Quick Fire News

Quick Fire News

To Kill an Ant
On financial regulatory reform, John Boehner said "[it is] killing an ant with a nuclear weapon." This, stated to the Pittsburg Tribune-Review was following his criticism of the compromise reached on the financial reform bill as serious overreacting to the financial crisis in 2008 that created the volatile economic situation today. This must be taken much more seriously by Congress. They have been handed the immense task of protecting our nation from risky financial practices that threaten it and protecting consumers from banks who sell them short.

Confirmed
Today, the Senate confirmed General David Petraeus to take Gen. McChrystal's former position as top commander in Afganistan. It is likely that Petraeus will continue the counter-insurgency strategy set by McChrystal. Although this was a key opportunity for President Obama to edit his policy, it seems that Afghan policy will stay the same; still, some good has come of McChrystal's comments. For the first time in what seems like months, the media is paying attention to international issues like Afganistan and, although less so, Iraq. It is imperative that the national conversation takes a focus on Afganistan so that the public remains educated and continues to act as a responsive force to extended stay there.

Having to wait for AID[S]
Due to America's still flattened economy, assistance for those with AIDS- assistance that maintains the life of many, is is incredibly limited supply. Additionally, HIV-positive Americans may more quickly develop AIDS without the needed- and very expensive- support. Many depend of government assistance to pay for this medical necessity, but, with the economy, the federal AIDS assistance programs have taken a severe hit.

Read more »

You've Been MacArthured!

You've Been MacArthured!

According to military law, an officer may not "use[...] contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present [or he or she] shall be punished as a court-martial may direct." Beyond the simple inappropriateness of General Stanley McChrystal's comments to Rolling Stone magazine, they undermine the very strategy he lauded in Afganistan.

Counter-insurgency, the policy McChrystal strongly advocated for as a tactical plan in Afganistan, is a system in which the military, in addition to normal behaviors, endeavors for the completion of traditionally non-military activities, like nation building or education of the public. These strategies are not normally military duty, so counter-insurgency relies heavily on the participation of civilian military leaders, like the President and his cabinet.
By treating the President and other civilian leaders, especially the Vice-President, as uninterested and incompetent, McChrystal served to undermine his own strategy for Afganistan. Without the complete trust of civilian leaders, counter-insurgency is pointless and will not achieve the results he wishes for. Perhaps if McChrystal had show a bit more respect for the civilian leaders, he would have been more successful in Afganistan over the past year.

Read more »

Petty Disagreements

Petty Disagreements

By Senior Correspondent Devon Maloney

The recent high profile case of a bulling victim committing suicide has left us in the wake of a media tidal wave about increased violence in teen girls. Nine adolescents were charged with driving their new classmate, Phoebe Prince, in Massachusetts’ Hadley High School to hang herself because of cyber bulling over the Internet.
Another incident in 2008 left the media to raise questions about whether violence between adolescence girls is on the rise. Four girls (along with two boys as lookouts) beat up a 16-year-old cheerleader, Tori Lindsay, for the sole purpose of putting the fight on the Internet.
But regardless all the hype in the media about the Internet being a new battlefield for teens to become more violent and more vicious than ever before, a recent Op/Ed piece in the New York Times explained that, despite the rise of the Internet, girl violence has been falling.
Titled the “Myth of Mean Girls”, the April 1 article was co-authored by a Mike Males, a top researcher at the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice. Males and his co-author, Chesney Lind, looked at all angles of teen violence, including studying the FBI’s records on girls’ arrest rates in the past 15 years. They found “violent offenses fell by 32 percent, including declines of 27 percent for aggravated assault, 43 percent for robbery and 63 percent for murder.”
Those dramatically lower rates show that a few well-hyped and very isolated incidents in the news may not really show the real trend of a problem. We teens, as reckless and immature as we many seem, are really not nearly as bad as many adults may think. Males and Lind’s article was right in saying it was wrong that our “news media and myriad experts” were a bit overzealous and “eager to sensationalize every ‘crisis’ among young people.”
For me, while I can’t compare what is happening with teens today to teen life in the 70s, 80s, and 90s without Internet access, I can say the media seems to be over exaggerating the relevance of facts and figures that “prove” a whole range of new teen dilemmas. As awful as the stories above and the many other incidents of bulling that didn’t make into the blogosphere are, the general trend seems to show that the levels of teen violence and bulling are improving.
"It does not matter whether the rates have fluctuated up or down and what the media wants to say about it,” sophomore Palak Bhandari, said. “What really matters is that these antics are stopped once and for all."
__
This piece was originally published in the Vienna Connection.

Read more »

Getting Mad

Getting Mad

President Obama's speech last week, if nothing else, conveyed how he truly cares about the people living around the Gulf of Mexico and his serious desire to stop the leak and begin cleanup. However, while President Obama's words may have been emotion-filled, the entire speech felt very much like 'the President's Weekly Adress' to be released for internet hounds and podcast subscribers; it was very informal. President Obama was not angry. He was not furious with BP. He needs to be.
Sure, BP is not entirely at fault. Lackadaisical federal regulators did not do their job, and Congress did not do its job. None of this, however, excuses BP for their horrific business practices.

BP's rescue plan in the case of an oil disaster was the equivalent of a seventh grader's semi-plagiarized term paper. BP has threatened to fire any and all employees who wear pertinent protective gear while working on the cleanup, presumably for PR reasons. This goes beyond terrible regulation. This is disgusting. Why aren't congressmen- why isn't President Obama- mad about this? The righteous, populous anger America so desperately needs right now was glimpsed when Rep. Joe Barton apologized to BP. The remarkable unity seen in response to Barton's comments needs to be channeled, and channeled towards getting something done. 
In a time when an endless swarm of indistinguishable voices dictates the personality of the internet, when rant-like, all-caps comments are posted on extremist sites, providing the textual equivalent of screaming at your idealogical twin, it may seem that instigating more anger is not the solution. However, it is the responsibility of Congress to get angry at corporations that hurt the American public and precious American environment, to get angry at regulators who fail to even basically protect Americans, and even to get angry with themselves and their institution for doing nothing. The solution is not instigating more anger; the solution is instigating the right anger.

Read more »

The Create-a-Few Jobs Bill

The Create-a-Few Jobs Bill

Although America may no longer technically be in a recession and although the job market has shown promising upwards trends, the American economy is far from fully recovered. The US Congress has the responsibility to work to improve the economy, including instituting programs that will create jobs for average Americans. Originally proposing a huge amount of jobs, the Senate jobs bill has shed billions of dollars in compromise with Republicans.
Senate Democrats have failed this year at standing their ground and protecting what they believe in. Sweeping compromises were made on the health care bill, but no Republicans voted for it. The potential regulation being proposed for the banking industry is being promised away for a few, possibly nonexistent votes. Now, the jobs bill is being cut and consolidated to the point where none of the originally beneficial parts of the bill will make much difference.
The Senate Republican caucus has an incredible ability to maintain party unity- possibly a little too well. However, compared to the Democrats' complete inability to stand firm on a single issue, the Republicans appear positively adept.
It is imperative that the Democratic party learns to stand together on important legislation. The regulations that were talked about a month ago in the Senate for the banking industry had the potential to protect consumers from risky business practices by banks. However, due to the Democrats' incessant need to compromise, the restrictions being discussed today are unlikely to make a difference.
Bipartisanship is a fantastic concept. However, bipartisanship requires two parties willing to compromise. Bipartisanship is not one party giving into the other's every demand in exchange for nothing.
Politicians who are in office today made a promise to the American people to improve the economy and attempt to secure American jobs. This won't get done unless either the Democrats can stand strong or the Republicans can learn to compromise.

Read more »

Quote 6/16/10

Quote 6/16/10

“[Obama is] frustrated because he cares about the small people, and we care about the small people."

BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg

Read more »

Primaries (Part Two)

Primaries (Part Two)

As campaign season looms before us, we will take a look at the initial primary results as a gauge for the attitude of the nation and as foreshadowing for midterms. 
California
Republican primary: Steve Poizner was defeated by Meg Whitman for the California nomination for Governor. Poizner, who is very state-security oriented, is slightly more conservative than the economically-oriented Whitman, who has supported current Democratic Senator Barbra Boxer in the past.
Iowa
Republican primary: Though the tea-party buzz is far from dying down, in Iowa yet another tea-party candidate lost to their more moderate counterpart. Bob Vander Plaats was defeated by former Iowa Governor Terry Brandstad.
Nevada
Republican primary: Under national focus due to the fallibility of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the Republican nomination for the Nevadan Senate seat was won by Sharron Angle, a tea party favorite. Though Reid has often been seen as unlikely to win his seat back, the addition of such a right-wing, tea party candidate could be beneficial. Reid's relative moderate leanings could prove a tremendous advantage when facing Angle. Angle defeated Nevada Republican Chairwoman Sue Lowden.
Arkansas
Runoff: Blanche Lincoln, in a multi-million dollar race, trumped challenger Arkansas Lt. Governor Bill Halter in a runoff election after the initial primary. Lincoln's win not only marks another win by an incumbent (which is only relevant because of the supposed anti-incumbent attitude in America), but also a union loss. Halter, who was backed by unions and various environmental organizations, fell to Lincoln, a notorious blue-dog Democrat.

Read more »

BP, Robots, and Nuclear Bombs

BP, Robots, and Nuclear Bombs

Nearly fifty days since oil began leaking into the Gulf of Mexico at tremendous speed, impacting local business, environment, culture, and health, the federal government has estimated that around 1,000 barrels of oil have entered the Gulf per day. BP and the US government are rapidly reaching an unfortunate conclusion: no solution will be reached before August; no cleanup will begin until at least the fall. No matter how heavily the federal government lines the coast with boom, no true success will be reached for keeping oil off the shore until BP finishes creating a viable solution. This explosion and leak exemplify exactly why off-shore drilling is not a good idea. We can't control it, and, when there is a problem, we cannot fix it.

Our understanding of what works to stop an oil spill like this (a relief well) has done nothing to stop BP from trying less secure solutions. Last week, robotically operated devices were sent to the pipe. The machines made incisions in an attempt to fit a cap to the leak, however, due to complications, the plan was- temporarily, at least- abandoned. Before that, 'top kill', in which BP bombarded the rig with heavy drilling mud at extremely high pressures, also was declared a failure after a few days.

The Gulf community is desperate. However, the current 'solutions' that only worsen the condition and disperse oil into the air do not help. Someone last week suggested simply nuclear bombing the rig. Why are money and manpower being spent on these ideas, as opposed to investing in real solutions? It is time for BP to find answers that are not ridiculous, and to stop focusing on those that are. More importantly, why weren't these real solutions invested in before drilling began? BP is ranked among the world's most profitable companies. It should be obvious to everyone where those profits went. It wasn't to solutions in case of disaster, that much is certain.

Read more »

Friday Feature: Bullying

Friday Feature: Bullying

How would you feel if you spent six hours of every day in an environment where you could not be yourself, for fear of peer retaliation, an environment where slurs about your sexuality were commonplace, a place where a term for what you identify with was used as a synonym for 'stupid'? Gay students across America feel complete isolation at school every day of their lives. From verbal slurs to threats, these youths are faced by peers who cannot, evidently, control their hate.
Not too long ago, it was other minorities facing such abhorrent discrimination. However, in the cases of African-Americans, Native Americans, and other groups, we seemed to have moved past our former prejudices, generally, and accepted that people are people no matter what they look like or where they come from. A person's a person, no matter how different. And yet, in 2010, we still cannot come to terms with the fact that some people are different from others, that its these differences that make us special and bring us together, not pull us apart. We are unable to accept that 'different' doesn't mean bad, or abnormal. Different just means different, the same way that each and every person on Earth is different from each other. Most importantly, beyond accepting differences or reveling in them, is the idea that, even if you cannot accept that someone is not the same as you are, that it is not appropriate to normalize slurs against them. Still, this is what is happening with gay youths. Incredibly offensive uses of gay slurs are mainstream in middle and high schools, and as young as elementary school, students hear these insults at home and at school.
Just like it would not be right to say that gay students could not participate in school activities, it is not right to bar them from a safe, mentally healthy education. However, by using these discriminatory terms, their peers are doing just that.
Maybe students don't realize how their words affect others. Maybe they truly are prejudiced; maybe they are just ignorant. Regardless of the reason, it is not appropriate for bias against gay people to become normal in schools. Stories about violence against gay teens are not rare. This violence doesn't spring out of a healthy environment. Violence does not occur where student conversation is civil. Violence occurs when slurs are used at homes, which manifests into insults and threats at school. This can mutate into the sort of extreme, irrational hate that causes violence. So while students may think their language is innocent, they do not realize what can be caused.

Read more »

Banning

Banning

For years, Alabaman Laura Mallory campaigned against the wildly successful ‘Harry Potter’ books, claiming them to be “dangerous and deceptive” and blaming them for “mainstreaming witchcraft [for children]”. Mallory challenged the books’ placement in school libraries and appealed multiple times in effort to have the ‘Potter’ series banned from her local schools. Mallory no longer had any children in public schools by the time she was making her most recent appeals, and she never read the series.

Book banning is not a material issue- it is one of free speech. It doesn’t matter how anti-religious or vulgar or inappropriate you personally find the material to be, or your parents find the material to be. If the book is against your religion, don’t read it. If you disagree vehemently with the opinions presented in the book to the point that you find the book offensive, don’t read it. If you feel that the book is inappropriate for a school setting, don’t read it, because that is not your call to make.

It is not okay for other people’s parents to implement their views on what is school-appropriate and what is not on students. This should be left up to the best judgment of the student, his or her parents, and the school library. Unless the text is factually incorrect material presented to students as truth, it is not the job of the parents to regulate books in school libraries and classrooms. Parents need to trust that teachers will not be having their second graders read ‘Huckleberry Finn’. Books that are educationally beneficial yet controversial, like ‘1984’, a commonly challenged novel by George Orwell that has the potential to offer students a new take on the Cold War, should not be removed from classrooms because parents are upset by its material.

Read more »

The Gores: Why We Care

The Gores: Why We Care

This evening, the leading story on CNN's political section of their news website was not one about the oil spill, or a Don't Ask Don't Tell opinion piece. Rather, the page was overwhelmed by a photograph of Al Gore and his (soon-to-be) ex-wife.

As announcements come out today that another of our nation's political power couples is breaking up, Americans are glued to the reports, just as they are for every other disintegration of a modern marriage or relationship, and the media continues to capitalize on our interest. For the last few years, the American media has enabled every bad habit of American consumers- our over-obsession with celebrity, our dismissal of important news, and our love for 'junk-food' information- the sort of news that feels good to read, but just is not good for the national conversation.
It is unreasonable for the top political story of the day to be about a high-profile divorce. This is simply a continuation of current media trends where the US news organizations put a strong focus on giving consumers what they want, rather than what they need. Sure, this means higher profit margins and happier consumers, but it also means less educated and less informed citizens participating in national politics.
Celebrity gossip doesn't have to disappear in order for the focus to go back to true news. It just needs to be a less prominent category for reporting, and news organizations must appreciate that it is their job to inform the public, not to please it.

Read more »