Author: Eric Soble

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

While phrases  like “enemy combatant” and “war on terror” have become loathed by the Obama administration, these words—and the policies they represent—are still very alive in our political system. The President has not yet shut down Guantánamo Bay, an action he promised on his first day in office. He has not insisted on any investigation of the allegations of torture under the Bush administration. While we have moved forward as a country, it is dismaying to see these vestiges of a prior era so readily followed.

When President Obama visited Indonesia this month, he had a chance to speak clearly and frankly about the human rights abuses that have occurred under President Yudhoyono and the Kopassus, the military unit in Indonesia. He may not have engaged this topic for a number of reasons: it may not be strategic to bring up human rights concerns while trying to mend relations with the Muslim world. Such a discussion may put the President in an awkward place, as his administration recently lifted a ban on funding the Kopassus and currently aids their “anti-terrorist” activities.

But I wonder if his silence on human rights is not, in part, caused by the inherent hypocrisy of advocating for policies abroad that are not fully embraced at home. It certainly makes for a weak argument when any foreign official can quickly point to Abu Ghraib or the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as evidence of the United States’ own violations of the law. This weakness was seen on Nov. 5, when the United Nations Human Rights Council showered the United States with allegations of human rights abuses in Geneva.

Even the new UN expert on torture, Juan Ernesto Méndez, has called for the Obama administration to investigate allegations of torture, saying “we haven’t seen much in the way of accountability.” This admonition comes just a week after the Justice Department excused all CIA operatives that had destroyed tapes of terrorist subjects undergoing “harsh interrogation techniques.”

All this makes me think: is this what we want on our record? Is this what we want broadcasted across the world? That old and warn idiom “all is fair in love and war” should not be a prescription for policy but an admonition of the atrocities that occur when everything becomes acceptable, and when the ends justify the means.

In George Bush’s new memoir, “Decision Points,” he admits to authorizing “enhanced interrogation techniques.” When asked whether to waterboard Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he responded, “damn right.” The Department of Justice defines waterboarding as a form of torture. Thus, such an act is illegal under the federal anti-torture act. As the U.S. has historically defined water torture as a war crime—see the sentencing of Yukio Asano in 1947—it remains to be seen why this does not apply to our past president.

I do not have a personal vendetta against George Bush, nor do I wish to see him “suffer” because I disagree with his policies. This is about abiding by national and international convention. This is about applying the rule of law equally. This is about government accountable for actions.

If we are to be a nation committed to the rule of law, we must understand that an investigation into these allegations is both morally and legally necessary.

By Pranav Sehgal

Writer

George W. Bush. Call him friend, foe, comedian—the fact remains he was once our president. He was subject to a great deal of criticism and mockeries by television hosts like Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. Although we may have hated his policies, there is no denying he always kept us entertained. From making up words, to dodging shoes thrown at him and being portrayed in shows and movies like “South Park” and “Harold and Kumar,” he has always given us a chuckle.

Former President Bush has recently released an autobiography of his presidency entitled “Decision Points.” The book focuses on 12 different personal and political decisions Bush faced during his presidency. Now that he has been out of office for two years and has released his book, many are starting to wonder: what exactly is his legacy in American political history? It is often said controversial figures are vindicated by history. As time passes, old wounds heal. This concept is nothing new. Could this apply to our past president?

Most presidents’ popularity has grown over time after their presidency. For instance, Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky sullied his reputation during his presidency, but now whenever we think of Bill Clinton we think not of his affair but of his great philanthropic and diplomatic efforts. Still we may never forget the myriad of Bush blunders that not only tarnished his image as president but also tarnished our image as Americans worldwide.

Bush will never be able to change his domestic and international catastrophes such as the slow response to Hurricane Katrina, our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, our current financial crisis, prisons such as Guantánamo Bay and Abu-Ghraib in Iraq and the fact that the world virtually hated all Americans during his presidency.

Even though the U.S. and international public despised him at times, his legacy is not without merits. Let’s face it—George Bush’s poor decision-making didn’t stem from the fact that he wanted to intentionally do wrong; it occurred because he was just plain stupid. He’s not the guy you want running your country, he’s the guy you want to have a beer with. He’s the guy that you want to invite to parties so he can entertain you, but he’s not the guy you want controlling your 401(K).

Kidding aside, his presidency was not without memorable moments and important policies. During the days after 9/11, President Bush not only brought our nation together but also responded to those attacks in a forceful and deliberate way. Although his response was misguided and culminated in the invasion of Iraq, American involvement in Afghanistan was applauded. By going after Osama Bin Laden, and later the separate, but tyrannical Taliban regime, he provided a powerful response after 9/11.

President Bush also diversified his cabinet by appointing members such as Condoleezza Rice as the first African American National Security Advisor and Colin Powell as the first African American Secretary of State.

In a recent interview with Matt Lauer, Kanye West apologized for calling former President Bush a racist on a television broadcast, saying he was just expressing his anger over Hurricane Katrina. If Kanye West can find it in his heart to take a step back and reevaluate his opinions about George Bush, do you think we should all do the same? Or will George Bush’s legacy be forever marred by the policies of his administration?

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

“Never again will I curse the ground because of man, even though all inclinations of his heart are evil from childhood and never again will I destroy all living creatures as I have done. As long as the earth endures, seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, will never cease.”

One would expect this recitation of Genesis 8 from a preacher on a Sunday morning, or from a theologian studying biblical text in one of our many seminaries across the United States. But what is the context in which this recitation occurred? John Shimkus, a Republican representative from Ill., uttered this reading at a subcommittee meeting on global warming more than a year ago.

This same representative is now seeking the chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. I hope I am not the only one unsettled by Shimkus’s reliance upon the Bible for scientific insights, especially given the imminent climate crisis. One wonders if Shimkus would also sanction selling his daughter into slavery (Exodus 21) or killing those who work on the Sabbath (Exodus 35).

His assertions that “the earth will end only when God declares its time to be over” and that “man will not destroy this earth” raise important questions about the role of faith in environmental policy. His policy changes, including a permanent block on the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulation of greenhouse gases, could be extremely damaging to our planet. However, this denialism is not confined to one individual. This climate skepticism can be framed in the wider Republican takeover of Congress and the ascendancy of the Tea Party.

In a recent New York Times/CBS News Poll, only 14 percent of Tea Partiers believed global warming to be a current problem, compared to 49 percent of the public. This is telling, especially in the context of the midterm election, wherein anti-environmentalism became a major tenet of the Republican establishment. A survey completed by the Center for American Progress found that, of the more than 100 Republicans newly elected to Congress on Nov.2, over half are self-proclaimed climate “skeptics.”

Part of this denialism stems from the right-wing’s distrust of elites such as climate scientists and politicians. Many believe that these people are trying to redistribute wealth and impose their own liberal policies on so-called “normal” Americans. But there is another less talked about source of climate denial that is linked to biblical literalism and fundamentalist Christianity.

Is it rude to point out that the 41 percent of Americans who believe that the rapture will take place within their lifetimes may be less likely to care about environmental sustainability? Am I stepping out of line by connecting the unscientific teachings of Genesis to the fervent denial by those on the Right? Of course, many Christians may be empowered to pursue environmental justice because of their faith, but this does not dismiss the wider picture.

I’m of the opinion that the Bible shouldn’t dictate our public policy, especially when it comes to such an important topic as climate change. I wish I could have faith that a supernatural being could wave a wand and make this all better, but this is nothing more than wishful thinking. Perhaps a more effective method would be to elect representatives to office who have a deep commitment to our environmental sustainability. This disaster is man-made, and thus must be fixed by man.

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

Republicans are seeking to dismantle the current health care reforms, criticizing its “socialized” principles. But is “socialized” medicine such a bad thing?

The recent midterm elections have seen an unprecedented number of Republicans retake positions in Congress, with a Republican majority in the House and a greater presence of Republicans in the Senate. GOP leaders such as John Boehner (R-OH) are seeking to stop the current health care reforms from coming to fruition. Republicans spent $200 million on health care ads in congressional swing states during the vote on health care reform.

Republican hostility to “socialized” health care stems from the greater role of government that would result from this health care bill. If this bill were to take root, it would not only threaten the influence of private corporations but also of Republicans, who are often supported by corporate interests.

Although many modern countries such as Canada, England and Germany have adopted “socialized” medicine, the United States has yet to do so. Throughout American history, presidents and politicians have attempted to adopt socialized medicine but have always been attacked for trying to advance a socialist agenda in government or conspiring to force a totalitarian takeover.

It seems as though people equate socialized medicine with radical principles and ideas, even though the most moderate and liberal countries in Europe and Asia have adopted this form of health care. While the Affordable Care Act  is not a government takeover of the health care system, it does allow health care to be affordable to most Americans and expands benefits to the poor. This is far from fascism or socialism.

Many people that argue against the merits of “socialized medicine” may not know the great deal of benefits that socialized medicine entails. Their opinions and beliefs are influenced not only by the media but also by politicians who reflect the beliefs of corporations they serve. A 2005 Harvard study revealed that the number-one cause of bankruptcy in America was medical bills.

It may surprise you that the United States ranks 33rd in infant mortality and that we rank 21st and 20th for life expectancy of men and women respectively, while countries like Germany, a user of the multi-payer universal health care system similar to the one President Obama supported, rank much higher than us. The United States is one of the only industrialized nations that does not guarantee full access to health care as a right of citizenship, and while we may have the best trained health care providers and the best medical infrastructure, we still rank poorly compared to other industrialized nations.

The proponents and opponents of a “socialized” health care system have valid reasons to advocate for and against it. Although no solution is perfect, the government must do something to stop health care companies from charging exorbitant rates to their customers. The number of uninsured U.S. residents has grown to over 46 million and health care has become increasingly unaffordable for small businesses.

At the same time, many argue there is not a single government agency that runs efficiently, that such a program would lead to higher taxes and that the health care system will fall prey to corruption, which is already prevalent in other areas of government.

Choosing one side is extremely difficult and that is exactly why the issue is so controversial. If the government is to establish a successful health care system, it must compromise on issues with corporations and corporations must be willing to do the same. It is this healthy relationship between industry and government that will establish a health care system that is just and equitable.

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

Recently, the U.S. political system has been in disarray: Democrats fight with Republicans, Democrats fight within their party and radical Republicans have also caused divisions in their own party.

With television stations like Fox, MSNBC and Comedy Central, the media has heightened these tensions between Democrats and Republicans to an extent never seen before. The hostility between these two parties has grown so much that conciliation and compromise between them is infrequent and unlikely.

These political tensions have spewed over to the social structure of American society. TV shows like “Glenn Beck” and “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” have polarized American society, with a great deal of conservatives watching TV shows centered on the right like “The O’Reilly Factor,” while liberals tend to watch programs like “The Colbert Report” and “Hardball with Chris Matthews.”

In order to quell the recent upheaval of political tensions that have led to such divisive policies and relations, Comedy Central’s Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert hosted the “Rally to Restore Sanity” in Washington, D.C., hoping to restore fractured relationships between party lines and between voters of the respective parties.

Stewart and Colbert, selected as candidates in Time Magazine’s “100 Most Influential People” poll, tried to downplay any political intent, as did the supporters, saying that their reason for supporting the rally stemmed from the fact that they wanted to promote a more “common-sense” politics.

Many rally participants agreed that politicians, members of the media and citizens must all “take it down a notch” in terms of political rhetoric. Numerically, the event proved widely successful with an attendance estimated to be well over 200,000. Glenn Beck’s “Rally to Restore Honor” was only estimated to have an audience of between 78,000 and 96,000. The Huffington Post also chipped in by hiring a fleet of 200 buses to shuttle people from New York to Washington, D.C.

Although the creators of “The Rally to Restore Sanity” intended to be apolitical, there is no doubt that a great number of participants were in fact liberal and tended to side more with Democrats. When figures like President Obama and Oprah, an ardent Democratic supporter, endorse this event, there is no hiding the fact that this event is indeed political.

As this year’s midterm election have come to a close, Republicans have gained more ground in congress with 239 seats in the House of Representatives, giving them a majority, and 46 seats in the Senate compared to the Democrats who have 52. It seems as if voter resentment has grown because of the lack of progress the economy is making and the prevalence of unemployment that still exists among Americans.

This brings me to the following questions: did “The Rally to Restore Sanity” in fact restore sanity to our political system, and to what extent was this rally effective in promoting “sanity”? Although many would argue the intentions of this event were to lessen tensions between parties and their constituents, this ideal may no longer stand. The Republican majority in Congress will likely widen the divide between parties and make it more difficult for progressive legislation to be passed. Democrats may have lost their chance to push their policies due to ineffectiveness and infighting, while Republicans are steadily gaining more ground. The only certain thing is that with difference comes divisiveness, which is the last thing our country needs.

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

For years, students ranging from middle school to college age have received education concerning the effects of alcohol. Within this subject, the theory of “moderation” has been strongly emphasized. Parents and educators have recognized the impracticality of doing away with all underage drinking and have implemented programs to teach how to drink safely if at all. The University, among many other colleges and universities, requires first-year students to take an online course, “AlcoholEdu.” This course contains an extensive series of lessons and videos pertaining to the risks of drinking.

But as the popularity of the alcoholic beverage “Four Loko” soars, individuals are suffering the effects of alcohol from the worst end of the spectrum. This has caused college authorities to institute total bans on the beverage. The current argument is that alcohol may be reasonable in moderation but not when coupled with caffeine even in a moderate serving.

Researchers have released statements noting the high risks of mixing a depressant with a stimulant. The caffeinated ingredient in the drink causes consumers to prolong the feeling of being intoxicated, causing them to drink more heavily. Additionally, one can of Four Loko, which has a 12 percent alcohol content and 135 milligrams of caffeine, is the equivalent of six servings of beer and approximately two cups of coffee.

While the obvious dangers lie within the ingredients of the product, the company defends its product by stating that it is only to be consumed by responsible adults. Four Loko’s website page on “Responsible Drinking” states: “as a responsible member of the alcoholic beverage industry we take seriously our obligation to market our products only to adults 21 and over.”

The authenticity of this statement is apparent when one accesses the website and must type in his or her birth date, for anyone under the legal age of drinking is barred from entering. Fortunately, at 18 years old I have the creative mind to change the year of my birth in order to access the site. Similarly, I’m sure there are many other resourceful 18-year-olds who can figure out how to purchase Four Loko products despite the 21+ labeled bottles and proposed cautions taken by distributors.

Vice President of the Caron Treatment center and addiction specialist, Harris Stratyner, has attested to the fatal dangers proposed by the drink to people of any age. Phusion Projects, the company that manufactures Four Loko, has stated its products are safe for consumption despite current FDA investigations. The company stresses that the mix of alcohol and caffeine is “nothing new.”

Taurine, one of the four main ingredients of the drink, is the same active ingredient as in Red Bull. One may compare drinking a can of Four Loko to taking a shot of hard liquor and then immediately drinking Red Bull as a chaser. Although neither act portrays good judgment, the latter seems to be the lesser of two evils, at least according to recent physical reactions to Four Loko.

All of this recent hype leads to an important question: Should the University join the movement to ban Four Loko products on campus? In my opinion, the students were admitted for their intelligence, and it is the responsibility of those students to make decisions for themselves. If the recent news of college-age students’ hospitalization for heart attacks does not deter students from consuming Four Loko, why would a campus policy hold any more clout?

By Eric Soble

Opinions Editor

Driving political activist Paul Loeb back to Harrisburg airport earlier this week, I remember talking at length about the absolute trouncing moderates had undergone in this week’s election. Democrats had lost 60+ seats in the House, making this the largest Republican victory since 1948. Republicans had also gained six Senate seats, a more modest success. President Obama admitted that this election was “humbling” and acknowledged that this would stall the creation of a comprehensive climate change policy as well as thwart Democrat efforts to continue Obama’s job creation agenda. After I vocalized this pessimistic yet truthful analysis, Loeb paused for a second and said something that still sticks out in my mind: “Disappointment is inevitable. It is what you do after disappointment that truly matters.”

Democrats and Independents cannot afford to do what they did after 2008—wash their hands of activism and become overly confident in the powers of a supposedly messianic figure. Simply put, a lot of us got lazy. We believed in the unbelievable and allowed ourselves to go about our daily lives, hoping someone above us was working hard to fix the nation.

The stakes are even higher now. In the lead up to 2012, the Democrats must reassert their goals for America and recalibrate their strategies for achieving these goals. They must rely upon compromise in some areas and maintain their ground in others. Compromise between parties may be easiest when it comes to government reform—abolishing the filibuster, agreeing on campaign finance reform, cutting unneeded spending, etc. But it may prove difficult in economic and social matters, such as healthcare reform, equality for sexual minorities and moving out of Afghanistan.

In this political climate, the main question left for the President is this: fight or flight? He must choose his battles wisely if he wishes to continue on after 2012. The two most contentious debates will concern the Bush tax cuts and the healthcare bill. These will surely be complex and lengthy issues to face, and will take up much time and energy. It is near impossible to predict how these will play out, but one thing is for sure: neither side will be happy.

Here are some fights the President can win:

• Sign an executive order repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” A May 2010 Washington Post/ABC News poll shows 75 percent of the nation believes it should be repealed. There is no good reason not to act on this now.
• Combat the contradictory statements of the Tea Party. This party is a noxious branch of Republicans that wishes to travel back to an imagined “golden age” of our Founding Fathers. They do nothing but drain energy away from the political process and distract the public from the issues at hand.
• Move forward on climate change and responsible energy policies. The President cannot wait for the global warming denialism on the right to catch up to 21st century scientific fact. He should not compromise with representatives like John Boehner—the likely Speaker of the House—who think carbon dioxide emissions are not harmful to our planet.
• Reduce the deficit and cut the defense budget. The president should reign in spending on trillion dollar wars overseas. This does not mean sacrificing our armed forces or our security but rather ensuring a maintainable and efficient military force. This would force the so-called “economic conservatives” elected on Nov. 2 to show that their ideology can be evenly applied across the spectrum.

The next two years may be an exercise in extreme partisanship and frustrating gridlock. The “change we can believe in” slogan was great for 2008, but it could stand an addendum in 2010. Maybe “change we can feasibly accomplish in a limited number of months given our political and economic constraints” would be more apt. It surely isn’t as catchy, but it is something we can run with.

By Lizzie Kirshenbaum

Contributing Writer

Black mini-skirt, cropped blazer, metallic leggings: $54.99 plus a bit of scripture. Most Forever 21 shoppers enthused by the store’s low prices and trendy merchandise fail to notice what is written on the bottom of their yellow shopping bags: “John 3:16.” This frequently referenced Biblical passage is representative of the owners’ religious beliefs, but is this the universal belief among all Forever 21 customers?

In today’s world the power of the dollar holds equal if not greater strength than the power of the vote. While individuals may be subjected to a range of media propaganda and scandals concerning political candidates, similar information on a company is not as highly publicized. But when I noticed this imprint on the bottom of my shopping bag I felt my personal values had been infringed. As a consumer I do not care to have my own beliefs or ideologies influenced by the stores in which I shop.

Some people may be hesitant to order from Domino’s because of the high calorie count in the pizza, but they should also be wary of Domino’s connections to interest groups. Tom Monaghan, the original owner of Domino’s, publicly made financial contributions to interest groups like Right to Life and Operation Rescue. While this situation is different from that of Forever 21 in that the owner’s decisions are unrelated to the company, it still may be disconcerting to know that the slice of pizza you’re eating is contributing to an organization that seeks to eliminate the choice of abortion. Although Monaghan sold the company in 1998 and none of its profits are going to such campaigns anymore, other companies are proceeding with similar political donations.

Gary Heavin, founder and CEO of Curves Fitness is a well-known supporter of radical pro-life groups like Operation Save America. Similar to Monaghan’s contributions, his monetary support came from the profits of his company, not a direct contribution from Curves itself. Individuals are entitled to the freedom to spend their money where they please, but as long as Gary Heavin continues donating his profits to Operation Save America, mine will not be spent on a membership at Curves.

A more recent and well-known consumer controversy lies within financial contributions to political candidates stemming directly from companies. Target’s donation of $150,000 and Best Buy’s contribution of $100,000 to Minnesota candidate for governor Tom Emmer has stirred immense anger and conflict in the LGBT community. Unlike the situations of Tom Monaghan and Gary Heavin, this is a direct contribution.

Many will defend these political contributions as a corporation’s right to choose where it donates its own money. But perhaps one should look at it from a different angle: if I would not vote for  Tom Emmer why would I support him financially? It is commonly argued that an individual vote holds minimal power, but thousands of dollars in donations are certainly effective, especially with the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United vs. the FEC, entitling corporations to give unlimited funds to political candidates. A large-scale boycott of a company could have a profound effect on that business’s income and therefore curb its ability to make such donations.

After World War II many people faced moral conflicts when buying German-made products like Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen automobiles. These companies closely associated with Hitler’s genocide have since made reparations, yet today many people still remain adamant in their decisions not to contribute to their financial gains.

Government and business are arguably the two most powerful entities across the globe. It is essential that consumers enlighten themselves on what a business does with its profits or how it relays information to its customers. Many individuals are inadvertently funding massive organizations they would not ordinarily support. While I respect the values of the owners of Forever 21, I prefer my jeans without the proselytism.

By Pranav Sehgal

Contributing Writer

It no longer seems as if the United States is the world’s only superpower. With countries like Brazil, Russia, India and China growing faster than the United States, American dominance over international affairs is already waning. Although the United States is regarded as the world’ s leader in many respects, it does not carry the same status as it did during the second half of the 20th century.

China’ s economic ascendancy has challenged the United States’ identity as a superpower. It seems as if China has America on a leash—it has loaned and continues to loan our country billions of dollars. If China were to call in its loans, the consequences would be devastating to the U.S. economy. While the Chinese government plans to invest $586 billion in infrastructure, investment of infrastructure in the United States remains minimal and a comprehensive plan to revamp our nation’ s roads, railways, runways and other transportation services has not yet been implemented.

China has extended its reach to Africa in an effort to compete for the world’ s natural resources. While our government is preoccupied with wars overseas and all the costs involved, China’ s leadership isn’t taking any chances. It has become the most aggressive investor-nation in Africa in order to gain the vast natural resources Africa offers.

The effects of China’ s dominance can also be seen on university campuses throughout the United States, as Chinese students compete with Americans for spots in educational institutions. Many regard the Chinese educational system as more rigorous than that of the United States. The Chinese have fewer days off, strict school systems and now the means to go abroad—all factors contributing to great success in standardized testing and superior academic results that eventually lead to success in the workforce.

In order to combat challenges to American domestic and international influence, the U.S. government must reassert itself as an economic power by investing in infrastructure and leading the way in other technological pursuits like alternative energy resources.

The United States has always led through great economic changes—for example the dot-com era and the real estate boom—and must continue to do so. Globalization has made the world smaller, so the United States must extend its partnerships overseas in order to be competitive with China because our consumer-based society needs resources to fuel our economy.

We must also invest heavily in education if the United States wants to continue to compete with students from China and beyond. If measures and policies are not implemented to fight these challenges, the United States will no longer be perceived as a superpower. It will fall like all the formerly great empires, and countries like China will fill the void.