November Edition by screws@collocue.com

Issue 3 Vol 1

Talk about it...

State of the Union $

What We Stand For The purpose of this magazine is to provide a venue for issues & concerns, local & global, to be presented in a manner conducive to young adults. By imparting knowledge and awareness, we will be better equipped to survive in a global economy and workplace. We will be armed with the power to impact our world. This magazine is non partisan and non political. We do not promote one viewpoint, idea, policy, religion etc. over another. We are an information resource only. We do not seek to be the final authority; rather an instrument to be used by the reader for educational purposes.

ColloCUE is Eternally Grateful To: Matthew Ladd Chief Editor Diane Kulseth Society Editor Auriane De Rudder ViewPoint Editor Nneka Okona Eye On Editor Anne Pellecchia Cicero’s Corner Editor Chloe Edwards Meiji Editor Valencya Taylor Fuse Editor Corey Randall Sketch Editor

Rachel Wells Humanity Editor Our Talented Design Department Frank Baker Creative Director and Lead Designer Susanne Midy Design Intern

Daniel Crosswell Web Design Extraordinaire

And Our Fantastic Writers

A Different Kind of Election . . . Maybe by Matthew Ladd

The Excitement of Elections by Diane Kulseth

Welfare that Works by Emilee O’Leary

Fence of Exclusion: United States Immigration by Kiran Bhat (possible cut)

College Voters: Three Students Weigh In by Tunomukwathi Asino

Loud and Strong: Women in International Politics by Corey Randall

College Students & Healthcare by Nneka Okana Darkness Looms For A Once-Bright US Economy by Matthew Godbey Energy and the Election by Emilee O’Leary

HUMANITY

Guns Don’t Kill People… C.Y. Grant

Sanhedrin or Senate by Chloë Edwards

FUSE Pen and Paper: Liberators of the American Dream by Kali Mobley Lessons Learned in Two Countries by Shainna Tucker Sex & Race: A Grassroots Perspective on the Democratic Primary Election by Valencya Taylor

VIEWPOINT

The Old World Order: Blood and Oil in the Caucasus by Field Palmer

A Struggle to Survive: Poverty in NYC by Joanna Pettet

SNL: Missing Will Ferrell? by Liz Donehue

MEIJI

OCD Presidency: Obsessive-Compulsive Drilling by David Wilhelm

Hypocrisy and Equal Human Rights by Rachel Wells

SOCIETY

Satire in the Age of Absurdity by Anna Pellecchia

Social Misfits: America’s Medicare and Medicaid by Roshani Chokshi

Country Profile: India by Corey Randall

EYE ON

CICERO’S CORNER

America’s Dichotomy for Iraq by Kali Mobley

SKETCH

Looking Ahead to Black Friday by Joanna Pettet

Gossip Girl by Auriane de Rudder Black Like Me by Marcus Morris 2

November 2008

Table of Contents

TUNING IN

TUNING IN: ELECTION 2008

o matter who claims victory this November, we are already witnessing one of the most important presidential campaigns in the history of the United States. For those of us who watched the last two elections—remember ‘hanging chads’ in 2000? John Kerry’s 2004 ‘Swift Boat’ fiasco?— we’ve come to expect six torturous months of cynicism, backbiting, and vitriolic TV ads. At the risk of being charged with elitism, the best way to sum up American politics is to borrow a phrase from the French. Plus ca change: the more things change (the more they stay the same).

A Different Kind

Now, for the first time since John F. Kennedy’s victory in 1960, the entire nation is expecting—or at least desperately hoping for—something different. In Barack Obama, Democrats have found a presidential candidate who actually excites them: an energetic grassroots politician whose biography spans three continents, and a gifted speaker whose story, as he is quick to remind us, could only be possible in America. Given that he couldn’t even get a floor pass to the 2000 Democratic Convention, Obama’s ascension within the party has been nothing short of astonishing. His high-minded campaign strategy during the primaries was a breath of fresh air: in debates with Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, he seemed to hover above the fray, responding to criticisms about his lack of experience without appearing defensive or weak. When the media recently trained its sights on Sarah Palin’s pregnant teenage daughter, Obama, instead of using the opportunity to spout some Democratic boilerplate about sex ed, angrily declared that it had no bearing on the election. ist credentials have been largely exaggerated. (Ironically, a recent article from USA Today reported that Alaska ranks first in federal ‘pork-barrel’ spending, while Arizona—McCain’s state—ranks last. McCain has long been critical of state leaders that push for federal pork.)

John McCain is the only Republican with a story to rival Obama’s. Not many veterans can truthfully claim that they chose to remain in a Vietnamese military prison when given the chance to leave. In the decades since, McCain has steadily built a reputation as a strong-willed reformer who refuses to bow to party pressure. He’s been a dogged advocate of immigration reform and regulation on big tobacco, and in 2003 he successfully cosponsored the McCain-Feingold Act, a groundbreaking piece of legislation that limited the influence of big business over political campaigns. Even his enemies concede that McCain is a gutsy, independent thinker. His career stands in stark contrast to that of, well, someone like Sarah Palin, whose reform-

But McCain’s recent shifts on a number of key issues are troubling. Simply put, since his appointment as presidential candidate, the Arizona senator seems to have moved closer to the standard party line. Foremost is his selection of Governor Palin, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who remains an outspoken opponent of gun control, Roe v. Wade, and progressive energy policy.

Ted Kennedy, he helped write a bill that would provide millions of illegal immigrants with an eventual path to citizenship. By the time the Republican primaries were in full swing, McCain was downplaying his role in the bill, asserting that the most pressing aspect of immigration policy was to secure our borders. Last July, he supported making English the United States’ official language, a measure widely seen as discouraging immigration. Independent and swing voters should not expect a President McCain to follow the same reform agenda as Senator McCain once did.

of Election... Maybe

On the other hand, Obama’s record hasn’t been spotless either. His most visible shift came in February, when he backtracked on an earlier pledge to use public funds for his campaign expenses. The Obama campaign’s fundraising success is staggering—the Federal Election Commission reports that by July he’d raised almost $375 million from individual donors—but critics wondered why Obama made the promise to use public funds in the first place if he didn’t plan on keeping it. More recently, Obama has reluctantly agreed that more offshore oil drilling may be necessary, and he recently expressed his support for the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn a handgun ban in Washington, DC, angering many liberals. So as McCain tacks right to prove to conservative voters that he’s one of them, Obama is busy trying to convince moderates—especially religious and women voters—that his title of “Most Liberal Senator” no longer applies.

by Matthew Ladd

Ultimately, the question is not about who’s been shifting policy. One could ask—as McCain once did—why politicians are always criticized for changing their positions when the issues themselves are in constant flux. Surely one of the most infuriating aspects of the Bush administration has been how the President makes bad decisions that he then refuses to change— even when all the evidence is against him. Some flexibility is always required. The real question, the question we all should bring to the polling booths in November, is what motivates that flexibility: intelligent decision-making or political expediency?

In recent months McCain has also announced his support for the Bush tax cuts. During the Republican primaries, Mitt Romney’s accusation—“Senator McCain voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now he’s for them”—was hard to argue with. McCain has since tried to justify the switch by stating that a repeal of the cuts would amount to a tax increase. But as Slate magazine pointed out after the bill was passed, “just as the president’s been cutting the taxes of today, he’s been raising the taxes of tomorrow.” In other words, tax cuts remain a bad idea unless you know how to pay for them. Surprisingly, McCain has also taken a hard line against illegal immigration. In 2006, along with Democratic senator

TUNING IN: ELECTION 2008

Welfare that Works by Emilee O’Leary

romoting the welfare of the people was one of the primary objectives of our founding fathers: hence its inclusion in the preamble to the Constitution. But in the 21st century, compassion and human responsibility have become cookie-cutter gestures since the Roosevelt Administration took federal action in the 1930s.

than act as a narcotic for welfare addicts whom Roosevelt had been wary of in the first place.

The majority of complaints arose after the Great Depression, and ultimately, the debate between federal and state responsibilities began anew. Once World War II started, the economy recovered and there was no longer a need for the extreme form of welfare that Roosevelt initiated. But Roosevelt’s policies didn’t disappear. As the economy grew stronger, the government was capable of putting more money into the welfare fund—which did little more

Regardless of the bursting economy, turning welfare funds over to the state was the smartest action the federal government took. Because of the dramatic and inconsistent affluence of each state, a federal statute now seems unnecessary and foolish: after all, it’s based on the belief that a central institution designed to govern over 300 million people can also designate funds for individuals more effectively than the states in which those people live.

This isn’t to say that the money put into federal welfare programs was simply flushed down the toilet. But some welfare addicts got high off of the system, despite the overall drop in poverty and unemployment. The result? While those who were capable of finding work, but refused, reThe hard truth is that sometimes a change in policy must ceived the benefits of a lax welfare system, many who really hurt us in order to help us. Just like parents who justi- needed the assistance were inevitably overlooked. fy punishment with the phrase, “I’m doing this because I love you,” the government should adopt a similar ap- In 1996, the newly Republican-dominated congress preproach to policies that aren’t effective for the federal pock- sented the Clinton Administration with a welfare act that etbook or the American lifestyle. Under current policies, mirrored what Clinton had promised in his campaign four general welfare standards encourage us to seek help from years earlier. After he vetoed two similar bills, members of the government before learning to provide for ourselves. his administration advised him, in light of the upcoming election, to pass it. Under the Welfare Reform Act, some Taking care and providing for those people who are, by federal welfare programs were eliminated, permanent ceildefinition, in need, has only become a public vision in the ings on federal welfare funds were established, and states post-Great Depression era. Prior to the 1930s, state and lo- were given a set amount of money to run their own procal government responsibility to the poor was almost non- grams. People accepting government assistance were given existent, but with over half of Americans suffering due to caps on what they received, and they were expected to find the sluggish economy, President Roosevelt released funds work as soon as possible. Though the effectiveness of this on a federal leash to deal with rampant poverty. Time has policy varied, it sought to provide assistance for individujudged this an excellent investment: the Roosevelt Admin- als seeking jobs and required a person to apply to a quota istration recognized what changes were needed to pull the of jobs before receiving any sort of financial aid. Women United States out of an economic recession, and it stuffed job-seekers were given help fleshing out job opportunities the leaks with available funds. and writing resumes.

States successful in their individual approaches have weaned families off of public assistance by increasing household incomes and developing job skills through the welfare system, which gives families the resources to provide for themselves and survive without welfare. This welfare approach is what David Hage, an editorial writer for the Minneapolis Star Tribune, refers to as the “make work pay” strategy, adopted first by Minnesota, Oregon, and Illinois, and later by multiple other states.

unworthy of federal funds. But even as much as welfare standards have changed since the Clinton Administration, the money accepted by those in the welfare system is not guaranteed to go back into the economy. Thinking of welfare as an investment, therefore, is it unnerving to know that the government is funding a program that might not reciprocate the deed? Certainly. The point of welfare is to assist the people who need it, but handing people money because they fit a profile is like giving out a scholarship to a college freshman with a high school GPA of 1.2: there’s no guarantee (though we encourage them to surprise us). The more we can promote healthy lifestyles and blue-collar work ethics, the more we are going to see the results of federal-mandated welfare benefit the economy.

The “make work pay” approach to welfare is a daunting vision because of the current weakness of the American economy: how do we make people work when we have no money? But this country wasn’t built on entitlement or free rides, and the majority of Americans know what it means to wade knee-deep through loan notices and bill payments. Starting at the bottom and building up is the only way to ensure a structure is stable, and the way to build a structure isn’t by watering the land with bills, but by putting the bills into the pockets of the men and women doing the physical building.

Is that much of an answer for where the welfare money should come from? Probably not. But, as always, the encouragement of compassion exists; we can’t expect anyone to tolerate welfare reform restrictions if we don’t care – and by care I mean take a personal interest – about the general welfare of the people. In the best interest of an economy that is not being very nice to us, step up, America! Let’s form that more perfect Union and give the federal budget a rest.

Welfare is not always sound investment, though it could certainly be used as such. Buyers are much more likely to put their money into something that they can see a change in, such as the stock market. Bringing people out of poverty is a great incentive to donate money, and not at all

“The more we can promote healthy lifestyles and blue-collar work ethics, the more we are going to see the results of federal-mandated welfare benef it the economy.”

TUNING IN: ELECTION 2008

America’s Dichotomy for Iraq by Kali Mobley

s the 2008 election approaches, controversial issues about America’s security fuel the fire of political debates. One of the debated topics is the war on Iraq, also known as the Bush administration’s “War on Terror.” After 9/11, Americans are concerned with both homeland security and the security of American troops. The political contenders, Barack Obama and John McCain, must consider the US’s past, present, and future diplomatic standing with Iraq. Obama and McCain have created platforms for their positions on the war in Iraq, and it is up to the American people to inform themselves and decide which path is the appropriate one to take. In order to cast a supporting vote, Americans need to understand the past to comprehend the possible consequences for our future.

tion of the Koran). US diplomatic attempts to force Hussein from Kuwait failed, however, and American troops were ordered into Kuwait.

During George Bush, Sr.’s presidency, Saddam Hussein was still oil-field hungry, and he went after Kuwait, which lay directly between Iraq and Saudi Arabia’s oil fields. In a visit to the Saudi King, Bush Sr. and his administration offered assistance in defending the Saudis’ oil fields. The Saudis allowed the presence of American troops (a viola-

By the time al-Qaeda was prepared to make its mark on American history, President George W. Bush was in office. According to Richard Clarke’s memoir, he and several other officials tried relentlessly to get the point across about America’s homeland vulnerability, but it was too late before anyone took it seriously. Then came Septem-

In Iraq itself, Hussein massacred hundreds of Shias and Kurds, who were urged by the US to raise arms and fight back. While Saddam’s forces rampaged, American troops did nothing, leading to the prolonged stay in Saudi Arabia. The presence of American troops created strong tensions within the Saudi kingdom, and Osama bin Laden was the leading dissident. After the war, the Bush Sr. administration looked for weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq, subsequently creating the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM). By the end of the Cold War in 1991, the UN had ordered Iraq to destroy all chemical, biological, nuclear, and missile programs, and a frustrated Tensions between the US and Iraq have existed since the Osama bin Laden left Saudi Arabia for Sudan. Reagan administration and the Cold War. According to Richard Clarke, the former counterterrorism director for During the Clinton administration, bin Laden created the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the Iranian Revolution terrorist group known as al-Qaeda. In Washington, bin of 1979 and the concurrent Soviet invasion of Afghani- Laden was not well known; many conspiracy theories link stan catalyzed the radical movement in Islam and pulled him to the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the US into the Islamic crisis. Another change during the along with ten other terrorist attacks that occurred during Reagan administration was the new president of Iraq, Clinton’s administration. Yet, the main linkage between Saddam Hussein, who led an attack on Iran in order to the attacks and Osama bin Laden were based on financial seize their oil fields. After the Iraqi attack on Iran, the two records. Bin Laden joined forces with Turabi of Sudan, countries broke out in war, and America lent a helping and they moved al-Qaeda to Afghanistan. In 1998, bin hand to Hussein in order to help defeat radical, anti-Amer- Laden’s terrorist group grew stronger when it joined forcican Islamists. By 1984, America and Iraq had rekindled es with another Middle Eastern force, Egyptian Islamic all diplomatic relations with one another. Jihad.

ber 11th: a day that no American will ever forget. After the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks, the Bush administration went to war with Iraq, which inadvertently strengthened al-Qaeda. Many US officials were warned by Middle Eastern leaders and American intelligence officers that a US occupation would contribute to the rise of Islamic extremism and terrorism, but the Bush administration continued with its plans. According to Clarke, “Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed, proof that America was at war with Islam, that we were the new Crusaders come to occupy Muslim land.”

use diplomatic strategies to press Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia to mediate the foreign fights, arms, and resources in Iraq, but he will also be tough in his negotiations with Syria and Iran about interfering in Iraq’s affairs. Finally, Obama states that he would take immediate steps to stop the perpetrators of inhumane activities through confrontational, diplomatic means.

After the March 2003 Iraq invasion, evidence surfaced that Iraq was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Then, the Bush’s war resolution’s purpose for the invasion of Iraq changed from retaliation to the search for WMDs. According to Stephen Zunes, a professor of politics at the University of San Francisco, “Iraq had long eliminated its nuclear program, a fact that was confirmed in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1998, four years prior to the resolution.” Although the Iraqi war was predicated on false claims, it was declared over in 2003 when the US troops seized Baghdad. In December 2003, Saddam Hussein was captured by American troops, who still remain in Iraq today. Now that Hussein is no longer a threat to the Bush administration, Americans are asking how and when US troops leave Iraq—a question that can only be answered by our future president.

As for John McCain, his platform states that he will keep American troops in Iraq until “the Iraqi government is capable of governing itself and safeguarding its people.” McCain was a big supporter of the “surge” of 2007; his platform states that “from June 2007 through March 2008, sectarian and ethnic violence in Iraq was reduced by 90 percent. Civilian deaths and deaths of coalition forces fell by 70 percent.” As for Iraq’s struggling government, McCain believes that the United Nations should not help with the elections. Instead, he wants the American troops to provide a safe zone that will allow the Iraqis to freely place their votes. McCain’s platform discusses Iraq’s economy and proposes that Iraq’s Arab neighbors should invest in their oil fields, which will help sustain long-term economic gains. Finally, he wants the international community to pressure Syria and Iran to stop Iraqi insurgents and violent Shia militias. Overall, McCain seems keen to avoid making any false promises to the American people, and he has stated that he won’t keep troops in the Middle East any longer than necessary.

Barack Obama was never a supporter of the 2002 war resolution. Therefore, his “war on Iraq” platform states that he would immediately begin to remove troops at a set pace that would take a year to complete, because he believes that a withdrawal is an appropriate means to pressure the Iraqi government to take action. Obama would also call for a constitutional convention in Iraq, which is to be summoned by the United Nations. Once the Iraqi leaders agree on a constitution that is more inclusive of the Sunnis, the convention will be allowed to adjourn. Next, he would

Barack Obama and John McCain have worked extremely hard on their platforms, and they both stand strong behind their views. Not only has Iraq been an on-going issue over the last couple of decades, but it is also a very important political issue in this year’s election. Many lives—both American and Iraqi—are at stake. Please, America: in the weeks leading up to November, educate yourselves about the issues, decide what is important to you, and cast a wellinformed and well-developed vote. Our nation’s future is in our own hands. Take a stand. Raise your voice. Vote.

TUNING IN: ELECTION 2008

Fence of Exclusion: I

mmigration has created an interesting consensus between the two presumptive nominees for the 2008 election. Both believe in providing illegal immigrants a path to citizenship, which demand, in turn, that immigrants understand English and pay fines. Likewise, the two have voted on bills supporting a fence that creates a border between Mexico and the United States. Clearly, the fence has bestowed upon the two candidates a similar position. Yet the debate on immigration policy, including the fence—which would run along the border stretching seven hundred miles between Texas and Mexico—reflects the diverse and conflicting viewpoints of many Americans on immigration.

Second, the fence spotlights the need for security in modern-day society. Since the attack on United States soil on 9/11, Americans have had an undeniably fervent desire for an increase in security, as proven by the passage of the Patriot Act, often to the point that it violates free speech itself. Likewise, many arguments in favor of the border fence focus on security purposes. For example, one claim concerning terrorism and security involves the possibility of “sleeper cells,” or terrorists who could carry weapons of mass destruction past the borders, camouflaging themselves as immigrants. Ignoring the low probability of such an attack, this trend in securitization points to a shift in American thought, in which freedoms are sacrificed for national security.

First, the fence draws attention to the intense xenophobia within American society. Some Americans have stigmatized as illegal or undeserving those whose skin color suggests Hispanic descent, even though only approximately half of illegal immigrants are of Mexico. They use the argument that the jobs seized by these immigrants are for “Americans,” often ignoring the possibility that these people are registered Americans themselves. The fence thus aids countless Americans of Caucasian descent, even though many native Americans rarely pursue the jobs held by immigrants.

Economic reasons are another factor in the debate concerning immigration, especially considering the argument that wages as a whole have decreased because of the increase in “cheap” labor. Some say that this wage shift further divides the rich and poor gap, forcing more people within the middle class closer to poverty. Despite the validity of this argument—largely due to the expansion of organizations such as Wal-Mart that take advantage of the labor change—many immigrants are paid roughly the same amount as a legal immigrant. In fact, hiring illegal immi-

Unites States Immigration Policy grants over legal immigrants could actually cost a company more, because an overzealous increase in immigrant workers could trigger immigration raids on the company by the federal government.

would sit behind the border, potentially hurting access to irrigation and tourism revenues. Another concern is expense: the fence would cost approximately $25 billion within 25 years, and considering that Texas, unlike other frequently traversed countries such as California or ArizoThe plan for the fence is not without opposition. Several na, does not have natural land barriers, the cost amounts groups, especially in Texas, have voiced their opinion on to a ludicrous waste. the fence in lawsuits ranging from the violation of property rights (as their land is usurped by the government Regardless of the outcome, the debate over the fence has for border space) to environmental degradation resulting identified a subtle shift in American culture. The results from the destruction of wildlife habitat. Several groups of 9/11 and the War on Terror have undoubtedly created have even questioned the need for such a fence. Many ar- more general fear of minorities, causing xenophobia and eas of the Mexican border are not feasibly traversable, due economic discrimination thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s directed predominantly to the depth of the Rio Grande or the harsh deserts. Oth- toward people of Chicano descent. Perhaps the fence also ers have critiqued the placement of the fence, arguing that illuminates the racism still implanted within Americans other areas, such as the riverbanks of corrizo cane, would from the start, in part due to a media that tends to marginstill act as convenient hiding spots for immigrants. alize and stigmatize Americans of Chicano descent as â&#x20AC;&#x153;illegal.â&#x20AC;? Either way, this shift repeats a sadly constant theme Small businesses have also voiced complaints about the in American history: just as Americans alienated people border fence. Local businesses often require cheap labor in of Asian and European descent during the 19th-century order to provide cheap products, and a sudden decrease in spikes in immigration, Arab and Hispanic Americans are the influx of immigrants could possibly shut them down. receiving the same treatment today. Moreover, most regional residents believe that the fence would not deter immigrants. Several have opposed the fence for granting land to Mexico, since the Rio Grande

Sketch College Voters: Three Students Weigh In by Tunomukwathi Asino

College students tend to be passive when it comes to voting. For many, the process seems a waste of time, especially because most major issues do not seem to affect them. But times have changed, and this year more college students than ever are planning to vote.

On the economy and unemployment, Marshall was adamant: “We are not getting jobs. We have these amazing degrees that we worked so hard for, and we’re forced to work retail or stay unemployed for extended periods of time because the economy is in such shambles.” She also said that it’s important “for us, at this age, to pay attention to the decisions being made that will impact us within the next few years.” Janine Surmick, a graduate student at Chatham University, voted in the primaries. She felt that the same situations facing the rest of the population are facing many graduate and undergraduate students. “I think the national debt that increases to fund this ‘war’ is an issue,” Surmick said. She argued that getting troops out of Iraq “without causing an issue or larger disturbances is a larger issue. We can’t just pull out, but I don’t think we can just stand in.” Although Surmick voted for Obama in the primaries, “the things he says concern me.” On the other hand, she said, “I don’t trust John McCain. I am a liberal. I want abortion to remain an option for women; I am anti-death penalty.” She concluded with the hope, expressed by many independent voters, that “one of them will convince me.”

Kristen Marshall, a graduate-student affairs major at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, plans to vote in the upcoming presidential elections. “As far as my own concerns are about issues, I’d have to say Barack Obama is the candidate most likely to resolve them,” Marshall said in a recent interview. Marshall continued by saying that she believes Democrats are usually much more open to Victoria Woodhead, a student at Indiana University of educational reforms, especially when it comes to health Pennsylvania, focused on healthcare, education costs, and the war in Iraq. “I think all of the issues . . . are facing and sex education. college students because they all affect us heavily,” WoodShe added that the Democratic stance on civil rights, such head said. “I thought Hillary Clinton’s healthcare plan as the rights of homosexuals to marry, and reproductive was a bit idealistic, but I thought she would have been the rights such as abortion and in vitro fertilization, are more best candidate to resolve the issue. But since she’s gone, productive than the Republican stance, which tends to be I feel Senator Barack Obama is the most likely to deal based on religious beliefs. Marshall also feels that war will with issues such as the war and healthcare in a way that be one of the important issues in the upcoming elections; I consider to be beneficial,” she added. “The war in Iraq the question is “whether we should completely withdraw- is affecting oil prices, and also sending a great number of al our troops or stagger our exit or, worst of all, keep them our peers overseas to fight. Education costs and federal aid plans are what help us make it through school, and issues there longer,” Marshall said. that affect these things are something that every student Another issue Marshall felt was important is veteran ben- should pay attention to.” efits. “Are they being taken care of like they deserve, or are they being disregarded?” she asked. She continued by ar- Students are clearly more invested in the upcoming presiguing that the war in the Middle East basically creates one dential elections than they’ve been for many years. And giant umbrella of highly complex issues. “Our education though a wide majority of college students are inclined system is also lacking: No Child Left Behind needs to be to support Obama over McCain, the outcome of Novemcompletely thrown out and there needs to be a complete ber’s election is anything but certain. overhaul of our educational system,” she added.

Country Profile: India by Corey Randall It is the second most populous country in the world and one of the few that still has a practicing caste system. Its most popular sport is cricket, often thought of as an upperclass game, but its government has recently gained media attention for encouraging hungry citizens to eat rats. It is a vibrant country with a multitude of different cultures and an incredibly diverse economy. Although about three-fifths of the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s work force is in agriculture and its ever-growing population is also fueling its poverty level, it has become one of the most important outsourcing destinations for multinational companies, with the Official Name: Republic of India second-fastest growing large economy and the second- Government Type: Federal Republic largest labor force. Geography Area: 3.29 million sq. km. (about one-third It is also the birthplace of four of the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s major re- the size of the US). ligions including Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism and Location: Located in southern Asia between Bangladesh Sikhism. 800 million (80.5%) of the population is Hindu, and Pakistan, with the Arabian Sea and the Bay of Bengal which is probably why it is the only country that has a Bill as its water borders and China stretching over the north. Capital: New Delhi of Rights for cows. Climate: Tropical monsoon in the south to temperate in It is a chaotic, beautiful and ever-changing nation, one so the north very different from our homeland. It is India. Population Total population (2008 estimate): 1,147,995,898 Median Age: 25.1 years Annual growth rate: 1.578%. (2008 est.) Life expectancy at birth: 69.25 years Population below poverty line: 25% (2007 est.) Literacy: 61% Economy Currency: Indian rupee (INR) Exchange Rate: 41.487 Indian rupees per US dollar Unemployment rate: 7.2% (2007 est.) GDP (real growth rate): 9.2% (2007 est.) Official Languages Hindu is the official language and the tongue of 30% of the people, but there are also 21 other official languages. **All information was taken from the most recently reported data in the CIA Factbook.

Sketch

Loud and Strong: Women in International Politics

In one of her most famous speeches, entitled “Freedom From Fear,” she says: “It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.”

In 1991 Suu Kyi was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. In 1992, she was awarded the Jawaharlal Nehru Peace Prize by the Government of India for her peaceful and non-vioby Corey Randall lent struggle under a military dictatorship. ome American women may still be down over the fact that their chance to see a female in charge is Cristina Fernándes de Kirchner no longer in sight for the next four years. Though Cristina Fernández de Kirchner has been the President of women continue to progress in the business and Argentina since December 2007. She is the first woman political world, proving that we are just as smart, strong to be elected president in Argentina, winning by an imand influential as men, it would still be nice to see the pressive 22 percent over her closest rival. She is the wife strength of the female voice proven by a woman in the of former president Néstor Kirchner. During her husWhite House. As we sit and analyze Michelle and Cindy band’s presidency, Kirchner became an itinerant ambassa(and Sarah, of course), scrutinizing every detail of their dor for his government. Her strong voice and bearing in lives to decide whether or not they fit the role of first lady, her speeches have made many people compare her to Eva there are—believe it or not—quite a few women out there Perón, who fought to bring work and voting rights for who would make all of them look as unimportant and women in Argentina. Before her role as First Lady, she was a Senator for Buenos Aires for nearly two years and a trivial as reality television. Senator for Santa Cruz for five. These women may not be ruling our country, but they have marked their spot in the world, capturing attention, Angela Merkel gaining respect and exercising their unbelievable power Angela Merkel is the Chancellor of Germany and has and influence. They may not be glamorous celebrities. But been the chairwoman of the Christian Democratic Union these three women are living proof that the female voice is since April 2000. She is the first female Chancellor of Germany and considered to be the most powerful woman stronger and louder than ever. in the world, according to Forbes Magazine! Not only has she played an extremely important role in the Treaty of Aung San Suu Kyi Aung San Suu Kyi is a woman of enormous strength Lisbon and the Berlin Declaration, but she has also held who’s constantly working to promote peace. As a Thera- a number of other offices, including Chair of the G8 in vada Buddhist, a pro-democracy activist and leader of the 2007, President of the European Council in 2007, MinNational League for Democracy in Burma, Suu Kyi has ister for the Environment and Reactor Safety from 1994 faced innumerable roadblocks. In 1989 she was put un- to 1998, and Chairwoman of the Christian Democratic der house arrest for her strong push to begin the National Union of Germany since 2000. Unlike many political ofLeague for Democracy. She was offered freedom if she left ficials, most of Merkel’s background is in natural sciences, the country, but she insisted on staying. She refused to although she did study physics, law, business and history. give up her fight, and one year later she was up for Prime Minister of Burma. According to the results of the gen- Because of her strong and powerful demeanor and her ederal election, Suu Kyi won the right to be Prime Minister, ucational background, many people refer to Markel as the as leader of the winning National League for Democracy “Iron Lady” or “Iron Girl,” which also suggests some simParty, but the Burnese junta put her under detention, pre- ilarity between the Chancellor and former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. venting her from assuming the role.

Are You Searching?

For a reason, for a job, for a family, for a community of like minded individuals who can appreciate who you are and allow you to grow to your full potential? colloCUE is in need of writers, photographers, editors, brand ambassadors. regional and local area supervisors and layout designers. Join the Cause. Be a Part. Make a Difference. For more information, please visit our website at www.morethanamag.com

Eye On College Students and Healthcare

orget worrying about textbooks, term papers and outlandish professors. College students now have more pressing issues to be concerned about: healthcare. Although provisions within the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ensure access to health insurance for certain individuals, such as college students who lose or change their coverage, the provisions are quite limited.

Despite the provisions, an estimated 1.7 million college students are without healthcare in the United States, according to a recently released US Government Accountability Office study. Simply put, about 20 percent of college students lugging their books to classes day by day, and college Just like other uninsured Americans, college students graduates entering the workforce for the first time, without health insurance plans can face serious effects, do not have healthcare. including limited accessibility to healthcare and prohibitive expenses. And although this may seem Overall, the GAO reviewed four specific tenets in its like an isolated problem that affects only uninsured study: college students’ insurance status, uninsured students, the insured equally bear the brunt through college students’ characteristics, the extent to which raised insurance fees and premiums that healthcare colleges offered student insurances plans and plan providers use in order to recover their costs. characteristics, and efforts to increase the number of insured students. Dana Mills, chair of the American College Health Association’s Student Health Insurance Task Force According to the GAO, in 2006, approximately 80 and director of student health service at Marquette percent of college students 18 through 23 had health University, offered her take on the GAO study at insurance. Of these students, 67 percent were covered InsiderHigherEd.com: “This is probably the most through employer-sponsored programs, 7 percent comprehensive review of the field that anyone has ever were covered through private insurance plans, and done. I think one of the take-home points is [that] they 6 percent were covered through public programs. Most did review actual student health insurance plans across of these students, however, were covered as dependents the country, and we saw a big variation in costs and on a policy under another person’s name, such as a benefits and features of the plans,” Mills said. parent’s.

by Nneka Okana

Mills’ assertion is correct. According to the study, over half of colleges across the country offered student health plans in the 2007-2008 academic year. For those who have student health coverage plans through their colleges, premiums range from as little as $30 to as high as $2,400, with maximum benefits starting at $2,500 for each illness or injury. Some of these plans did not include prescribed medication coverage, preventative care, or other health services.

In households with lower incomes, GAO found that the median income for households of those students who were uninsured was $52,000, while the median household income for those insured was about $95,000—a noticeable disparity.

Perhaps for part-time students, there exists some sort of explanation for numbers of those without health insurance. For example, some colleges restrict healthcare eligibility to those students who have Another important factor was the difference between the necessary amount of credit hours to be considered the types of schools that provided coverage for their full-time. students. An estimated 82 percent of 4-year public colleges offered student healthcare coverage, in But is it merely coincidental that the characteristics of comparison to 71 percent at 4-year private universities those without health insurance in the general population and only 29 percent at 2-year colleges. The disparity are consistent with those college students who are also between the amounts of coverage clearly correlates uninsured? Why has there been a sudden explosion of with each school’s priority in offering coverage with uninsured students as well as citizens within the general affordable premiums that meets the needs US population? of its students. These questions and more are on the minds of many Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Chairman of the Health, Americans, as we approach an election season where Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, suggested the concept of change has been pushed to the forefront. that the prevalence of uninsured college students must As election day inches closer, the importance of all come to an end: “It is unacceptable that 20 percent of American citizens to exercise their right to vote becomes college students are uninsured and that some college that much more evident. health plans exclude coverage for preventative services and limit payment benefits such as prescription drugs. Students must be healthy to learn, and guaranteeing that they have quality health coverage should be a priority for our nation,” Kennedy said. Within those 20 percent uninsured, however, most were certain groups of students: part-time students, students from families with lower incomes, older students, and typically minorities. Older students were more likely to be uninsured in 2006, with students who were either 22 or 23 being more unlikely to have health insurance versus students aged from 18 to 21. With those students of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds, most specifically Hispanic, African-American, or Asian, Hispanics topped the list with a whopping 39 percent of college students uninsured, followed by 29 percent and 26 percent of Blacks and Asians, respectively.

“College students now have more pressing issues to be concerned about: healthcare.”

Eye On

College Students and Healthcare

by Nneka Okana

“College students now have more pressing issues to be concerned about: healthcare.”

Eye On Darkness Looms For A Once-Bright US Economy by Matthew Godbey

t’s been on the tips of tongues and minds across the nation for the past several months and, for some, even years. Americans—and the world—have been watching gas prices drain their pockets, grocery costs rise, and housing markets fall to an all-time low. We’ve begun to wonder, “Is America on the verge of a major economic collapse?” It’s a question with a terrifying afterthought. The repercussions of a hole in the world’s largest money sack could send the proverbial dominoes of a global economy toppling over in the ever-so fickle domain of the dollar, leaving millions in a financial ruin the US has not seen in more than 70 years.

Social Security, and Medicare, the US could wind up owing $59.1 trillion in total to its own citizens and foreign countries, based on a 2007 report by USA Today. The increase in foreign debt gives way to an alarming increase in foreign control. The US Treasury released information last year stating that 25% of America’s debt was owed to foreign countries, with Japan claiming the biggest share at $644 billion. With more than $1.3 trillion owed to foreign governments, the US can no longer get away with writing IOU’s to itself and now must face the task of paying its bills or washing a lot of “dirty dishes” for generations to come. On the bright side, money is owed to us as well. So while the national debt is certainly a major concern, it’s not necessarily an immediate one.

There is no doubt that the economy is a complicated topic of discussion. The intricacies that make up the national economy are complex, and everything is connected. While the news media has certainly sensationalized a lot of America’s economic woes, there is still great cause for concern. The most demanding concern the US economy is facing today is the rapidly-deflating housing bubble. The Compared to much of the world, of course, the collapse of subprime mortgages and national home sales, US economy is in great condition. The CIA World which plummeted to the worst lows since the savingsFactbook, the World Bank, and the International and-loan nightmare of 1989, has sent the profits of Monetary Fund reported that information collected companies both large and small into record lows and the from several 2007 surveys had the US Gross Domestic debt of many home-owning Americans into record highs. Product (GDP) raking in a towering $13.84 trillion dollars annually, the world’s highest GDP for a single The impact has been evident through the government country. The median household income was recorded bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—due to the at $48,000, second only to Switzerland’s $55,000. astronomical amount of foreclosures the companies faced—the descending retail, real estate and construction There is no question that we are bringing in a lot of markets, and the rows upon rows of “for sale” signs money for ourselves. However, with its growing sprouting up in our neighborhoods. While the effects public debt—$9.6 trillion as of August 2008—and the of the bubble are only now beginning to be felt through continuation of poorly funded programs like Medicaid, job and market losses, inflation, and personal debt, the 17

signs of the bubble’s explosion were visible as far back as 2005.

military personnel, gas prices, and strained foreign trade are also swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

In June 2005, a bold and chillingly accurate prediction from The Economist read, “The worldwide rise in house prices is the biggest bubble in history. Prepare for the economic pain when it pops.” That pop has been heard and felt worldwide, with numerous banks, real estate agencies, construction companies and other businesses going under in what the US’s largest home loan firm Countrywide Financial is calling a falling in home prices “almost like never before, with the exception of The Great Depression.”

Yet another prominent concern for the US economy lies in its declining global economic influence: the once almighty powerhouse of the dollar is now bowing to the strength of the euro. The dollar’s value has declined 40% percent over the last six years, most notably because of the rapid decline in interest rates, international investors avoiding US investments, and the increase in countries joining and trading with the European Union. While the dollar still retains its position as the most used currency in international transactions, the world’s dwindling faith in the US economy is becoming clearer as countries begin to wean themselves from the dollar as their foreign-exchange currency of choice.

The turbulent rise in gas prices has only fueled nationwide inflation. With fuel becoming more expensive, retail stores, transportation companies, and warehouses are paying more to ship and receive merchandise, creating a spike in consumer prices. The impact of rising fuel costs has, perhaps, been felt the hardest by airline companies, with many US airlines teetering on the edge of bankruptcy while still trying to operate normally. There is no question that Americans are feeling the effects of a country’s gas dependency: everything from milk to a pair of socks to a new car has gone up in price, thanks to our shiny new 5.6% inflation rate.

According to The Accumulation of Foreign Reserves, the dollar was used in 70.9% of the foreign exchange reserves in 1999 while the euro only claimed 17.9%. By 2007, however, the dollar filled the reserve safes of only 63.3% of the foreign market and the euro rose to 26.5%, nearly an 8.5% growth in just eight years. With China—the US’s top trading partner—showing intentions to breakup its $1.43 trillion in reserve and include other forms of currency, the US dollar faces the painful blow of an even weaker global value. But, like everything in the seesaw world of economics, It’s a dark time for Americans, as our once-dominant when one thing descends something else ascends. The economy faces many challenges to stay on top. But once-waning railroad industry is now on the rise, along despite its current economic woes, the US still stands with research and development of fuel alternatives such as the world’s highest-grossing economy. With an everas, solar, wind, and water-power programs. Electric, expanding labor force, rapid progression in alternative hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles have become fuel sources and an end to the Iraq War hopefully leading sellers among most major automakers. There closer, the US is primed to avoid an oncoming collision has also been evidence of a major decrease in driving between generations of arrogance and the reality among Americans. CNN reported in June of this year of economic ruin. Perhaps only time will tell if it’s not that Americans drove 12.2 billion miles less in the too late. month of June than they did last year. Carpooling, public transportation, bicycles or walking have now become popular alternatives to save on gas and simultaneously help the environment. The US faces another national dilemma, however, in unemployment. Of the 154.5 million Americans able and willing to work, 5.7% of are out of a job. That’s more than a 1% rise from last year’s figures. While many of the reported job losses are due to the housing bubble, speculation as to the effects of war-returning

Eye On Darkness Looms For A Once-Bright US Economy by Matthew Godbey

signs of the bubble’s explosion were visible as far back as 2005.

military personnel, gas prices, and strained foreign trade are also swelling the ranks of the unemployed.

Eye On

Energy and Election by Emilee O’Leary other. Clinton’s proposals are now irrelevant; McCain’s short-term plan called for lifting the 18.4-cent tax on oil. Senator Obama outright opposed lowering the taxes on oil during key traveling months. In a June CNN press release, he said that a tax relief would take money from tax-reliant road-related funding and give it into the oil companies: a rash and unrealistic proposal.

ess than a month remains before America decides on her next president. This past year was one of the closest and most heated campaigns for the Democratic Party, which has, somewhat reluctantly, settled behind a man with the potential to offer a series of firsts for this country. Republicans, in a much different way, hope to reverse their party’s stigma dripping from the coattails of a two-term president with the lowest approval ratings in United States history.

Obama’s energy campaign might be diagnosed with what one might call a Robin Hood Complex. In opposition to McCain’s gas tax holiday, Sen. Obama called for energy bill rebates, gathered from taxing oil producers on what are called windfall gains: profits made from unexpected incomes that, in the past several years, have seen record-breaking numbers.

Obama’s plan certainly appeals to mid- to low-income families whose first question is, “How much is it going to hurt the next time I fill up?” But while a windfallgain tax might sound excellent in what it promises to provide for the working class, its logistics don’t seem very American. If only there were some sort of proof that the unexpected incomes gathered by the oil companies are being obtained illegally or through loopholes in the At this point, our country and our world are looking system, it would then be imperative for the government at a change-or-die future; if we don’t find effective to keep its people from being financially exploited by replacements for coal and oil, the repercussions will businessmen looking to fill their pockets. be detrimental to both the environment and the socioOn the other hand, McCain’s gas tax holiday has no economic status of all citizens. real economic advantage. Because summer months are This past summer’s energy talk was a battle of key travel times, there would seem to be no time like terminology. The three major players all had their own the present to suspend the tax. But the problem with scenarios to provide gas-price relief for the working this proposal is quite simple: the money would go right class. While Senators Clinton and McCain both back to the oil companies and provide no advantage to the consumer. Think of it like the old McDonald’s supported a gas tax holiday, they did not support each commercial, in which the two siblings are dividing up 19

their fries and the older sibling counts, “One for you, McCain’s energy policy, entitled The Lexington Project, one for me. One for you, two for me.” Neither plan is and freely available on the senator’s website, explains the candidate’s concerns about straying from the way completely satisfactory. energy policies have been handled throughout the last The next move is to take a look at the future, and few decades. “It is time that we capitalize on these whether the candidates’ goals might prove beneficial significant resources,” The Lexington Project reports, to our economy in years to come. The problem isn’t “and build the infrastructure needed to transport this simple, and we can’t simply point our fingers at the big important component of electricity generation and bad oil companies for making us pay so much, because transportation fuel around the country.” the economy is in a recession and every eye will be on the new President to make the next move and pull us The policy includes tax credits to customers buying “zero carbon emission” cars, as well as a $300 million out. prize for the development of a battery technology Obama has a clear idea for the future of American that produces a “power source at 30 percent of the automotives and thinks that finding a solution to oil current costs.” McCain’s plan is to create a monetary dependency is an “economic, national security and incentive to encourage technological advances that will environmental imperative.” The senator’s plan fot produce alternatives to the bugs affecting our current reducing this dependency includes “protecting the energy crises. financial future of domestic automakers” through the heightening of fuel economy standards, “investing What it comes down to, then, is a breakdown of what in advanced vehicle technology” – beginning with each man wants to do and how we, as individuals, his presidential administration converting to hybrid interpret their intentions. McCain wants to keep money or plug-in cars and providing $7,000 tax credits in the US by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, for advanced technology vehicle investors – and and increasing our domestic oil supply by dipping into establishing standards to speed up the development the Outer Continental Shelf. He also supports flex-fuel vehicles (autos running on fuel that is 85 percent ethanol) of low-carbon and non-petroleum fuel. and alcohol-based fuel. Obama wants to impose taxes Essentially this plan is two-fold: environment-friendly on oil giants, close loopholes in the trading industry to and domestic-based. This means reating more jobs and prevent financial exploitation, and release light oil from decreasing our dependency on foreign resources. But if the reserves, replacing it with longer-lasting heavier the next four years show a significant upswing in plug- crude oil. in hybrid cars, we might be looking for a way to keep the power on; if Obama accomplishes, as he says he The energy issue is not confined to the candidates’ wants to, the task of putting one million of these cars on perspectives on how to tackle increasing oil prices, the road, the power grid will have a seizure. but it is certainly one of the foremost questions on the minds of consumers. Other angles to explore more The Puget Sound Business Journal issued an article in deeply are fuel economy standards and the candidate’s 2005 stating that the “rising demand for power will no main targets, where each senator intends to find more doubt be taken to levels well beyond current utilities’ oil, and how they plan to clean up coal emissions and projections.” In the three years since the article was handle nuclear energy. written, advancements have been made to improve the battery the plug-in cars require, but very little has been What? Were you expecting me to tell you who to vote written on the electricity bill that isn’t included in their for? purchase record.

Eye On

Humanity Hypocrisy and Equal Human Rights by Rachel Wells

ome US policies, which are generally created to protect and serve our liberties, may actually be distorting the reality of life and the distinction of equality for many American residents. In particular, thousands of people daily battle the stigma of not being true United States citizens because of a heritage that does not directly link them to another American. The overall impression of what people are doing and how they are living is often misattributed to foreign cultures by the media, government officials and even our own native citizens, all of which continue to influence the future of human rights here in the US. When evaluating the impact of US policies, we must consider not only the actions of the United States but also the reactions of the rest of the world. When we broaden our thoughts this way, interesting connections emerge between related human rights issues. The US policy surrounding illegal immigration is a high-level topic that has now filtered down to the subjective judgment of all Americans—perhaps even to the younger generations, whom we are constantly urging to respect one another in order to preserve America’s standard of equality. As Americans, we constantly look for ways to improve our future, but it is actually the foundation of our past that can lead us to the positive change we seek. America’s standard of “equal rights among everyone and acceptance of all,” clearly called for in the Declaration of Independence, is more than an image of positive human rights that we project to the rest of the world. It is the core of American culture and prosperity: anyone, regardless of age, sex, religion or race, will be given equal opportunities for jobs, driver’s licenses, library cards and other benefits.

The deportation policy that the government has enacted, whether to control the population overflow, improve national security or to reduce costs, has been a key element in the distortion of our humanrights standards. Our actions towards immigrants have trickled over to our foreign neighbors, and as we continue to glorify democracy, fighting and preaching for other countries to adopt our way of living just as we are doing in the Middle East, what example are we really setting for other nations when we close the door on our own people? Do our actions towards certain groups of US citizens have a connection to the violent backlash we inevitably receive from some foreign countries? Are we imposing hypocrisy instead of democracy as we work to revamp foreign policy and international human-rights laws? The US is supposed to be the Mecca of Democracy, yet it has recently moved to stop the naturalization of Mexican residents who have immigrated to the States legally, and is now forcing them to leave, tearing apart many families throughout the United States. Even legal immigrants, many of whom have lived here for decades with family members who are citizens or lawful permanent residents, are still being deported.

We may also consider the Statue of Liberty as a testament of European immigration to America. The statue’s inscription states: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempesttossed to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door.” In present-day America, this speaks to the great hypocrisy of US immigration laws. 21

The US deportation policy is also jeopardizing both migrant workers and foreign economies. Some studies indicate that Mexican immigrants returning to their native country are actually being harassed and turned away by Mexican authorities. In an attempt to demonstrate their power, border officials are taking money from those returning to Mexico from the United States, putting on a public show of arresting these migrants for what they refer to as “not having identification.”

Not surprisingly, the US government’s treatment of immigrants, and its disregard for citizenship documentation, is causing a harsh reaction among border communities towards returning natives. A Georgetown Law School study found that as many as 80 percent of immigrants deported by the US are likely to come back across the border. Our deportations laws are directly contributing to an insecure border and jaded human rights, which will inevitably spill back over onto the US side. Although mass deportations may seem like a solution to the illegal immigration dilemma, how do we justify our promise of “equal human rights among citizens” while deporting people who worked to support our economy, and sending them back to areas that can’t begin to absorb their presence and offer no type of assistance? With the November election nearing, it is important to elect a President who can see the value of preserving our equality, even from a foreign perspective. Our new President must also be able to recognize which policies may smack of hypocrisy, and be willing to re-examine our immigration and deportation policies in order to maintain and protect our human rights. As Americans, we champion equality, democracy, respect and prosperity, but these days talk is cheap, and we must strive to personify our fundamental values in order to move towards the positive change that we all seek.

Humanity Hypocrisy and Equal Human Rights

by Rachel Wells

by Joanna Pettet

ccording to the 2000 US Census, nearly a quarter of New York City residents live below the poverty level. That’s nearly 2 million people within the five boroughs who are living in poverty. This has remained a problem for too long and must be solved. The poverty line is a fixed number set by the state or federal government. The NYC poverty level varies depending on the household size; for example, if a household of four’s yearly income is less than $27,700, they are living in poverty. For a single-person household, the line is set at $10,400. In NYC, minimum wage is currently $7.15 an hour. If a person works a 40hour week at minimum wage, the maximum she can make in a year is $14,872, which is above the poverty line if she is living alone. If there is someone else to support, however, this is not enough to be considered living above the poverty level.

One of the issues frequently associated with the minimum-wage struggle is race. The majority of minimum-wage workers are minorities—four out of five, to be exact. Additionally, immigrants are almost two times more likely than native Americans to be paid minimum wage, an inequity that reinforces negative prejudices and racism. Gender also keeps the playing field uneven: female residents of NYC account for 49 percent of the population, but they represent 59 percent of minimum-wage workers. Although many Equal Opportunity laws have been enacted, they still haven’t forced the workplace to have equal opportunities for all employees.

When it comes to the debate of raising minimum wage, a common misconception prevails. Many believe that the majority of minimum wage employees in NYC are the children of middle-class youth working part-time. However, according to the Current Population Survey (conducted by the federal government), 90 percent of all NYC employees are over the age of 20 years old. Of those adults, two-thirds of them are employed full-time, so if those full-time, minimum-wage adults supported only themselves, they would be above the poverty level. Unfortunately, nearly half of families in NYC with a minimum-wage worker depend on that single income to support the entire household.

As the job market becomes increasingly more competitive, education becomes much more valuable to employers. According to the Census Bureau, college graduates with a bachelor’s degree make an average of $23,000 more than high school graduates, and $31,000 more than high school dropouts. In NYC, only 27.4% of adults over the age of 25 have a bachelor’s degree or higher, and only 72.3% of adults have high school diplomas. See the connection? A quarter of New York City residents are living in poverty, and a quarter of the city’s adults have not graduated from high school These numbers demonstrate how important education is in the job market. 23

©www.sxc.hu/leroys 2008

The government does offer programs to help young adults, ages 16 to 21, to graduate from high school. And for young adults who drop out, there are still options. For example, some transfer schools offer personalized education and customized schedules for students who had difficulty in a regular learning environment. These schools offer a program called Learning to Work, in which students take on internships and gain workplace experience. There is also the Young Adult Borough Centers (YABC) Program, which is designed to help students finish their high school education by taking evening classes. Although these programs are not available to adults over the age of 25, they help to create a greater high school graduation rate among young adults who are at risk for future poverty. The city government also offers a variety of programs for people living in poverty. Many offer aid fochildren, including limited healthcare, education and childcare; others are designated for adults. There are job centers, which help underprivileged adults fined jobs that match their skills and experience. However, many of these jobs are low-wage and do not allow for promotion or career advancement. Job placement may help initially, but in the long term many people become stuck in low-wage jobs, constantly struggling to make ends meet. The government needs to implement more efficient follow-up programs and interview training, so that people in need can gain assistance in becoming independent. NYC also supports minimal

adult education programs, but there are limitations, and not everyone who needs the help will qualify to participate in the programs. There will always be poverty in a free-market economy, but it doesn’t necessarily have to affect this much of the population. With assistance from the government, people living in poverty can improve their situations and live more comfortable lives. The most important solution the government can provide is to help future generations reach their fullest potential and live in a healthy environment. If children are shown the positives of a good education and the opportunities that they will be offered in the future, we can eliminate a lot of unnecessary poverty in New York City.

©www.sxc.hu/leroys 2008

©www.sxc.hu/bizior 2008

A Struggle to Survive: Poverty in NYC

by Joanna Pettet

©www.sxc.hu/leroys 2008

©www.sxc.hu/bizior 2008

A Struggle to Survive: Poverty in NYC

Society

Looking Ahead to Black Friday by Joanna Pettet

“Black Friday” is known as one of the busiest shopping days of the year, the retail name for the day after Thanksgiving. It marks the first day of the Christmas shopping season. Its name was coined by the Philadelphia Police Department when they described the chaotic shopping day in 1965. The traffic jams and general craziness of the day reminded them of the Black Tuesday stock market crash in 1929. The name also originates from the retail term of being “in the black,” which means making a profit. Many people believe that Black Friday generates the biggest sales for retailers for the year. However, this is not always true. In the last ten years, only in 2003 and 2005 was Black Friday the actual busiest shopping day of the year.

Some Tips on Black Friday ‘08: • The early bird catches the worm. The cliché upholds on Black Friday, since most stores open around 5am and the biggest deals and hottest items usually disappear before noon. • Parking is scarce. If you can, park close to an entrance. This way, you can frequently stop by the car to drop off bags. • Make sure to eat a nutritious breakfast. With all the madness and crowds, you will need to be energized. Also, the snack stands are usually full of junk food that might slow you down. Packing a bag full of energy bars and some water bottles might provide additional comfort throughout the day. Think of it as an adventure! • Keep an eye on your stuff. Personal belongings should be kept to the bare necessities: phone, wallet, keys. This also includes shopping bags; don’t set them down and walk away or turn around, because they won’t be there when you turn around.

• Do your homework: research! Look online and in print at all the deals and offers stores have. Get a folder so that you can keep track of what’s important to your holiday shopping. • Make a list of the things you need to buy. Improvisation is okay, but you want something to be able to reference. Bring a pen to check off things you bought or make notes. Extra paper may come in handy as well. • Have an itinerary mapped out. This is especially important for families. Make a list of all the stores everyone wants to visit, in priority order for each person. I suggest going to the busiest stores first, because the lines only get longer as the day goes on. If you split up, make sure to have a meeting place and time, because with all the crowds, many cell phones fail to make or receive calls.

©sxc.h

u/nazre

• Remain calm. Staying relaxed might actually lead to having fun. Smile at some of the employees and you’ll probably make their day.

• Buy something for yourself. Reward yourself for braving the stores on a day many people now avoid. This way, you will be satisfied at the end of the day. • Cyber Monday. If you were planning on avoiding the rush and staying home, the online retail market also has a Christmas season kick-off. The Monday after Thanksgiving is one of the busiest Internet shopping days. Although many companies now offer special coupons and sales during this day, on auction sites, you’ll find the re-sales of popular items bought on Black Friday. The price of rare toys and gifts are usually marked up.

SNL: Missing Will Ferrell?

by Liz Donehue

Live from New York! It’s that time again. Roughly a year before the presidential election actually takes place, the writers at Saturday Night Live were scrambling for new material and actors to impersonate current political figures and presidential candidates. During these years, SNL has record viewers dying to see what new shenanigans cast members are going to come up with in order to paint politics with a satirical mask. In recent months, Fred Armisen and Amy Poehler, regular cast members of SNL, have been portraying democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But lately it seems the show’s writers have struggled to find comedic material for the cast in order to properly satirize Obama and Clinton. Is this due to the fact that Will Ferrell’s reign over SNL is over? Ferrell joined the line up for Saturday Night Live in 1995 and remained a favorite cast member over his seven-year tenure at the show. He impersonated many well-known figures while at SNL, such as Janet Reno, Alex Trebek, singer Neil Diamond, Chicago Cubs announcer Harry Caray, and current President George W. Bush. During the 2000 campaign, Ferrell coined the phrase “strategery,” a landmark “Bushism” that is still thrown into conversations today. Currently, Will Ferrell’s career is at an all time high. After retiring from Saturday Night Live, Ferrell went on to star in movies such as Blades of Glory, Semi-Pro, Stranger Than Fiction,, and most recently Step Brothers,, with John C. Reilly. Undoubtedly, Amy Poehler and Fred Armisen’s careers have skyrocketed since their first appearances on SNL. But many remain curious as to whether or not Armisen or Poehler are capable of upholding Ferrell’s dead-on presidential impressions. There’s only one more month before the new President will be named. Hopefully, once the votes are in, the shenanigans will begin. © 1998 Paramount Pictures

Society

Looking Ahead to Black Friday by Joanna Pettet

©sxc.h

u/nazre

• Remain calm. Staying relaxed might actually lead to having fun. Smile at some of the employees and you’ll probably make their day.

SNL: Missing Will Ferrell?

by Liz Donehue

Society

Society The Excitement of Election

3. Parties/Social Gatherings

I am fairly positive that many young adults love the nightlife. Well, at the Republican National Convention, there was no shortage of that. There were many receptions for young adults/delegates, as well adults and people of all ages. Here is another opportunity to meet young adults your age from around the company, as well his September, I had the pleasure of attending as perhaps meet a politician. Two of my friends had the the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, chance to talk with Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee. Minnesota. No matter where you may lie in the You can never be sure who will show up to those social political spectrum, I found that attending a convention gatherings. for the nomination of a presidential candidate can be a great experience for 4. Chance of a Lifetime any young adult. Here is my rationale:

by Diane Kulseth

1. Political Experience Sure, your political science professor may ask you about what political platform you support, but it is a completely different realm to experience the speeches of politicians who live that platform daily. Also, conventions give you the opportunity to meet many local and national politicians who can help to strengthen or weaken your feelings toward one political viewpoint or the other. Who knows, it may even inspire you to run for a local office someday!

Who knows if the speech you are listening to is in support of the next President? What if you are watching the future VP? What issues will be protested at the next Presidential Convention? Conventions are truly some wonderful opportunities to experience society in a political aspect. While conventions such as these only come once every four years, many political districts will have gatherings on Election Day and throughout the year. It is an excellent way to get involved while in college and to really make a difference in the issues that matter to young adults. So, on a weekend or a day that you don’t have something to do, grab some friends and grab some local and national newspapers. Pull out the Election ’08 section (or whatever is in the front section for politics) and read where each candidate stands, especially on the issues that matter most to you. Get involved with your College Republicans, College Democrats, or whatever political affiliation you fall within. Write letters to your local politicians about current legislations that you support, and ask them to represent your view. Register to vote, and make sure to get to the polls on November 4th. This is a historic election, we will either have our first black President or first female Vice-President. Be a part of this election and be a part of history!

“ Be a part of this election and be a part of history! “

2. Networking I attended the RNC as one of a few select College Republicans throughout the entire country. I met people from all around the nation: Vermont, Georgia, Tennessee, Florida, you name it. After spending a few days with them at various events, they quickly became very good friends. I also spent time at the Catholics for McCain and Veterans for McCain suites, and I would recommend visiting suites such as those. You can meet people who share your interests, sign up for more information, and try some delicious food!

Yep...weâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re on it. Join Our Group! DPMMP cue

Angila Lowe 678-768-5380 eminentsolutions1@yahoo.com

Cicero’s Corner

Satire in an Age of Absurdity by Anna Pellechia The New York Times recently asked, “Is Jon Stewart the most trusted man in America?” That question is the title of an article looking at the evolution of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the comedic news program that has become more politically-oriented in the past few years. Mr. Stewart explains via interview how changes in the show’s style reflect growing frustrations with politics in the United States. While discussing the show’s writing process, Stewart notes the challenges of parody in a time when the seemingly ridiculous and illogical become commonplace. He posits that a satire like Dr. Strangelove is suddenly “very difficult to make” because “the absurdity of what you imagine to be the dark heart of conspiracy theorists’ wet dreams far too frequently turns out to be true.” Mr. Stewart’s remarks are interesting in light of the controversy over the July 21 New Yorker cover, which depicted a turbaned Barack Obama in the oval office bumping fists with his wife— who is wearing camouflage pants and an assault rifle—while a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs over a fireplace where the American flag is burning. Though the artist defended his image as a satire of right-wing fear-mongering, many were outraged that the image was presented to the public without an “obvious” admission of its facetiousness. Is our inability to agree on the cover’s appropriateness a result of the challenges of satire Stewart suggests? It seems we are unsure of what to think. On the one had, we need to protect the notion of satire, of criticism through clever mockery. On the

other hand, what happens when satire begins to lose its power because the absurd is normalized? Will an image like the one on The New Yorker only fuel the endorsement of what the parody is attempting to dismantle? Perhaps our confusion over the New Yorker cover is another symptom of the United States’ supposed cultural divide. In this rift, each side defines “the absurd” differently, so what is blatantly satirical to some might seem wholly believable to others. But while the relativity of absurdity may be lamentable, it is also inevitable. “The absurd” will never be universal. There will always be those who think an idea is not at all ridiculous, and this is a problem satire will continuously face, a problem it must face in order to work at all. To work, satire depends on the thin line between the actual and the outlandish, and if that line were any thicker, if there were not even a minute threat of the outrageous occurring, the satire would cease to make sense—it would not be satirizing anything. It would merely be a fantasy instead of a warning. The problem, then, isn’t with finding a universal absurdity, but with finding ways to distort realities. Maybe there was something too bare about the New Yorker cover. Maybe it didn’t sufficiently rework its source material in a manner crazy enough for these times. Satire has not become impossible, as evidenced by the popularity of The Daily Show and, perhaps more fittingly, of its spin-off, 29

The Colbert Report. These programs simply have had to find new ways of satirizing. Not to suggest that Mr. Colbert’s exaggerated impression of a self-obsessed, irrational pundit is a wholly original concept—but it works because he is willing to take on the ridiculousness that currently exists, no matter how extreme, and find unique ways to twist it, to trump its lunacy. As for The Daily Show, Mr. Stewart claims in the Times interview that “The process of the show is to bury [grievous] feelings as subtext.” He sees moments like the opening of his first show after the 9/11 attacks—in which he related very personal and candid thoughts on the events, all while on the verge of tears—as “a laying bare of the type of thing that is there hopefully to inform the show, but the show is usually an exercise in hiding that.” The Daily Show works, then, by utilizing society’s problems to construct something funny, by twisting and turning them rather than straightforwardly relating them. Mr. Stewart seems to suggest that there is hope and comfort in this, that it provides a means of coping. And perhaps the tug-of-war between grief and comfort compounds our difficulty in assessing the New Yorker cover. Current affairs are such that we sometimes don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Thus, Mr. Stewart’s show is burdened with negotiating between the humorous and the dispiriting. As Aristotle noted in his Poetics, “The comic mask is unseemly and distorted but expresses no pain” because “comedy is an imitation of persons worse than average, [but] their badness, however, does not extend to the point of utter depravity; rather ridiculousness is a particular form of the shameful and may be described as the kind of error and unseemliness that is not painful or destructive.” If Mr. Stewart is right, it is becoming more and more difficult to gloss over depravity, and this is why satire faces challenges. It suddenly needs to find ways of facing the depraved and working it into a comedy.

Cicero’s Corner

Satire in an Age of Absurdity

by Anna Pellechia The New York Times recently asked, “Is Jon Stewart the most trusted man in America?” That question is the title of an article looking at the evolution of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the comedic news program that has become more politically-oriented in the past few years. Mr. Stewart explains via interview how changes in the show’s style reflect growing frustrations with politics in the United States. While discussing the show’s writing process, Stewart notes the challenges of parody in a time when the seemingly ridiculous and illogical become commonplace. He posits that a satire like Dr. Strangelove is suddenly “very difficult to make” because “the absurdity of what you imagine to be the dark heart of conspiracy theorists’ wet dreams far too frequently turns out to be true.” Mr. Stewart’s remarks are interesting in light of the controversy over the July 21 New Yorker cover, which depicted a turbaned Barack Obama in the oval office bumping fists with his wife— who is wearing camouflage pants and an assault rifle—while a portrait of Osama Bin Laden hangs over a fireplace where the American flag is burning. Though the artist defended his image as a satire of right-wing fear-mongering, many were outraged that the image was presented to the public without an “obvious” admission of its facetiousness. Is our inability to agree on the cover’s appropriateness a result of the challenges of satire Stewart suggests? It seems we are unsure of what to think. On the one had, we need to protect the notion of satire, of criticism through clever mockery. On the

And perhaps the tug-of-war between grief and comfort compounds our difficulty in assessing the New Yorker cover. Current affairs are such that we sometimes don’t know whether to laugh or to cry. Thus, Mr. Stewart’s show is burdened with negotiating between the humorous and the dispiriting. As Aristotle noted in his Poetics, “The comic mask is unseemly and distorted but expresses no pain” because “comedy is an imitation of persons worse than average, [but] their badness, however, does not extend to the point of utter depravity; rather ridiculousness is a particular form of the shameful and may be described as the kind of error and unseemliness that is not painful or destructive.” If Mr. Stewart is right, it is becoming more and more difficult to gloss over depravity, and this is why satire faces challenges. It suddenly needs to find ways of facing the depraved and working it into a comedy.

The problem, then, isn’t with finding a universal absurdity, but with finding ways to distort realities. Maybe there was something too bare about the New Yorker cover. Maybe it didn’t sufficiently rework its source material in a manner crazy enough for these times. Satire has not become impossible, as evidenced by the popularity of The Daily Show and, perhaps more fittingly, of its spin-off, 30

Meiji

Guns Don’t

Kill People... by C.Y. Grant

In Littleton, Colorado, in April of 1999, two boys killed 12 and wounded 23 when they opened fire at their high school. A month later, a sophomore in Conyers, Georgia wounded six when he brought a rifle and a handgun to school. That November, a 12-year-old boy shot a 13-year-old girl as students returned from lunch. In 2000, a 6-year-old boy shot and killed a 6-year-old girl at a Michigan elementary school. Santee, California saw two students killed and 13 wounded when a teenager opened fire from a bathroom. One student was killed and two wounded in New Orleans high school in 2003, and two killed in Minnesota. In 2004, three students were killed, two committed suicide, and two injured in elementary, middle and high schools across the country. 10 died and seven were injured in a reservation high school in 2005. A North Carolina high schooler shot his father and then two students in 2006; the students escaped with injuries. In that same year, two students in Texas and Pennsylvania brought, respectively, a handgun and an AK-47 to school and committed suicide, the first in a cafeteria courtyard and the second in a hallway. An 18-year-old shot and killed a younger classmate at his Washington, D.C. high school in 2007. This is an incomplete list of major school shootings in America since 1999. Maybe I should say that again. An incomplete list—of major school shootings—since Columbine. There were school shootings before it, but the Columbine death toll made the high school in Colorado a headline story in a way that the deaths of two students in Mississippi and three in Kentucky in 1997, and three in Oregon and Tennessee in 1998, didn’t. In fact, the average school shoot-

ing hardly makes the national news any more. The exception was Virginia Tech in April of 2007, where a student killed 32 students and faculty and wounded 15 more in the deadliest single act of gun violence in American history. But Virginia Tech, horrific as it was, was not the deadliest gun massacre in the world. That dubious record was made in my own country, Australia, where in 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people and wounded another 20 with an automatic rifle in Port Arthur, Tasmania. The devil is in the details, however; by the end of 1997, new restrictions on long guns had been put into place in Australia’s six states and two territories which rendered about a million of Australia’s 4 million guns illegal. Two-thirds of those million were bought back by the government and destroyed. Australia has always had fairly strict gun control laws, beginning with the restriction of handguns in the 1920s. Currently, handguns are only available to members of licensed pistol clubs and gun collectors. Shotguns, rifles, and other long guns were left more or less alone on the basis of sport until Port Arthur. The Port Arthur massacre was the last straw in a series of deadly Australian shootings with long guns: 32 people were killed in six massacres in 1987 and six killed in a Sydney mall shooting in 1991. Those events combined had led to a heightened public awareness of the danger of guns, as well as an increasingly vocal lobby for the improvement of gun control laws. Although gun control is decided on a state rather than a federal basis, after Port Arthur the states under federal oversight passed legislation that rendered gun licensing standardized and demanded that all guns be reg-

istered. Access to self-loading rifles and shotguns was also severely limited. Interestingly, rates of homicide committed with guns have declined steadily since 1996. And school shootings? Google as I might, I can only find two incidents, both at Melbourne universities, first at LaTrobe in 1999 and another at Monash in 2002, where a total of three died; at least five were wounded. The primary and secondary schools seem to have escaped unscathed. It’s a lot harder for angry teenagers to steal their parents’ guns when their parents haven’t got any. What, then, of Virginia Tech? The deadliest gun massacre in American history, and only four more headstones would have stolen Bryant’s laurels for the world record. But despite Virginia Tech, despite multiple fatal school shootings every year, gun control legislation is a rare beast indeed in the United States, and one that National Rifle Association lobbyists have firmly in their consequential ruling ruling on on firearms firearms crosshairs. The most consequential decision by the Supreme Court that since has been a July decision by the Supreme Court that an individual individual right, right, a a decision decision the right to bear arms is an handgun ownership in Washingthat overturned a ban on handgun ownership in Washington, D.C. approach to prevent Another innovative approach to preventcome out of ing school shootings has come out of a school district in Texas that recently passed legislation allowing teachers to carry concealed handguns at work. There’s another another alTexan movement afoot to alhandguns low people to carry handguns openly on their belts. After After Blackber Blackberall, we can sport our Blackberour rys with impunity, why not our legispistols? How this kind of legissituation lation can possibly fix a situation is bethat too many guns created created is yond me. the Most disheartening are are the efforts made and defeated, like like the the required aa five1994 Brady Bill that required the purchase purchase day waiting period on the licensed dealers. dealers. of handguns through licensed it unconstituThe Supreme Court ruled it unconstitugrounds that that the the tional in 1997 on the grounds

federal government was treading on states’ rights. All the really big stuff is illegal, but murder doesn’t require an Uzi. Controlling guns doesn’t have to mean banning them outright. Stricter background checks, gun registration, and more stringent requirements for gun licenses would all go a long way in helping to reduce the number of guns and thus the number of homicides committed with guns—or, to please the NRA, “people with guns.” I just hope it doesn’t take another Port Arthur to make the point.

...

Meiji

Social Misfits:

America’s Medicare and Medicaid

by Roshani Chokshi Right now, Americans seem to think that socialized medicine is God’s gift to healthcare. Each of the Democratic presidential hopefuls touted universal healthcare plans while campaigning for the party’s nomination. But we already have socialized medicine in the United States: Medicare and Medicaid. Medicare, the social insurance program providing health insurance to people aged over 65, is heaving like a financially-deprived wraith over America. The rising complexity of healthcare costs has led to the government’s attempt—mostly unsuccessful— to encourage people to save money to pay their own health bills. In trying to cure the problem, however, politicians face menacing social taboos: for instance, the imminent political backlash from voting Medicare patients who would be denied extended treatment if costs are cut. The other option has been to cut payments to physicians and other healthcare providers, but the backlash there is that doctors can easily refuse to treat Medicare patients. One of the solutions Congress has offered to the public is restricting eligibility. But that would only serve as a temporary fix, and it would also be a punch in the gut for those on the lowest socio-economic rung who need health insurance coverage the most—not to mention the swarms of politicians with wry smiles who would advocate the very opposite. Another less popular idea is to improve efficiency. Technology and computerized records are slowly approaching the forefront of the medical world; however, their potential effectiveness goes woefully unreported.

For instance, part of the cost of Medicare is attributable to fraud. The Government Accountability Office lists Medicare as a “high-risk” government program in need of reform, not only because of its vulnerability to fraud but also because of its financial problems, stretching ad nauseum. The annual cost to taxpayers of Medicare fraud is estimated to be over $60 billion. The other American attempt at universal healthcare is Medicaid. Enacted in 1965, the welfare program originally served as a safety net for the poor. But its attempt to be a beneficial form of socialized medicine is under considerable strain. Many of the enrollees have limited access to quality care. The low reimbursement rates and oppressive bureaucratic statutes have led to fewer physicians agreeing to treat Medicaid patients. Additionally, the sheer volume of Medicaid patients is not conducive

to the improved quality of treatment. Not only does Medicaid drain state budgets, but it also comprises just one of the many sources of budget problems. Entitlement programs consume a hefty portion of budget spending, since Congress’s failure to put enough money into the program will result in political suicide. Its expected annual growth from 7 to 9 percent of budgets is a raised red flag for policymakers who would ideally be enforcing steps to eliminate fraud and catalyze efficiency. Medicare and Medicaid cannot fix themselves. Political discourse is needed to recognize them as a rising crisis. Socialized medicine, while effective in other countries, needs work in the United States. For example, Congress should work with state officials to boost efficiency. State officials should strive to drive low-income Americans away from government dependency and into private healthcare coverage. Thus, both programs would improve their system as well as become more beneficial to those who need it.

So, with all these problems in the US, why is socialized medicine popular and seemingly effective in Western Europe? When one looks at Western Europe, the first apparent difference is not the existence of public universal healthcare, but the “option.” Many of private healthcare’s advantages are still available under Europe’s two-tier plan. Canada is one such country that uses the plan, but few Canadians support it. In fact, those who can afford the private healthcare usually go to the United States for medical attention and treatment. What is it that most Americans dislike? It begins with a “t” and ends in “axes.” The place where socialized health plans have worked the best is Sweden, and Sweden has an astronomical tax rate: three times that of the United States. Americans need to realize that there is a significant tradeoff in adopting universal healthcare. According to the Commonwealth Fund, America spends a high percentage of GDP on healthcare, yet we have the worse ratings on efficiency to care, access to care, etc… and imagine transferring that bulk of waste to a slow-moving bureaucracy. Is it worth it? Universal healthcare strives to do what is, economically, nearly unimaginable. The cost simply exceeds expectations. The cost of the Medicare single-payer insurance program just goes to show that you’re truly not getting your “bang for the buck” here. What we need is to think about the ultimate tradeoff.

...

Meiji

Sanhedrin or Senate by Chloë Edwards

If anything can bring back your faith in America, it has to be presidential elections. The campaigns may descend into the realms of the petty and pedantic, but at the end of it all, there’s really nothing like exercising the right to vote. Free elections are probably the most famous and best-recognized component of democracy, its poster child, and American elections are probably the most consistently watched in the world. But America, while the world’s most famous democracy, is not the only democracy. Just as the United States is the democratic showcase of the world, so is Israel in the Middle East. They also elect their leaders—or do they? What Israelis vote for when they go to the national polls is the proportion of political representation in the Knesset (pronounced kuh-ness-et), equivalent to Congress. A ballot contains not the names of candidates for Knesset seats but the names of parties, of which there can be as many as twenty-six. The three biggest parties in Israeli politics are left-wing Labor, right-wing Likud and centrist Kadima, but minority parties are extremely important: as long as a party receives at least 2 percent of the popular vote, it is entitled to 2 percent of the seats in the Knesset. Actual representation is then directly apportioned between the 120 Knesset seats. These seats are filled by an internal list of 120 party members in order of the party’s preference. Practically, this means that if the Labor party wins 50 percent of the vote, it takes 60 seats in the Knesset, which are filled by persons 1-60 on its list. The Knesset being filled, a head of state, which in Israel is the Prime Minister, can be chosen. That person is generally the leader of the party with the greatest number of Knesset seats, but the choice is ultimately left to the President of the State of Israel (whose position is largely honorary). Whomever the president taps must

then choose his or her government ministers, which are analogous to what we would call the Cabinet in the United States. However, the prime minister’s government must be confirmed by a majority vote in the Knesset. Because of the importance of minority parties, for the majority party to have an actual numerical majority in the Knesset is rare indeed, which means that to ensure a majority vote, the majority party must build a coalition with the minority parties around it. As the price of their support, the minority parties generally demand a government position for one of their party members. Knesset elections must be held at least every four years, although a government can be toppled at any time by a majority ‘no confidence’ vote in the Knesset. At that point, the process begins again: the president taps another prime minister, who can be any member of the Knesset— even the person just deposed—to form a new government and try again. New elections are not necessary. It’s a bit of a letdown, really. It all sounds very political and removed, but it really isn’t so different than the way we do it here. The American system of the presidential election is more complicated than we’d like to believe. Presidential elections are not really a nationwide vote to decide the president, but fifty-one state votes (the District of Columbia is included) to decide electors. Every four years, on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November, we go to the polls and cast our vote, usually for either a Republican or a Democrat. What really matters, however, is not our choice of candidate but our automatic choice of the electors associated with that candidate. Each state’s Republican and Democratic parties have their own list of electors, who are found on the presidential ballot grouped either with the party’s candidate or beneath simply by party. Each state

has a number of electors equal to its number of US Representatives plus its two senators, and all the electors together make up the Electoral College, the real deciding body in the election. When a presidential candidate carries a state in the popular vote, the electors for that candidate’s party are those who ultimately cast their votes for president in the Electoral College. In other words, if Barack Obama wins the California popular vote, the 55 electors of California will be Democrats and more than likely vote for Obama in the College. Electors generally vote for the candidate who won their state, although there is no legal constraint that says they must. This is why a candidate can win the battle for the popular vote, but still lose the presidential war: if he or she can’t secure the 270 electoral votes that make a majority, it’s all over. If a vote in the Electoral College can’t produce a candidate with the necessary majority, the vote is thrown to the House of Representatives. Every presidential election abounds with rumors that “we the people” don’t actually elect the president. Like it or not, it seems those rumors are true. But we can take heart that our elections are still more direct than those held in Israel; after all, we do elect the people who elect the president, whereas in Israel, what is essentially decided on is the candidate pool. But there’s one final twist. In the Knesset elections of 2006, much was made of voter turnout, which at 63.2 percent was the lowest ever. But we in America, we who like to think we showed the world how to vote, peaked at the polls in 1960 when a whopping 62.8 percent of eligible voters took the time to show up. The numbers have been dropping ever since. I will say that in Israel, politics can be life or death

in a way that America has been blessed to never know. You can’t tell an Israeli to vote or die: it hits too close to home. Nevertheless, people moan about how they feel like their vote doesn’t count, how it isn’t worth anything in the seething mass of other people making their choice. The sharper ones will note that, as I have pointed out, we aren’t even really voting for president, so how can we make a difference? The country wouldn’t shut down if everybody stayed home on Election Day, right? It would send the election to the House of Representatives and that would be the end of it. I counter: if our votes didn’t make a difference, we wouldn’t have the right to vote. Don’t let the Electoral College get you down and never let be an excuse not to go to the polls. If Israel can belly-flop at 63 percent, surely we can soar there!

...

Fuse Pen and Paper: Liberators of the American Dream

gender. I’ve noticed, from personal conversations, that people are more knowledgeable about these documents than any other political document. Is it because we were forced to memorize them while still young, or is it because history is full of events that reinforce their values?

by Kali Mobley

In my early academic years, I learned all the basic aspects of American history. I memorized dates, names, battles, and places—all the items that just scratch the surface of my country’s history. I’d always had a knack for memorizing important events, so when I began college, I chose history as my minor. In college, the surface of American history didn’t exist. No, I was in the pits, the bunkers, the meetings—in the mind of history itself. I embraced the historical realm by studying personal diaries, military ledgers, and detailed accounts of American history. The more I read, the more I became inspired to create change, to make my mark in the world.

t’s political season again, and as the election approaches, families, houses, and institutions are formed and divided. The majority of voters are concerned with the future. On the other hand, some people don’t believe in voting, in voicing their opinions about the nation’s future. I was raised in a house, for example, that wasn’t political. Instead, I was raised to see the good versus the bad in a very spiritual (but not religious) manner. Amazingly, I grew up with an interest in politics, and I wanted to join the political world as an attorney. That plan was never fulfilled because I found my true passion in writing. For me, writing is my liberator; I can create words, wars, worlds—even wonders—and free those thoughts onto paper. Although I grew up hearing stories about people achieving freedom through political means, I’d never understood the significance writing played in that achievement until I entered college.

My two favorite historical documents are the Preamble and the Declaration of Independence. These muses opened my mind to the underestimated power of writing. For starters, the Preamble was written as the rubric for the American Constitution. It serves as the basis for judging the various aspects of constitutional law. Some American schools promote the Preamble by having children memorize and recite it, either in the classroom or in a school play. As for the Declaration of Independence, it states our human birthright to seek the happiness that freedom has to offer us. Many people believe that it is responsible for invoking radical changes, like granting equal rights to all people regardless of race, religion, or 37

If it is the first, then I wonder: did Abraham Lincoln grow up memorizing the Preamble and analyzing the Declaration of Independence? Or do we now study them due to how he implemented them in his political speeches, debates, addresses, and amendments? Lincoln was a man who dreamed of keeping our forefathers’ work united. He placed immense faith in the Constitution and the Union, and every word he spoke, he wrote. Not many former, present, or future presidents can say that, but Lincoln can. To me, that’s a political security and faith that are no longer abundant in today’s society. If it’s the latter, then I am secure in stating that freedom of thought is an expression worthy of immortal recognition. Authors who seek to publish the truth use their lethal weapons, pen and paper, to document their quests to achieve freedom, often by informing, inspiring, or instigating others to pursue the same path. Historical accounts documenting the vicious battles of the American Revolution, the Civil War, both World Wars, and Vietnam are written to reinforce the natural faith that Americans place in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble, the recipes of civil maintenance. Determining the cause and effect of either event doesn’t truly matter—just contemplation—because the mark of freedom has already been branded on Americans’ brains. Now, two hundred years after those men wrote down their radical ideas, my own pen and paper have not only become immortal weapons of self-preservation. They are also my tools for invoking life-changing thoughts in others, a simplistic act that gets lost in most political battles. My house may not be involved in politics, but they do hold the truths in the Declaration of Independence and the Preamble close to their hearts. Our world functions on what’s right or wrong, just

or unjust, secure or unsecure. Americans constantly yearns for more and more liberty. No matter how much technology exists and grows, there will always be pen and paper, two simple items to help us in our lifelong quest for freedom.

“ there will always be pen and paper, two simple items to help us in our lifelong quest for freedom.”

Fuse Pen and Paper: Liberators of the American Dream

by Kali Mobley

“ there will always be pen and paper, two simple items to help us in our lifelong quest for freedom.”

Fuse Lessons Learned in Two Countries

My family and I currently reside in New York and New Jersey. But that was the least of our worries; it was obvious that it would be impossible for my family to get back into the country, seeing as how no more flights were coming into the United States. So what were we to do? I was quite scared: I thought of flying and not knowing if the person sitting next to me was plotting to take over the plane; or, as wrong or ignorant as it seems, looking askance at every man or woman who could possibly be from the Middle East.

by Shainna Tucker

I can remember my mother packing our suitcase that morning while she was watching the news. She went into the bathroom to collect our toothbrushes. Then I heard my cousin scream her name from the bedroom. That entire morning, with my whole family crammed into the hotel room my mother and I shared, we watched both planes hit the north and south towers of the World Trade Center and the collapse of the When I was only 11 years old, my mother’s side of the seventh tower. We watched all three buildings fall family took a trip to the Caribbean country of Belize, and saw the frenzy and the chaos on every news near Mexico and Guatemala. Belize is where my channel. Immediately we thought about the rest of mother and her siblings were born. It was our first our family who could not make the trip, who were family reunion and the first time my cousins and I, who still in New York. were born in America, saw a country where children did not have television, CD players, or (at that time) GameBoys. It was a huge culture shock to see people in some parts of the country still using water pumps. They would walk down the road to pump water into buckets and carry it back to their homes. Many did not have running water, and some homes still used outhouses. even years ago, the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbor took the world and the citizens of the United States by storm. This sent the people of New York and New Jersey into an utter frenzy. Imagine for a moment that one could feel the aftermath and affects of those attacks even outside of the country.

Due to the attacks, my family and I were delayed in Belize for a full week. There was very little contact with our airline, and not knowing when we would reach home was quite frustrating. Finally we were able to get a flight home, but I must admit that, as I boarded the plane, my heart sat in my throat. I really had no idea what to expect. Upon getting back to New Jersey, I was grateful to be home, to have lights and running water, and even the shoes on my feet. But as I think it over, I realize that my Belize experience and 9/11 will always go hand and hand. Both showed me how easy our lives are in the US, compared to other countries. Both taught me to appreciate every moment in life, because I could be walking down the road to pump water in buckets. I could even have been in one of those planes that hit the towers and the Pentagon that morning. I have learned to appreciate every meal and every article of clothing that I own. Every now and then I get nervous when boarding a plane, but a prayer before and after my flight always calms my nerves. The September 11th attack did change the America’s citizens. It opened our eyes to the idea that we are not as invincible as we may believe. It caused us to rethink how we look at people from other countries. That entire experience for me now has really shaped my life. I have learned not to judge so easily and to keep my guard up. Just as we citizens of the US can never let go of 9/11, I can never let go of the lessons I learned from this experience.

While the time I spent in Belize was extremely eyeopening, the most shocking moment came when it was time to return to the states. My family and I were set to leave Belize on September 11th, 2001, in the afternoon.

“...we citizens of the US can never let go of 9/11...”

Fuse Lessons Learned in Two Countries by Shainna Tucker

To see kids going to school without shoes, or to see large families living in small houses, created in me a new level of appreciation. I have come to realize that traveling to Belize truly and honestly struck a chord in my heart, but I did not make that connection until I got to college. While the time I spent in Belize was extremely eyeopening, the most shocking moment came when it was time to return to the states. My family and I were set to leave Belize on September 11th, 2001, in the afternoon.

“...we citizens of the US can never let go of 9/11...”

Fuse Sex and Race: A Grassroots Perspective on the Democratic Party Election

We still proudly declare ourselves to live in the land of the free and the home of the brave, but many of our I-phone-carrying peers and children stagger through society, unaware of how to be good citizens because they lack positive role models. We may walk up to little Johnny or Tyrone and say, “You can be whatever you want to be!” but in the same day, among other adults, we fearfully whisper, “But we aren’t ready yet.”

by Valencya Taylor

We must be honest with ourselves. As long as we allow ourselves to be distracted by birthrights such as the amount of pigment in our skin or what genitalia we possess, we will never be ready for change.

nless they were literally hiding underneath a rock during the summer, Americans had their ears full of constant debate among peers and colleagues revolving around the Democratic Primary Election. We certainly all know why: no matter which Democratic candidate was chosen for the presidential election, history was definitely in the making. For the first time, America was being called to accept a change that many naysayers had deemed impossible: the possibility of a black man or a white woman being elected as President of the United States.

Ironically enough, our “black candidate” has been separated from his Kenyan father since he was two years old, and I recently heard someone declare that the “one drop of black blood” rule still remains. Our female candidate has suffered countless jokes, such as Rush Limbaugh’s pointless comment—“So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”—proving that women are still regarded as sexual objects, admired only for their outward appearance instead of what’s inside their heads.

I had the dubious pleasure of speaking with a local Atlanta graduate student (who will remain anonymous) who passionately posed the question, “Since when does serving as first lady constitute being in office or being qualified to serve as President of the United States?” He went on to say, “If you took most married couples and swapped their jobs in a day, almost no one would be able to do their spouse’s job successfully simply on the basis of them being married. So why on earth were Americans suggesting that being a First Lady can prepare one senator over the other in being President?” But my friend wasn’t done there. He also asked, “How long will the U.S. remain in this dynasty mindset? First it was Bush & Bush, now we have Clinton & Clinton. Who knows, maybe Laura Bush will come to run for election during the next term! Is this the House of Windsor? Should we revert back to English parliamentary procedure?” To ignite his already heated position, he then advised that “Barack Obama has secured the majority of America’s votes, and if Hillary Clinton should have won it would have been by superdelegates.” He went on to say that if Clinton had won, he would have voted for John McCain, even though he is a Democrat. He believes, he said, that “Dr. Martin Luther King was the dreamer and Barack Obama is the dream.” On the other hand, I have a question for individuals who supported Hillary Clinton simply because they believed that Barack Obama might be assassinated, or because they thought America wasn’t ready for a black President. If America isn’t ready for a black man, how can the same people believe that America is ready for a white woman? My thinking is simple: I cannot wait until the day arrives when we will vote on a candidate simply because of his or her views, and not because of race or sexuality. I am excited for the day when those who have learned about someone as great as Dr. Martin Luther King, our dreamer, will finally release their generational curses of ignorance long enough to receive the actual dream:

his vision of a beloved community, existing on love shared between the world’s citizens. I cannot wait for the day when we finally realize that we live in this world together, and they we are all responsible for each other’s livelihood. It is my prayer that we realize this before we bring ourselves to our inevitable demise. I will be so excited when that day arrives and we see the Dream. We will finally DREAM BIG, and as the little girl at the South Carolina beauty parlor proclaimed to Michelle Obama, “It means I can imagine anything for myself!”

Fuse Sex and Race: A Grassroots Perspective on the Democratic Party Election

by Valencya Taylor

Ironically enough, our “black candidate” has been separated from his Kenyan father since he was two years old, and I recently heard someone declare that the “one drop of black blood” rule still remains. Our female candidate has suffered countless jokes, such as Rush Limbaugh’s pointless comment—“So the question is this: Will this country want to actually watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?”—proving that women are still regardedas sexual objects, admired only for their outward appearance instead of what’s inside their heads.

I had the distinct pleasure of speaking with a local Atlanta graduate student (who will remain anonymous) who passionately posed the question, “Since when does serving as first lady constitute being in office or being qualified to serve as President of the United States?” He went on to say, “If you took most married couples and swapped their jobs in a day, almost no one would be able to do their spouse’s job successfully simply on the basis of them being married. So why on earth were Americans suggesting that being a First Lady can prepare one senator over the other in being President?” But my friend wasn’t done there. He also asked, “How long will the U.S. remain in this dynasty mindset? First it was Bush & Bush, now we have Clinton & Clinton. Who knows, maybe Laura Bush will come to run for election during the next term! Is this the House of Windsor? Should we revert back to English parliamentary procedure?” To ignite his already heated position, he then advised that “Barack Obama has secured the majority of America’s votes, and if Hillary Clinton should have won it would have been by superdelegates.” He went on to say that if Clinton had won, he would have voted for John McCain, even though he is a Democrat. He believes, he said, that “Dr. Martin Luther King was the dreamer and Barack Obama is the dream.” On the other hand, I have a question for individuals who supported Hillary Clinton simply because they believed that Barack Obama might be assassinated, or because they thought America wasn’t ready for a black President. If America isn’t ready for a black man, how can the same people believe that America is ready for a white woman? My thinking is simple: I cannot wait until the day arrives when we will vote on a candidate simply because of his or her views, and not because of race or sexuality. I am excited for the day when those who have learned about someone as great as Dr. Martin Luther King, our dreamer, will finally release their generational curses of ignorance long enough to receive the actual dream: 42

his vision of a beloved community, existing on love shared between the world’s citizens. I cannot wait for the day when we finally realize that we live in this world together, and that we are all responsible for each other’s livelihood. It is my prayer that we realize this before we bring ourselves to our inevitable demise. I will be so excited when that day arrives and we see the Dream. We will finally DREAM BIG, and as the little girl at the South Carolina beauty parlor proclaimed to Michelle Obama, “It means I can imagine anything for myself!”

VIEWPOINT

OCD Presidency: Obsessive-Compulsive Drilling

by David Wilhelm As gas prices soar, everyone’s looking for the quick fix, and the Bush administration is pushing one solution to get us out of the hole we find ourselves in. We’ll dig our way out! Or more to the point, we’ll drill our way out. Like so many proposals that come from the Republican Party these days, it is overly simplistic and designed to appeal to the public mantra: “Give me convenience or give me death.” Oil companies and their heavily financed functionaries in Congress have been pushing for an end to the federal moratorium on off-shore drilling, initially signed into law by President Bush’s father in the 90’s. But this is only so much malarkey. The fact is that oil companies are free to drill off-shore. The rigs are already out there, drilled years ago, capped, and abandoned to sit and appreciate in value. The moratorium is not on drilling off-shore, but on issuing new leases for drilling off-shore, a fact that finds no play in the mainstream media. Sadly, oil companies do not, in fact, seem interested in drilling as, according to the House Committee on Natural Resources, they currently refuse to drill on seventy-five percent of the existing leases they hold, leases that cover proven reserves. After all, why drill twice as much for half the price when you can drill half that for twice the price? No, it seems the oil companies are pushing for drilling in the outer continental shelf (OCS) not so they can actually drill there, but so that they can secure leases on the

area and sit on them, every barrel out there more money in the bank. Even if they did intend to drill, 80% of the deposits on the OCS can be reached from existing leases. How? Drainage, Eli! It’s all the same milkshake and the straw is already there. Big oil just has to suck on it. Ultimately, the argument for lower fuel costs through more drilling is a red herring. Even if Exxon/Mobil got everything they wanted, it would have no effect on prices at the pump. At least, not any time soon. According to the US Energy Information

Administration, new drilling would not impact fuel prices until 2030. So, twenty-two years from now, when my unborn children are in college, I can look forward to a slight dip in fuel prices. Thanks, GOP! That extra ten or fifteen cents a gallon will be almost enough to make my near-retired self forget that I still don’t have health insurance. It is also becoming increasingly apparent that all the oil out there is not going to save us. We’re in too deep. Right now, the US uses 25% of the world’s oil and sits on 3% of the its reserves. Even if the oil was available as early as next year, there isn’t enough there that it wouldn’t let, as

Larry Craig put it, “the Venezuelas, or the Nigerias, or the Saudi Arabias, or the Irans jerk us around by the gas nozzle.” And if there’s anyone out there who knows about strangers jerking their gas nozzle, it’s Senator “Wide-Stance.” Let’s dive into the math using ANWR as an example. Everyone take out a piece of paper and a number two pencil. According to the EIA, peak production, which will come in seven to twelve years, would be just under a million barrels a day (.9 million). Currently, the US burns through 21 million barrels of oil per day, or .875 million barrels an hour. Even if the president whipped out his magic wand and we hit peak production in ANWR tomorrow, we would be producing enough oil to cover American use for one hour. There are currently an estimated 10 billion barrels (emphasis on “estimated”) in ANWR. Divide that by .875 million barrels per hour and you get about 11,429 hours, which translates into about 476 days or 1.3 years at current consumption rates. And then…we go back to being jerked around. Again, in reality, access to these stores is years down the road, whereas access to existing unused leases is immediate. We are also assuming no increase in global demand for oil, which is sure to increase, given that China is putting 25,000 new cars on the road each day, roughly 9 million per year. Facing numbers like these, the push to drill cannot be seen as anything more than a naked, self-serving power grab by big oil. In the long run, the only real solution is to use less oil, but that’s a tough one, and for all his swagger, Bush doesn’t do tough.

The Old World Order:

Blood and Oil in the Caucasus by Field Palmer Ask Average Joe to locate Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or, hell, now Georgia, on an unmarked atlas, and he’s likely to finger the land of the Spaniards or French in a way that should only be preceded by a kiss of the latter. So it should come as no surprise that to write an article about how the war is going is quite an undertaking. Over the summer, disapproval ratings have fluctuated from lows in the 60’s to highs in the low 70’s. Quite a cold summer for the patriots. That leads me to wonder, “What war are these people thinking of?” The war against terror? The war against WMD’s? The war against dictators? Or, could it be, the war against fundamentalists? It also leads me to wonder if any of these people polled are thinking of the big picture: the war over Central Asia. Up until the whole Georgia fiasco—which has been branded by the fifth grade media mentality as a “who started it” sort of situation—I’d say the war for Central Asian oil and natural gas was going pretty damned well. Within weeks of 9/11 we were back in Turkey at the Incirlik airbase we had been booted from in ‘75, just in time to continue the last section of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil line. Before we know it, we’re buddy-buddy with a like minded freedom fighter in Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, who enjoys such pastimes as boiling dissenters to death for—get this— not praying to him while he bowed to Mecca. This cat is class act all the way, folks. A couple of years later we had that wild card strung up in Iraq.

Hey, it’s not our fault those people can’t get along. Russia’s mini-me, Iran, is feeling the noose tightening as war threats are passed back and forth like a live grenade and, by golly, our missile shield is going quite well with Poland, Georgia and the Czech Republic more than willing to advance our cause. Hell, we almost had Georgia in NATO before Russia stamped out the proverbial flaming bag. It was all looking pretty good. But before I cast my ballot for a job-well-done in the next national poll, let’s take a closer look at this whole Georgia nonsense and how The Great Game of years past is casting a shadow on America’s golden age. That Ruskie Bear and the Royal Lion have been at it for quite

pires? The losers are destroyed with war debt and reparations. The uneasy balance of chaos and control in the world preferred by the Royal family is preserved. Bottom line? WWI was all about resources and commerce. The U.S., as at the end of WWII, was the new force with which to be reckoned. And we don’t give a rat’s ass about a train, we care about those pipelines and the Kashagan oil field found just west of Kazakhstan in the Caspian Sea. Another Great Game. And we just lost a major battle, exposing our war wounds and reminding the world of just how broke we are. This defeat of American interests was so bad that the AGIP KCO oil group that handles the Kashagan considered eliminating oil shipments

“But before I cast my ballot for a job-well-done in the next national poll, let’s take a closer look at this whole Georgia nonsense and how The Great Game of years past is casting a shadow on America’s golden age.” some time. After losing America, the Saxons set out to destabilize the rest of the world in an attempt to preserve their colonies. They did quite well and gained quite a bit. But those damned Cossacks were meddling with British trade in China with the Trans-Siberian Railroad. Commenced in 1891 and completed in 1913, this marvel of human ingenuity spanned 5,772 miles and connected the Sea of Japan to Eurasia. That compounded with the strong Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires next to a very large Germany, well, “That’s just bollocks!” Enter World War I. The pungent smells of musty earth, rusty blood, charred flesh and sour diesel. Lots of screams and invalids. End Scene. 25-30 million dead. Another 20 million wounded. Russia is shredded apart along with Germany. And as for the empires . . . well, what em-

via Azerbaijan and Georgian pipelines and redirecting their shipments to Russia. Mind you, AGIP KCO is largely run by Exxon, Conoco Phillips and Shell. Set back by all of the turmoil in the region throughout the years, the Kazakhstan government is furious and ready to make way for Russian state-run Gazprom. And who does Russia sell to? Not only Europe. It is also a member of the Shanghai Cooperation, with oil-hungry China at the top, rounded out by Iran and followed by Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Not to mention, without the BTC, Kazakhstan can avoid paying heavy pipe fees to the owners and to Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey. Just a thought . . . ride a bike and tear up your draft card. Keep your hopes in the future but your sense in the present.

VIEWPOINT

Gossip Girl by Auriane de Rudder We here at ColloCUE are politically minded, indeed. So it may surprise you to learn of my many frivolous vices. For one, as I told you last month, I am addicted to MySpace. Also, at times, I have been known to immerse myself in OK and People

Democrats are hard-core courting Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt as I type. Oprah got the Barack buzz going with a quickness. But still, I see no official endorsements on Dlisted. I see only the opinions of Mister, or should I say Ms. Hilton himself on Perez’s site. Fafarazzi mentions no fantasypoints scored in their celebrity rosters concerning the presidential race, and all sites lack general presidential campaign advertisements. It’s sad to see these candidates miss the youth-mark yet again. If the older, wiser men and

“I’m not asking for a John Edwards sex tape (although lord knows we may get one).” magazines whilst lounging poolside, absorbing what can only be called an unhealthy amount of UVBs. I am a ringleader on Fafarazzi.com--a website that turns celebrity gossip into a sort of Fantasy Football game with the stars, and worse yet, I am absolutely hooked on Dlisted.com, the crudest, most frequently updated (and scathing) online bitch-fest of a gossip blog I can find. That’s right. I read gossip blogs. And, shhhh! Don’t tell anyone this, okay? So do you. With what I would consider a monumental presidential election just around the corner, and enough political brouhaha in the American mix to make your bouffant go flat, you’d assume a writer like myself would be neck deep in newspapers. But no. Surrounded by important issues and decisions, I hole myself up—hibernation-style—and read total trash to escape the ugly realities of the nightly news. Gossip blogs are like news-sites… covered in glitter. So why, I have been wondering, aren’t any candidates lobbying for my attention the trashy, glitterific way? Think about it. Celebrity endorsements are great for a candidate.

women who want to run this country want to shake us up and grab our attention, putting flashes of Britney and Paris in their ads (ahem! John McCain!) just won’t do it. But getting in direct contact with our trashy media sources possibly could. And sure. It would be a gamble to reach out to a less-than-newsworthy site. Perhaps more mature voters would be turned off. Perhaps

nis Kucinich to perform in a walk-onrole on Gossip Girl. I’m just asking the marketing and strategy “geniuses” in charge of presidential campaigns to target this demographic a little more, well, effectively. Because while what Beyonce’s little sister wore on the red carpet (God, honey, really? Those tights are awful!), or how Pam Anderson feels about KFC’s chickentreatment-ethics may not be of true importance, my vote, and your vote for that matter, certainly are. If I’m checking a site for the what’s-what on who’s-who nearly every day, a wellplaced presidential ad would inevitably penetrate my gossip-glazed mind. And a candidate giving an interview to Michael K of Dlisted? Oh, I’d be all ears. Or eyes. Whatever you want to call it when you’re reading it online. For me, and hopefully for you, the key to a great leader will lie in his or her ability to connect with Americans of all ages. And simply scoffing at American youth and our silly hobbies and interests is not only a step in the wrong direction, but quite frankly, un-American in the sense of market-

“For me, and hopefully for you, the key to a great leader will lie in his or her ability to connect with Americans of all ages. And simply scoffing at American youth and our silly hobbies and interests is not only a step in the wrong direction, but quite frankly, un-American in the sense of marketing.” the credibility of the candidate would falter. Or perhaps young people—you and me, the people who this election matters to and will affect the MOST— will start to pay attention. Grabbing the attention of young voters has always been an uphill battle. So why miss out on such an easy target? I’m not asking for a John Edwards sex tape (although lord knows we may get one). I’m not asking Den-

ing. I thought we were sales pioneers! I thought we were entertainment moguls! Perhaps I thought wrong? On the flipside of all this, I never thought there’d be a day I would call not reading gossip blogs un-American. Maybe we really are doomed.

Black Like Me by Marcus Morris The word “hope” has been used so much that sometimes I hope it’s barred from the popular vernacular. But I still hope for one thing: a black male role model. I exclude men who led before I was born, focusing on men who lead today. Dr. King was a great man, and I believe we are all looking for his successor. But did it really take nearly 40 years to find him? As a 25-year-old man of multiple races, I can honestly say that I have never really had have never really had hope hope for for aa black black public figure to public figure to learn learn from. II admire admire world world leaders leaders like like Nelson Nelson Mandela dela and and Bishop op Desmond Desmond Tutu, Tutu, but but are are those those men men really ally relata b l ee

to me? I grew up in a smallish Midwestern town, and while I respect him, it is difficult to fully relate to the struggle of Nelson Mandela, because I ate McDonald’s as a child and wanted expensive sneakers. Sure, I was grounded plenty of times, but I can’t compete with 27 years in prison. Some people say I should have looked up to Bill Cosby, but I only look up to him because I envision myself living in Brooklyn (the result of being priced out of Manhattan). Plus, I really don’t enjoy sweaters with a load of pattern. I’m a little more inclined to a streamlined cardigan. Bill Cosby never worried about his silhouette: he only worried about Jell-O pudding. What about Jesse Jackson? I have heard heard Jesse Jesse Jackson Jackson speak, speak, and have I respect his work in the Civil I respect his work in the Civil Rights Movement, but I would rather Movement, but I would rather eat glass than than listen listen again. again. Between Between glass his seemingly seemingly incessant incessant need need to his mispronounce words, words, and and his mispronounce now famously divisive comments, now famously divisive comments, he does does not not inspire inspire me me to to “Keep he Hope Alive.” He inspires me Hope Alive.” He inspires me to get the hell out of the room. the hell out of the room. I just just want want someone someone who is I black like like me. me. Someone Someone who who grew black up with the benefits of the up with the benefits of the Civil Rights Movement, Rights Movement, but but who who doesn’t doesn’t feel feel like like he he needs to to shout shout “Hallelujah” every lelujah” time he he uses time a public public rea stroom or stroom sits sits up near near the driver o n

the public bus. I would also like someone who isn’t defined by race. The color of my skin is very visible. I am fortunate enough to be able to get a job because I am a good employee, attend a private art college, and walk down the street with my head held high. I’m leading up to the inevitable: I believe that whether or not he becomes the next president, Barack Obama has become a role model to people of color like myself. He is black like me. It goes without saying that he is intelligent, articulate (thank God), thoughtful, well-dressed, and not defined by class, race, or origin. Obama is surely the reason I wrote this article, but I would never have a resolution without him. I could have easily continued about the lack of relatable leaders from the baby-boom era, but I would just get winded. I could speak about what it is like to grow up with your parents telling you that Jesse Jackson is the only possible candidate for President, and that I should be proud that he represents me. Around my parents, I risk sounding ungrateful if I do not at least mutter something about respect when I bring up Rev. Jackson. The generations that have benefited from the Civil Rights Movement have elected someone to speak on our behalf, and he is Barack Obama. We could very well have a number of people who have crusaded from another era as representative, but the baton has been passed. I hope that the previous generation can understand that we have the power to make strides like never before. I would hate to see it ruined by a mountain of discord. Many of us share completely different experiences regarding civil rights. Maybe hope was all we had, but at this point we have a chance. Let’s keep it together.

FIVE REASONS TO BECOME AN INTERN • • • • •

Gain Priceless Industry Experience Develop & Refine your Skills Improve Your Confidence Accumulate Evidence of Your Abilities Possible Job Placement with the Company

Collocue is a new company offering you the opportunity to come learn and grow with us. This is guaranteed to be one of the greatest experiences of your life as the Media industry is one of the most fast paced and exciting fields to pursue. How often do you have the possibility of joining something on the ground floor? If you’ve ever wanted to be a part of something that invites you to embrace your own personal individuality for the betterment of the company, your team members, and the community around you, you are in the right place. We need Writers, Photographers, Editors, Graphic Design Artists, Web Designers, Brand Ambassadors, and Marketers. We also need Area and Regional Directors of Distribution, Marketing & Design, and Editors.

For immediate consideration, please complete your application on our human resources site at: www.morethanamag.com

Ad Prices & Specifications collocue launches Spring 2008. Our stripped down and straightforward style of writing on topics such as the environment, the economy local and worldwide, politics, culture, and society will leave our readers breathless and ready for more. Our quality full color layouts and original content will create a dynamic environment for our readers to become engaged with your company. Great Reasons to Advertise with colloCUE: •

Caters to young adult market, a HUNDRED BILLION dollar market share.

•

Student driven and Student written. We know what our peers are interested in and how to attract & hold their attention.

•

Beginning distribution at 60,000 in 700 locations nationwide.

•

Dimensions

Reasonable prices. We’re in the relationship business. Talk to us about what you need, and we will find the right solution for your business. Ask about volume prices!

Full Page Trim Size

8 3/8" w x 10 7/8" h

2/3 Page Vertical

411/16" w x 10" h

1/2 Page Vertical

4 3/4" w x 7" h

1/2 Page Horizontal

7 1/4" w x 4 15/16" h

1/3 Page Square

4 3/4" w x 4 15/16" h

1/3 Page Vertical

2 1/4" w x 10" h

1/4 Page Vertical

3 1/2" w x 4 15/16" h

Special Introductory Rates!!! Size Full Page 1/2 Page 2/3 Page 1/3 Page 1/4 Page

1 Month

2 Months

3 Months

$1800 $1200 $1600 $800 $650

$1650 $1000 $1500 $725 $575

$1450 $900 $1400 $650 $500

($2200) ($1400) ($1800) ($900) ($750)

($2000) ($1300) ($1700) ($850) ($700)

($1900) ($1200) ($1600) ($750) ($600)