this region that are hurt the most. According to a November 15, 2007 article on bbc.com women have reported being held captive by the Janjaweed and used as sex slaves, citing the proclamation by the U.N. that war crimes are being committed with regularity inside Darfur. This however, is just the beginning of the vast troubles for the Darfur natives.

Refugees are what many Darfur natives have become, with millions displaced. In the same BBC article the author states, “millions have fled their destroyed villages, with some two million people in camps near Darfur’s main towns.”(Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur Conflict, BBC News). These camps though are hotspots for Janjaweed as they patrol the outskirts, and natives state that upon venturing too far from town “the men are killed and the women are raped,”(Q&A: Sudan’s Darfur Conflict, BBC News). Darfur remains an extremely hostile territory and at the present time it is difficult for aide groups to lend a helping hand, further disadvantaging the refugees from a stable form of life.

Unfortunately there is not much that can be done to stop such a large group of people who do not desire peace. If peace were something that most of these rebel parties thirsted for this conflict would have expired long ago, but this is not the case. The blood thirst that has become Darfur will continue until one of several things happen. First and foremost, all parties involved need to have a working ceasefire and pick up peace talks that were held in Nigeria without much, if any success. Secondly, despite the denial of western help by the Sudan, it is the responsibility of the United States and more importantly the United Nations to act swiftly and decisively in order to isolate these rebel groups and control them, most likely though having to be done with an insurgence of U.N. troops.

The Darfur conflict is a gripping dilemma and one without a clear cut solution presently, but a situation that without an evident ending can only lead to long civil war and unrest for the civilians of Darfur. I wrote this article in order to educate at the most basic level those who remain unaware of the trials that these refugees face at all times. If it has become the job of the United States to act as the policeman to the world, there is not a better time to live up to this role than this one. The involvement of the United States in Darfur should be a case of when, not if, and it seems appropriately so.

Unspinning the News: What Kennedy's Endorsement of Obama Means

By Jacqueline Cogel. This piece is an editorial directed toward the general public, about Ted Kennedy’s support for Barack Obama, and how the media tried to spin what he said. [Pol 301D-Spring 2008].

This race to win the Democratic primaries and become the presidential candidate for the party has been a tennis match going back and forth all campaign. The big story is two unlikely candidates who one will get the chance to run for president, a black man or a woman. Both have the potential to make their mark in history when Election Day comes, and when something this dramatic happens in the political world here in America, the media is bound to add a little spice here and there to spark the drama.

Ted Kennedy, as well as many others in the Democratic Party, decided to endorse Barack Obama instead of family friend Hillary Clinton. Kennedy says he is drawn to his commanding presence and admires the way Obama motivates a new generation of Democrats. Kennedy has done nothing wrong but simply support a very qualified and powerful candidate in the Democratic Party. Well, even someone as smart as Kennedy could not have seen this coming his way.

Various media sources began attacking Kennedy claiming that his support of Obama over Clinton is a clear sign that he is against women’s rights. Their rationale was; well why else would he go against a family friend and support her competitor. Since they could not be happy with maybe Kennedy is just doing the right thing and supporting who he thinks is best qualified in his political party, the media had to try and find a way to attack him and see if any drama could start. These races in our society can never be just about the two candidates and who is more qualified than the other. But instead we take everything and anything that is said, and the media spins it to portray the person to however they feel they can. And if there is ever anything that can be made to look detrimental to their character, the media swoops in and attacks full force upon the candidate.

In essence, I feel that Obama is a better candidate than Clinton, and I am a woman myself saying that! He has a better stand on his issues, and I agree with Kennedy that he does motivate a new generation of democrats and I think he does this better than Clinton. If the media would spend more time researching other issues in the political world and stop trying to twist and turn words said, the American people would be more informed on more important issues rather than the he said she said garbage we are told about today.

BOTTOM LINE: Kennedy is not against women and their rights, but he does support Obama over Clinton!

Governor Spitzer Wants to Endow State's Public Colleges

The New York governor just delivered his annual speech to the state legislature, saying that he wants to raise the funding and the quality of public higher education and make the two public universities--CUNY and SUNY--even better. The problem is that New York has a budget deficit of $4 billion, and if the country's financial woes continue, there will be less tax revenue ahead. Spitzer didn't provide many specifics as to how he's going to pay for this, but his own-appointed commission did recommend hiring more faculty.

The faculty-student ratio is very important as well as the time faculty spends teaching & advising students. All too often, faculty have no real insentive to teach or spend most of their time in the classroom & designing their courses. Their professional rewards come from publishing and from public relations, not from teaching.

The state’s public higher education system includes the State University of New York, with more than 400,000 students on 64 campuses, and the City University of New York, with more than 200,000 students on 23 campuses. Undergraduates at SUNY colleges who are state residents now pay $4,350 a year in tuition and $4,000 at CUNY.

For more information on the governor's initiative, read this New York Times article.

Philanthopist Helps Future College Students in Maine

Assuming it's good for the country to have as many educated people, then what are we doing to provide equality of opportunity? OK, money and social status provide more access, and opportunities. But, should it come down to these qualities? Or, should we give chances to those who cannot afford to go to college to do so? Shouldn't commitment and skills take precedent over money?

I don't think every high school student is ready or willing to pursue their studies further, but there are many who just can't because the cost is so high. Not only tuition has risen greatly but--let's not forget--during the years attending college a student cannot earn as much as someone who doesn't have the burden of a full academic load.

A couple presidential candidates have floated the idea that every American upon birth should get a bond in their name, say, $1,000, which will accrue interest for 18 years, or until the person goes to school, usually with a cut-off limit by age 30. This can only be used to help defray the costs of attending higher ed schools. Obviously this is not a solution to the problem, but it helps. It's an investment that the country should make, something like the GI Bill for WW2 veterans.

It makes economic sense too, because educated people tend to earn more money, pay less taxes, and are less likely to be a public charge. It's estimated that for every dollar our government spent for the GI Bill, it got three in return. But, as it is the case for many things, it's hard to spend up front in order to save later. Our health care system is a prime example of this. We don't have universal health care coverage, people don't get preventive care, no early detection, and the result is more expensive (and often futile) treatments later.

Anyway, in the spirit of endowment for the future, a benefactor in Maine is giving $500 towards a college education to every child born in Maine! Harold Alfond, who died recently, founded the Dexter Shoe Company in Maine, and later his foundation that will manage the grants. This tax-free savings account will be available to Maine newborns--about 14,000 in 2006--starting in 2009. It's estimated that, with current numbers, the foundation will spend some $7 million per year. There are plans for raising the contributions and grants levels to cover increased college costs in the future.

Philanthropist Alfond never went to college.

President Bush: No More Money for Education. But Money's No Object for Pentagon

While the president was busy shooting down a Congressional bill that would provide more money for education and healthcare, he signed on to Pentagon's huge increase in "non-war" spending.

The message is clear: spend more--as much as it takes--on the military, but let's keep as many Americans as possible in poverty, near poverty, and largely uneducated so they can see enlisting in the armed forces as a good option for them. It's a win-win situation. No?

Rep. David Obey, the Democratic chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, pounced immediately on Bush's veto.

"This is a bipartisan bill supported by over 50 Republicans," Obey said. "There has been virtually no criticism of its contents. It is clear the only reason the president vetoed this bill is pure politics."

Of course, it's a matter of priorities--something that we haven't really discussed as a country--when it comes to spending & borrowing. There is also a transfer of wealth during this administration, no less as a result of the decision to invade & occupy Iraq. This ill-advised war of choice will cost several trillion dollars [calculated for the direct outlays, the interest on the debt, wear & tear of equipment, and future healthcare benefits to injured veterans].

Education is perhaps the most important tool a person has to advance themselves. Call it a step into the equality of opportunity. Oh, and yes, more educated people are better equiped to understand and evaluate the arguments politicians like Bush make. Heck, we might even make better politics in the future. But, smarter politics depends on smarter people!

Disclaimers...

Do you want to join the US armed forces? Many Americans do just that for a host of reasons, ranging from patriotism to employment. But the way our armed forces have been used by the political leadership leaves much to be desired. Do you think we need disclaimers like with other products that may have severe side effects?

What Makes a Person Old Enough to Drink?

What Kind of Demands & Restrictions are Reasonable?

It seems to me that if a person is old enough to go to war, vote & get elected, buy guns, and legally do all sorts of things like other adults, then he/she should be able to have a drink as well. Unfortunately, this is one issue that reason does not prevail when we're talking about it.

In the New Hampshire Democratic debate (9/26), six of the 8 presidential candidates want the federal government to apply pressure on the states not to let young people under 21 to legally consume alcohol. I think this is stupid, not only on the grounds I mentioned above, but also because it doesn't stop anyone from using or abusing alcohol--a readily available legal product--that, by the way, kills more that, say, marijuana.

The federal government gives money to the states for their transportation needs, such as highway maintenance & construction, so Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, and Dodd all want to deny federal funds to states that don't have a 21 years old restriction! Only Kusinich and Gravel basically said that such policy is ridiculous. These two got the applause, as most people in the audience approved.

In the 2006 ground-shaking election--when the control of Congress changed back to the Democrats after 12 years of Republican rule--the younger voters (those under 25) participated in record numbers. I was elated to see this and I hope the trend continues. Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, and the Democratic party in 2006, received the majority of the young people's votes. This voting block was solidly Democratic, much more than other groups. A reasonable question is, why the Democratic presidential candidates--with the exception of the two least popular ones--don't feel the pressure to reverse such a discriminatory policy? Which pressure groups or what popular sentiment prevents them from accepting that an 18 year old that has all sorts of rights should also be able to consume alcohol?

However, young people are also rather marginal when it comes to voting. Even though there's been a 20% increase in participation lately, 76% of young Americans do not vote! Yes, this is not a misprint. Yes, it went down from 80% of non-voters, but the abstention rate is way too high.

Of course, sane and practical public policy should be the standard, but we all know it doesn't work like this. Right? Emotions, and, more often, misinformation rule the day. Why shouldn't we have a discussion whether this particular federal policy has a measurable effect on public safety. If it does, and we see that the mix of driving and alcohol is a deadly one, then why limit the restrictions to only one particular group?

I don't know about you, but if a young adult is about to be sent to Iraq tomorrow to kill & be killed, having a beer tonight seems very reasonable to me. What do you think?

[Take the poll on the right side of page]

The Millennial Generation's Progressive Outlook

School has started and, as it happens in my classes, we get to discuss current events and the important issues facing our country. There are some worrisome signs and some encouraging ones. Worrisome in the sense that people in fear or in crisis may react in ways that actually change those conditions (or the reasons) that made our country great. This new generation is not immune from this threat. For example, there isn't an urgency (as much as I'd like to see anyway) regarding the incremental intrusions into our civil liberties by our government in the name of national security. Young people, by definition, haven't had the experiences of the past, thus, serious abuses [like the interment of US citizens of Japanese ancestry, the McCarthy witch-hunts, etc.] haven't been felt, while the current ones haven't sank in yet.

Yet, over all, I think the millennium (or millennial) generation--those who come of age at the cusp of the new century--is probably more promising than the one that preceded it.

Every generation has to deal with important issues and big challenges, but this one is marked by the "war on terror" which includes the attacks on 9-11, and the Bush presidency. I believe that the country made a terrible mistake by giving power to this small man--most likely the worst president in US history--because the bad policies of his administration will haunt this & future generations. It was a missed opportunity for America to start the new millennium on the right path and sensible plans for the future. Instead, the new president will have no margin for error in foreign & domestic policies. It seems that every generation, 25 years or so, the US does something really stupid. It's up to the millennials not to repeat the mistakes of the past.


The younger people tend to have more progressive attitudes; the Democrats may benefit from this trend.

I do think that our politics is equally dominated by personalities as much as people's party affiliation and ideology. However, the basic core ideological tenets--or, if you like, the pursued public policies--as expressed by our two major political groups Democrats & Republicans. The Democratic agenda has found a wider acceptance among the younger (under 30) US citizens.

Take a look at the chart [produced by Democracy Corps; its site has more info], and check out the Harvard Institute of Politics polling data [here, in pdf]. If you want to read more about the so-called millennials at the New Politics Institute, go here. [includes a pdf download on the progressive attitudes of younger Americans]

This millennial generation is trending away from the Republican party. As things stand today in the presidential field, the Republican candidates couldn't be farther from the core preferences of this generation. Of course, the Republican primary voters are a different beast, so the candidates obviously reflect this sentiment over all. Although, even within the broader Republican base, the presidential candidates are out of touch when it comes to ending the failed occupation in Iraq.

Several conservatives have replied that younger people always tend to be more radical until they ..grow up. I don't subscribe to this theory. People can change their minds at any time--depending on the circumstances, life experiences, availability of leadership, etc. However, certain core beliefs are formed rather earlier in a person's life. If, say, people under 30 believe that same-sex marriage is OK, I don't see why they'd change their mind and support all those laws denying same rights to every American. Likewise, for a host of other issues, i.e., the environment, heath care, education, etc. We also know that if a person votes for a particular political party 3 times or more before he/she's 30, they stay with this party in the years to come.

Next year, the Millennial voters will be 50 million. By 2016, they'll be 1/3 of the electorate. I am a liberal-progressive not because I happened to pick a team and sticking with it, but because it makes sense. Many of the issues we're facing today could be easily solved if more people used sense and an analytical mind instead of following their ..gut. Wanting to believe in something [yeah, we've all been there.... Remember failed relationships?] when all evidence pointed to the opposite direction, or, when people just accept something that makes them feel good without any supporting evidence.

Anyway, the bottom line: there's ground for optimism, much of it comes from the signs that Millenials are civic-minded, politically engaged, and hold values long associated with progressives, such as concern about economic inequalities, smarter & multilateral foreign policy, and that government can be an instrument for a fairer society. [from the New Politics Institute]

“Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It’s hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It’s round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you’ve got about a hundred years here. There’s only one rule that I know of, babies — ‘God damn it, you’ve got to be kind.’ ” Kurt Vonnegut

Another Good Step in Making Higher Ed more Accessible

Obviously education is very important, as we can't have a prosperous country without educated people. It's a new reality out there, so we better do something today--to invest for our future. If anything this country stood for, it was equality--equality in front of the law, and equality of opportunity.

Higher education should be easily accessible to all Americans, but how do you do that? One way is to make it less costly, or, at least, make it affordable. Congress did the right thing by passing a $20 billion bill that will boost student aid. President Bush is expected to sign it into law soon. This is the biggest tuition assistance since WW II.

You can click the link [in the title above, and here] for more information. Essentially, this new legislation raises the maximum PELL grant for low-income students from $4,050 to $5,400, and temporarily slashes interest rates on student loans by half.

It also establishes debt-forgiveness programs for graduates who enter certain poorly paid fields such as law enforcement, firefighting, and teaching. According to the Department of Education, the average student now graduates with $19,000 in debt.

The new aid would be funded by a massive cut in subsidies to the scandal-plagued private student loan industry.

Some Lessons are Learned very Early in a Person's Life. Yet, Education Should be an Ongoing Experience.

A Commencement is a new beginning. Luck favors the prepared mind.

As another semester draws to a close, some 50% of American students, who began their studies four to six years ago, are participating in commencement ceremonies. Far too many students aren't graduating, and far too many never enter a higher education institution. The cost of tuition and student loans have become more expensive. As a country we have to re-evaluate whether access to health care and education should be a privilege or a right.

Conversely, I've seen many students squander their opportunities to attend and graduate college. There are many reasons for this--from not being able to afford the financial burden, to balancing work & school, to improper attitude. What pains me is that the latter is something within the control of the student and, thus, it's a self-imposed limitation. I've seen far too many bright kids who fail, because they are not serious enough about undertaking a long project and see it to its completion. They are often resistant to accepting direction and help from faculty. Obviously, these are young people and are entitled to making mistakes, and deserve second chances, but any young adult has to be able to be a quick learner, to adopt to the circumstances, and prevail. The so-called real world often is much harsher and doesn't offer repeated chances to success.

I attended a college of the City University of New York (CUNY) and I was very grateful that I was able to attend, learn, and earn a couple degrees. It was also a commuter college where most of the students had jobs and many did take more than four years to complete their degrees. But, the attitude was different than the attitude I've observed at two colleges [one for profit and one non profit] for several years; I've seen too many students having a rather casual attitude today that I had never seen when I was a student. High school contributes to shaping the character of many students; yet, it prepares them poorly to tackle academic subjects.

There's another issue besides what someone learns by reading and absorbing in the classroom. Proper habits and proper attitude are perhaps more important. Unfortunately, too many young people who enter college lack those skills, and are not quick to revise bad habits. Every time I walk into a classroom, I know that half of my students will not graduate! I tell them so--hoping that they would do whatever they can not to fall into this category. I see it as my mission as well. I spend class time talking about the need for proper attitude: meeting deadlines, being serious, doing more than the bare minimum, being creative, demonstrating that they can work well within a group, elevate the quality of their group by being good contributors, taking a long project and complete it, being able to accept instruction, and see this experience as a good & fun event in their lives. Skills a person develops in college are great skills to take to the professional world out there.

Unfortunately, bad habits sometimes prevail, setting the tone from day one. Why a student can have an adversarial attitude toward the teacher is beyond me--and I know it is not a winning strategy. We faculty are not there to make students miserable or to make them fail. On the contrary. In places I've taught, the vast majority of faculty do take an active interest in the progress of their students. There are other higher education institutions--mostly research universities--where undergrad students rarely see their professors, and many courses are taught by TAs, grad students, or adjuncts. I think this is not right. I have certain views on what being a teacher is about that run contrary to practices in several learning institutions. I believe that contributing to knowledge and expanding the horizons of a particular field is not uni-directional. Both research and transmission of knowledge (including the excitement of learning new things) to students are necessary, and there should be a distinction between a scholar and a teacher. The problem is that many colleges confuse the two.

But, learning how to swim also requires attention, following the instructions, and practicing. I'm happy to see that many students do grab this opportunity to learn, develop the necessary skills, and to elevate themselves into the leaders of tomorrow. We need more of them. We need to re-think our strategy and the mission of what a higher education should be. Harvard University, among many, is now trying to change the way it educates its students, because a great school should not be primarily judged by the number of bright minds on its faculty (who do research but are otherwise inaccessible to the students); nor should it be judged for its ability to find jobs for the students.

It's good for America to produce smarter, truly educated people; it's good for our economy, for our politics, and for the whole world, since the US is a global leader. The earlier we begin to educate our children the better. It begins at home, with the development of proper attitude towards learning, with good study habits, and with parents being true mentors not just disciplinarians! Education--which is more than reading books--should not be an adversarial exercise but a good and desirable objective for every person.

The Judiciary Branch and its Future

By Victoria Rodriguez, Andrew Williams, Justin Grant, Jeanette Lindsay, and Nadia Chit-Montiel

The United States constitution provides protection for its citizens of the United States. As college students we must realize that almost every decision the Supreme Court makes affects us whether or not it is today or in the future. Using Social Security as an example, our generation’s children may suffer because of the lack of stability within the Social Security System. With two new Supreme Court justices sworn into the supreme court in the past three years the Supreme Court is rapidly changing.

As college students we should understand that the Supreme Court interprets the constitution which is the law of the land and whoever interprets the Constitution controls the law. The nine members on the Supreme Court are the some of the most powerful people in the United States and the World as well. Many articles can be found regarding the rivalries amongst the judges and certain agendas that the judges sometimes push because of a falling out with another judge. Although it is human nature to have arguments and disagreement as an American citizen, and we must have the utmost respect for the Supreme Court, we can not help but be fearful of the amount of power they have.

Another example of a very big issue regarding the Judiciary system is whether or not it should protect foreigners and/or allow them of the same "rights" American citizens hold. Guantanamo prisoners have lost their right to appear in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, and federal judges. There are about 395 detainees being held at the Guantanamo Bay military base in Cuba, with the first prisoner arriving more than five years ago following the attacks of September 11, 2001. Following the current situation of Guantanamo Bay detainees, the U.S. Appeals Court has decided to uphold with President George W. Bush’s reasoning behind the methods used to coerce those prisoners.

Barring detainees from the U.S. court system was a key provision in the Military Commissions Act, which Bush pushed through Congress last year to set up a system to prosecute terrorism suspects. The detainees appealed stating that foreigners held in the U.S. normally have the right to contest detention. However, the Justice department states that the United States’ Constitution does not protect foreign enemy combatants. The United States federal appeals court, on Tuesday, February 20, 2007, ruled to uphold a key provision in President Bush's anti-terrorism law. This ruling has become increasingly discerning considering what most of us know occurred within the Guantanamo Bay prison system. The ruling will most likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, which last year struck down the Bush administration's original plan for trying detainees before military commissions.

Considering that the law allows the government to indefinitely detain foreigners who have been declared as "enemy combatants" and authorizes the CIA to use aggressive but undefined interrogation tactics, civil libertarians and leading Democrats decried the law as unconstitutional and a violation of American values. The Supreme Court must now face the question as to whether or not these "American values" are valid across borders and cultures and should be permitted to determine who are our "enemy combatants." The question is one that seems to be growing in the back of everyone’s mind as our world becomes less personal on a daily basis. The Supreme Court must now decide whether it is the Supreme Court of America ensuring American’s civil liberties or if it is also a median that can be used on a global scale to provide the same liberties when foreigners are on US territory.

Another largely discussed topic within the Judiciary Branch, which concerns all Americans alike, is the relatively new Patriot Act. Respectively so, this act was implemented under the Bush administration in order to expand the FBI’s investigative powers. Many concerns have been raised over the fact that the act basically steps on and reverses many previous acts and provisions which were meant to protect the privacy rights of Americans. According to EPIC.org, EPIC standing for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Patriot Act includes, but is not limited to, amendments to the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act, the Immigration and Nationality Act , the Bank Secrecy Act, the Right to Financial Privacy Act , and the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The courts influence on this act is stilted for many reasons.

While the Courts technically can make decisions which would weaken the Patriot Act in following suits, it is known that if the Judiciary branch were to go against acts created by the very people that gave them their positions it would create great havoc throughout the Government. In times like these most Government officials support the fact that a strong and seemingly stable government is increasingly important. Also, many of the FBI’s uses of the Patriot Act are difficult to track and produce strong factual evidence about. It is very difficult to argue against an Act which basically turns the courts up-side-down by giving such weight to the intentions of the FBI. What the Patriot Act does is give the FBI the ability to act on hunches and less than worthy tips from various sources. As long as the FBI can say that they’re intentions were for the good of the nation, they are protected by the act whether or not the disruption they placed in the lives’ of victims (suspects) caused can be fixed.

There definitely is hope for our Government and for our Judiciary system. Even though many of the decisions that courts make can be viewed as week, this hope can be seen in the occasions where the Supreme Court steps up big by demanding the government to produce overwhelming evidence towards their cases before approving of their actions or disproving of them. Also, hope can be seen in the fact that many of the organizations out there, like EPIC, which are fighting for our rights, are being heard. The times we are in right now are very sensitive and complicated. It is hard to decipher when our government is doing what is best for us and when it is not. There will be many decisions made which may seem erroneous to us but as a matter of truth, we do not have all the facts that the government has. We have to leave our safety in the hands of our Government and our Judiciary system.

Clinton and the Envrionment

By Jared Taylor

Concern for the environment should be a major topic in the 2008 elections, but will it be discussed among the candidates?

Global warming is occurring and who ever takes the presidency must address this foremost issue, because we only have one planet and we must take care of it. On the side of the Democrats, Hillary Clinton is considered the front runner and her position on the environment will in part make or break her run for the presidency.

As a New York State junior senator, Clinton worked on the Environment and Public Works Committee, where she fought to clean up New York’s air and water. Clinton has also worked on creating a balanced energy policy that would see more jobs created in the alternative fuel industry as well as create cleaner, more reliable energy.

Combating global warming requires that these steps are taken. The government must look to alternative fuels while at the same time spurring economic activity. Clinton’s energy policies while a senator have crafted a nice platform for her in her run to the presidency. She has created a solid foundation for her energy policy inthe White House. To quote from Hillary Clinton’s state senator website on climate change:

Given the scientific evidence that we have and the potential consequencesof continued warming, I strongly believe this nation needs to take sensible first steps to slow and ultimately reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases that contribute to climate change.

Clinton goes on to say that she supports investment in renewable energy, but she also states that in order to reduce emissions we must allow the free markets to act and that the government should not interfere. Clinton offers promising ideas on fighting global climate change. If she was elected president, I believe that she would propose legitimate energy policies that would do the world some good.