Posts
By Eric Goncalves
Goncalves@Fordham.edu
Fordham University’s College Republicans recently ran a political poll on the Rose Hill campus to survey the political inclinations and electoral views of the University’s students. The simple four question poll asked students to list their political views, the issue they believed was most influential in the upcoming election, the candidates that they were considering voting for, and if they were familiar with Larry Kudlow.
Upon analyzing the results, there were many unexpected numbers. Ruling out the outliers who were voting for Al Sharpton or Chad Ciocci, the numbers were actually quite surprising. Out of the fifty-two students surveyed, a majority of which viewed themselves as Moderately liberal (about 30%), more than half were voting for McCain/Palin while Obama/Biden fell short with just over 40% of the votes. On a considerably liberal campus in a blue state, it is surprising to see such a result. With Obama leading the national polls, it gets people to think: How much do these polls really reflect the people taking them?
If they do show something, the poll taken by the Fordham College Republicans depicts that not all is lost for John McCain, and despite the deficit he is facing in the national polls, there are some liberals who know that although Barack Obama can make great speeches he may not be the best candidate to lead our great country.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Just don't call us neo-cons!
By Chadwick Ciocci
Cciocci@aol.com
Let’s be clear: LF is NOT neo-conservative! Please, please, please- we are anything but. Neo-conservatism is the philosophical inheritance of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and inherently liberal with its lofty ideals and militarism. True conservatives are non-interventionists and believe in an American foreign policy that protects our vital interests first and doesn’t pursue an idealist goal like spreading democracy worldwide.
Please, just don’t call us neo-conservatives!
Cciocci@aol.com
Let’s be clear: LF is NOT neo-conservative! Please, please, please- we are anything but. Neo-conservatism is the philosophical inheritance of Woodrow Wilson and FDR and inherently liberal with its lofty ideals and militarism. True conservatives are non-interventionists and believe in an American foreign policy that protects our vital interests first and doesn’t pursue an idealist goal like spreading democracy worldwide.
Please, just don’t call us neo-conservatives!
Saturday, October 4, 2008
The Free Market can save the U.S.
By Sean Radomski
SRadomski@Fordham.edu
It is impossible today to pick up a newspaper without reading about the apocalyptic financial crisis and the bailout bill that will supposedly prevent a second Great Depression. Not surprisingly, the media has been quick to assign blame to President George W. Bush’s economic policies. While attacking Bush’s policies may be a good way to score votes this November, it does not address the fundamental cause of this financial crisis. The current economic slowdown has been fundamentally caused by excessive government intervention into the economy, dating back to the Carter Administration.
That fact that the origin of the problem is the Carter Administration, which is notoriously known for long gas station lines, high inflation, and even higher interest rates, should not come as a surprise to free-market advocates. In an effort to further so called “economic justice,” Carter signed into law the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in an attempt to promote “affordable housing.” The CRA forced banks to make loans to minorities and consumers with poor credit and allowed regulators to impose fines on the banks if they did not meet these standards.
Fast-forward 26 years to 2003, the year when mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were found to have committed accounting fraud. In an attempt to sidestep Congressional criticism, Fannie and Freddie offered to increase loans to low income, poor credit consumers in accordance with the CRA. This move was political music to Rep. Barney Frank’s ears who believed that Fannie and Freddie were “not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and that “the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
His Senate counterpart, Sen. Christopher Dodd also praised the mortgage giants for “riding to the rescue” and believed that they “need[ed] to do more” in terms of “affordable housing.” Conversely, while Democrats in Congress were praising the call for more “affordable housing,” Treasury Secretary John Snow was urging for the creation of a new agency to monitor the mortgage giants. In fact President Bush publicly called for reform of Fannie and Freddie 17 times before this year, but his call fell on the deaf ear of the Democrats in Congress. It should be noted that Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank, and current Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama have received $133,900; $40,100, and $105,849 in campaign contributions, respectively, from Fannie and Freddie since 1989.
To add fuel to the fire, from 2003-2005 the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate at 1%. The Fed kept the rate low in an attempt to stimulate economic growth after the “dot com” bubble had burst. Low income consumers with bad credit (yes, the same ones targeted by the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie) saw this as an opportunity to take out a subprime mortgage and buy a house. The rapid increase in home ownership fostered by the 1% interest rate drove up home prices and created a housing bubble. However, once the Fed raised interest rates and those with subprime mortgages could not keep up, the bubble burst.
The bursting of the housing bubble has led to the failure of many financial firms, such as Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brother, that had mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets. Their failure has led to the call for a massive $700 billion bailout bill that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to buy these securities, thus removing them from the firms’ balance sheets. The theory is that with now clean balance sheets, the firms will draw capital, thus unfreezing the credit market which will allow Main Street consumers to receive much needed loans.
This bailout bill is flawed and is bad for the American economy because it fails to remember the key principle of capitalism: reward those who perform well. Instead, the bill does the complete opposite and rewards the companies that made poor investments.
If passed this bill will set a frightening precedent that encourages bad investing with the knowledge that if you fail, the government will save you at the expense of the American tax payer. The bill’s logic is also flawed in assuming that once these toxic assets are off balance sheets, capital will flow to the firms. Why would anyone risk investing his hard earned money in a company that has so recently shown poor judgment?
Excessive government intervention into our countries financial system in the triple threat of the CSA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve has led to this crisis. The last thing we need is $700 billion of more government. The fastest way to fix this mess is eliminate the mark-to-market accounting rule that has artificially lowered firms’ asset values.
Mark-to market accounting requires firms to value their assets at the price they could fetch on the open mark right now. If this rule is eliminated, firms will be able to value the assets at an estimated future market price; thus increasing the value of the balance sheets. If mark-to-market were eliminated earlier this year, Washington Mutual and Wachovia would not have been sold and Lehman Brothers would not have failed. As for the firms that still cannot make it: let them fail. This will weed out the poorly managed companies, making sure they are not around in the future to make the same mistakes. This will allow stronger, well run firms to gain market share and protect the future of the American economy.
SRadomski@Fordham.edu
It is impossible today to pick up a newspaper without reading about the apocalyptic financial crisis and the bailout bill that will supposedly prevent a second Great Depression. Not surprisingly, the media has been quick to assign blame to President George W. Bush’s economic policies. While attacking Bush’s policies may be a good way to score votes this November, it does not address the fundamental cause of this financial crisis. The current economic slowdown has been fundamentally caused by excessive government intervention into the economy, dating back to the Carter Administration.
That fact that the origin of the problem is the Carter Administration, which is notoriously known for long gas station lines, high inflation, and even higher interest rates, should not come as a surprise to free-market advocates. In an effort to further so called “economic justice,” Carter signed into law the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) in an attempt to promote “affordable housing.” The CRA forced banks to make loans to minorities and consumers with poor credit and allowed regulators to impose fines on the banks if they did not meet these standards.
Fast-forward 26 years to 2003, the year when mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were found to have committed accounting fraud. In an attempt to sidestep Congressional criticism, Fannie and Freddie offered to increase loans to low income, poor credit consumers in accordance with the CRA. This move was political music to Rep. Barney Frank’s ears who believed that Fannie and Freddie were “not facing any kind of financial crisis,” and that “the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.”
His Senate counterpart, Sen. Christopher Dodd also praised the mortgage giants for “riding to the rescue” and believed that they “need[ed] to do more” in terms of “affordable housing.” Conversely, while Democrats in Congress were praising the call for more “affordable housing,” Treasury Secretary John Snow was urging for the creation of a new agency to monitor the mortgage giants. In fact President Bush publicly called for reform of Fannie and Freddie 17 times before this year, but his call fell on the deaf ear of the Democrats in Congress. It should be noted that Sen. Dodd, Rep. Frank, and current Presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama have received $133,900; $40,100, and $105,849 in campaign contributions, respectively, from Fannie and Freddie since 1989.
To add fuel to the fire, from 2003-2005 the Federal Reserve kept the federal funds rate at 1%. The Fed kept the rate low in an attempt to stimulate economic growth after the “dot com” bubble had burst. Low income consumers with bad credit (yes, the same ones targeted by the CRA, Fannie, and Freddie) saw this as an opportunity to take out a subprime mortgage and buy a house. The rapid increase in home ownership fostered by the 1% interest rate drove up home prices and created a housing bubble. However, once the Fed raised interest rates and those with subprime mortgages could not keep up, the bubble burst.
The bursting of the housing bubble has led to the failure of many financial firms, such as Bear-Stearns and Lehman Brother, that had mortgage-backed securities on their balance sheets. Their failure has led to the call for a massive $700 billion bailout bill that will enable the Secretary of the Treasury to buy these securities, thus removing them from the firms’ balance sheets. The theory is that with now clean balance sheets, the firms will draw capital, thus unfreezing the credit market which will allow Main Street consumers to receive much needed loans.
This bailout bill is flawed and is bad for the American economy because it fails to remember the key principle of capitalism: reward those who perform well. Instead, the bill does the complete opposite and rewards the companies that made poor investments.
If passed this bill will set a frightening precedent that encourages bad investing with the knowledge that if you fail, the government will save you at the expense of the American tax payer. The bill’s logic is also flawed in assuming that once these toxic assets are off balance sheets, capital will flow to the firms. Why would anyone risk investing his hard earned money in a company that has so recently shown poor judgment?
Excessive government intervention into our countries financial system in the triple threat of the CSA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the Federal Reserve has led to this crisis. The last thing we need is $700 billion of more government. The fastest way to fix this mess is eliminate the mark-to-market accounting rule that has artificially lowered firms’ asset values.
Mark-to market accounting requires firms to value their assets at the price they could fetch on the open mark right now. If this rule is eliminated, firms will be able to value the assets at an estimated future market price; thus increasing the value of the balance sheets. If mark-to-market were eliminated earlier this year, Washington Mutual and Wachovia would not have been sold and Lehman Brothers would not have failed. As for the firms that still cannot make it: let them fail. This will weed out the poorly managed companies, making sure they are not around in the future to make the same mistakes. This will allow stronger, well run firms to gain market share and protect the future of the American economy.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
LF Available in McGinley Center soon!
Keep an eye out for an LF distribution table. It should be in McGinley at the end of next week or near that time!
Also, if you are not a Fordham student but would like a copy of LF, please send a check with a minimum suggested donation of $5 to the following address:
Liberty Forum of Fordham University
P.O. Box 1394
441 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
Also, if you are not a Fordham student but would like a copy of LF, please send a check with a minimum suggested donation of $5 to the following address:
Liberty Forum of Fordham University
P.O. Box 1394
441 East Fordham Road
Bronx, NY 10458
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Official National Language is a No-go for Obama
By Michelle Hardy
(Note: This article appeared in the print version of LF but was unfortunately cut off at the end. It appears in its entirety here. Enjoy.)
It was a rare moment in history when a Barack Obama’s speech caused worrisome ‘uh-oh’s’ instead of the usual ecstatic joy and optimism. “Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English… you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!” declared the Illinois junior senator in Powder Springs, Georgia. Thankfully, the finely tuned public ear caught the resonant undertone in Obama’s statement that assimilation ought to be conciliatory, on the part of the native citizens of this country.
After substantial criticism, Obama assured the public his comments merely intended that it is time for Americans to branch out and become bilingual, trilingual, etc. And that’s a great idea. Yet the glaring flaw in this speech was not that Obama wants Santa to leave some Rosetta Stone software under the holiday tree this year. His comments implied that, although he acknowledges the need for immigrants to learn English, it is not a top priority issue for him.
According to polls, Americans recognize the threat of losing their bond formed by having one language, while letting an assortment of languages fight for attention, creating cultural barriers between natives and newcomers. This is not an unlikely scenario, considering that the Hispanic population will have nearly tripled between the years 2000 and 2050 according to the US Census Bureau, reaching 102.6 million and radically shifting America’s cultural climate.
That’s why the 2007 Zogby poll reported that 83 percent of US citizens would like to officially name English the country’s national language. Three-quarters of Hispanic Americans within the survey, an unexpected and astounding number, favored a national language as well. While the decision would help maintain unity as the nation’s Spanish-speaking population skyrockets, Obama voted against such a move in 2006 and again in 2007.
America is actually the most multilingual country in the world, considering almost every world language is spoken on its soil. We learned in kindergarten that the reason our wide array of ethnicities can co-exist peacefully is the unifying American melting pot: living under one common language and one common culture while every ethnic group or nationality adds a unique flavor to the recipe. School House Rock metaphors aside, when immigrants arriving in large droves are not adequately encouraged to, or are implicitly encouraged not to, assimilate into mainstream culture, primarily through language, a destructive disunity arises.
This is already happening in cities like Miami, where the Hispanic and Latino population composes 80.3 percent of the city’s people, and English speakers are a minority. It’s now extremely difficult for those who don’t speak Spanish to find jobs in the city - even simple minimum wage jobs. As a result, many English speakers are moving out.
Canada decided to embrace two national languages - English and French - but the results have been a bit less than impressive. Residents of Quebec, a French-speaking province, continually argue they should secede from the nation because their culture is so distinct from the rest of Canada.
And that’s in a country much less linguistically diverse than the US. What’s protecting us from similar cultural incompatibility in our future? Will we make Hispanic immigrants more comfortable at the expense of other immigrants? Will Indian or Arab immigrants seeking jobs have to learn English and Spanish on top of their native languages? Will distinct areas of the US become virtually inaccessible to English speakers?
It is undoubtedly important that US children do learn a second or third language in an age of globalization, and in all fairness, Spanish is extremely beneficial, considering it is the second most spoken language in the world. But a language should be acquired as a personal goal for professional or travel purposes - not to make living without English easier on any one immigrant group.
“While bilingualism is something to which more Americans should aspire in today's global economy, the skill is certainly not a civic duty, rather, something extra to be lauded upon its achievement,” said Fordham sophomore Ryan Vale.
The US has had non-English-speaking immigrants for as long as it has existed. Not until the current porous border crisis have we ever found logic in adopting immigrants’ languages so that English isn’t a necessity. New Yorkers in the early 1900’s did not campaign for Italian to be a vital part of their children’s curriculum. Italians fully integrated, linguistically and otherwise, and we can now go to Little Italy right outside Fordham and communicate with every waiter in every restaurant on Arthur Avenue (save for a bit of embarrassment at how we pronounce, or more likely mispronounce, the menu).
“I believe that to promote unity we need not only a national language but also a law that requires immigrants in the naturalization process to learn that language after being in the country for a certain amount of time,” says Fordham senior James Scalera. “In order to interact with other individuals in society and in order for the economy to function properly, each of us must be able to speak one common language. If we make exceptions for one ethnicity we must make an exception for all ethnicities, something which is obviously not feasible or at all realistic.”
So why should an official language be the first step in encouraging the United States to unite? With this move, all government business – including public documents, meetings, legislation, hearings, and government ceremonies – would be conducted solely in English. This would encourage fluency in English so that immigrants could participate in the democratic process and fully assimilate.
Opponents ironically argue this shows racism and intolerance, yet without English, immigrants are isolated linguistically and culturally from other citizens. Rumors that English would be forced upon immigrants in healthcare and judicial matters are blatantly incorrect. The official move to a national language would be the first step in closing the cultural gap between new and old Americans, connecting them by means of a universally spoken language.
If learning English takes the back seat in national politics, there is a great chance it will take the back seat for immigrants as well. Declaring a national language is not a priority for Obama, and showing leniency on this vital need, “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” cannot be afforded in coming years. More than ever before, it’s an issue we most definitely need to be “worrying” about.
America’s diversity is admirable because a variety of ethnicities can stand together under one common language and culture, not because its diverse cultural groups exist interdependently, factionalized in their varying comfort zones. Voting against a unifying national language as ethnic demographics in America rapidly transform is just not logical. ¡Es ilógico, Obama!
(Note: This article appeared in the print version of LF but was unfortunately cut off at the end. It appears in its entirety here. Enjoy.)
It was a rare moment in history when a Barack Obama’s speech caused worrisome ‘uh-oh’s’ instead of the usual ecstatic joy and optimism. “Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English… you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish!” declared the Illinois junior senator in Powder Springs, Georgia. Thankfully, the finely tuned public ear caught the resonant undertone in Obama’s statement that assimilation ought to be conciliatory, on the part of the native citizens of this country.
After substantial criticism, Obama assured the public his comments merely intended that it is time for Americans to branch out and become bilingual, trilingual, etc. And that’s a great idea. Yet the glaring flaw in this speech was not that Obama wants Santa to leave some Rosetta Stone software under the holiday tree this year. His comments implied that, although he acknowledges the need for immigrants to learn English, it is not a top priority issue for him.
According to polls, Americans recognize the threat of losing their bond formed by having one language, while letting an assortment of languages fight for attention, creating cultural barriers between natives and newcomers. This is not an unlikely scenario, considering that the Hispanic population will have nearly tripled between the years 2000 and 2050 according to the US Census Bureau, reaching 102.6 million and radically shifting America’s cultural climate.
That’s why the 2007 Zogby poll reported that 83 percent of US citizens would like to officially name English the country’s national language. Three-quarters of Hispanic Americans within the survey, an unexpected and astounding number, favored a national language as well. While the decision would help maintain unity as the nation’s Spanish-speaking population skyrockets, Obama voted against such a move in 2006 and again in 2007.
America is actually the most multilingual country in the world, considering almost every world language is spoken on its soil. We learned in kindergarten that the reason our wide array of ethnicities can co-exist peacefully is the unifying American melting pot: living under one common language and one common culture while every ethnic group or nationality adds a unique flavor to the recipe. School House Rock metaphors aside, when immigrants arriving in large droves are not adequately encouraged to, or are implicitly encouraged not to, assimilate into mainstream culture, primarily through language, a destructive disunity arises.
This is already happening in cities like Miami, where the Hispanic and Latino population composes 80.3 percent of the city’s people, and English speakers are a minority. It’s now extremely difficult for those who don’t speak Spanish to find jobs in the city - even simple minimum wage jobs. As a result, many English speakers are moving out.
Canada decided to embrace two national languages - English and French - but the results have been a bit less than impressive. Residents of Quebec, a French-speaking province, continually argue they should secede from the nation because their culture is so distinct from the rest of Canada.
And that’s in a country much less linguistically diverse than the US. What’s protecting us from similar cultural incompatibility in our future? Will we make Hispanic immigrants more comfortable at the expense of other immigrants? Will Indian or Arab immigrants seeking jobs have to learn English and Spanish on top of their native languages? Will distinct areas of the US become virtually inaccessible to English speakers?
It is undoubtedly important that US children do learn a second or third language in an age of globalization, and in all fairness, Spanish is extremely beneficial, considering it is the second most spoken language in the world. But a language should be acquired as a personal goal for professional or travel purposes - not to make living without English easier on any one immigrant group.
“While bilingualism is something to which more Americans should aspire in today's global economy, the skill is certainly not a civic duty, rather, something extra to be lauded upon its achievement,” said Fordham sophomore Ryan Vale.
The US has had non-English-speaking immigrants for as long as it has existed. Not until the current porous border crisis have we ever found logic in adopting immigrants’ languages so that English isn’t a necessity. New Yorkers in the early 1900’s did not campaign for Italian to be a vital part of their children’s curriculum. Italians fully integrated, linguistically and otherwise, and we can now go to Little Italy right outside Fordham and communicate with every waiter in every restaurant on Arthur Avenue (save for a bit of embarrassment at how we pronounce, or more likely mispronounce, the menu).
“I believe that to promote unity we need not only a national language but also a law that requires immigrants in the naturalization process to learn that language after being in the country for a certain amount of time,” says Fordham senior James Scalera. “In order to interact with other individuals in society and in order for the economy to function properly, each of us must be able to speak one common language. If we make exceptions for one ethnicity we must make an exception for all ethnicities, something which is obviously not feasible or at all realistic.”
So why should an official language be the first step in encouraging the United States to unite? With this move, all government business – including public documents, meetings, legislation, hearings, and government ceremonies – would be conducted solely in English. This would encourage fluency in English so that immigrants could participate in the democratic process and fully assimilate.
Opponents ironically argue this shows racism and intolerance, yet without English, immigrants are isolated linguistically and culturally from other citizens. Rumors that English would be forced upon immigrants in healthcare and judicial matters are blatantly incorrect. The official move to a national language would be the first step in closing the cultural gap between new and old Americans, connecting them by means of a universally spoken language.
If learning English takes the back seat in national politics, there is a great chance it will take the back seat for immigrants as well. Declaring a national language is not a priority for Obama, and showing leniency on this vital need, “instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English,” cannot be afforded in coming years. More than ever before, it’s an issue we most definitely need to be “worrying” about.
America’s diversity is admirable because a variety of ethnicities can stand together under one common language and culture, not because its diverse cultural groups exist interdependently, factionalized in their varying comfort zones. Voting against a unifying national language as ethnic demographics in America rapidly transform is just not logical. ¡Es ilógico, Obama!
US Must Maintain a Top-tier Nuclear Arsenal
By Chadwick Ciocci
This past summer I had the opportunity to participate in an interview on US nuclear weapons policy with a public broadcasting company based out of Nagasaki, Japan (essentially the Japanese equivalent of PBS). My Japanese friends sought to understand American reasoning and opinion on its current nuclear weapons policy in this new age of global terrorism and moving threats.
They had a difficult time understanding why I would support maintaining a top tier nuclear weapons arsenal when I readily acknowledged that nuclear weapons are not a deterrent to terrorists like Osama bin Laden. I admitted that at first this may seem like a contradiction in threat and response, but that in fact one has nothing to do with the other.
You see, nuclear weapons are a deterrent to rational, normal governments- not radical, Islamic, and state-less jihadists. They are a deterrent to nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, not al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or any of the other terrorist groups who seek to destroy the lives of innocent civilians.
Why maintain a nuclear arsenal then when terrorism is the main existential threat against the USA? Because terrorism isn’t the only threat against the USA.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed into Russia and China is becoming increasingly capitalistic, these two nations pose a very real threat to the USA, especially in the long term. Russia is not only dramatically rebounding economically but is becoming more and more aggressive on the world stage, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev. Likewise, China is becoming a major economic powerhouse which will eventually translate into a major military powerhouse.
But Russia and China are not the only two long-term potential adversaries we face. In the shorter term, North Korea, Iran and Syria pose serious potential nuclear threats. Emotions in the Middle East continue to be (?)aflame as the USA gallops around nation building.(?)Unfortunately it may come to the point where sultans and Muslims alike feel the only way to get on equal footing with the USA will be to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
A cursory overview of the United States’ current and future threats (all which involve nations that currently possess nuclear weapons or ones which are actively seeking them) makes it abundantly clear that it would be quite foolish for the US, in any way, to make itself vulnerable to these nations by weakening its own nuclear arsenal.
Why then do some people advocate the abolition of the United States’ nuclear weapons cache? I believe such advocacy is powered by several factors:
1. A lack of understanding of the threats against our nation.
2. An unrealistic and blinding (but very respectable) idealism.
In the case of my Japanese friends, it seemed as if these were the two most prevalent reasons they supported American abolition (when considering the fact that they are from Nagasaki, it is easy to understand their short-sided impracticality.)
One will note that I label such blinding idealism as respectable, and I do not do so facetiously. I truly believe such idealism is respectable, as I share in the belief that the end goal of American and international policy should be the total abolition of nuclear weaponry- I merely want to pursue this goal in a way that ensures the safety and security of the USA.
If we contend that the primary responsibility of government is to protect its citizens against threats foreign and domestic, then to disarm ourselves in a way that would give Russia, China or some other nation a nuclear tactical superiority would be not only foolish but irresponsible, and represent a failure of American government.
This past summer I had the opportunity to participate in an interview on US nuclear weapons policy with a public broadcasting company based out of Nagasaki, Japan (essentially the Japanese equivalent of PBS). My Japanese friends sought to understand American reasoning and opinion on its current nuclear weapons policy in this new age of global terrorism and moving threats.
They had a difficult time understanding why I would support maintaining a top tier nuclear weapons arsenal when I readily acknowledged that nuclear weapons are not a deterrent to terrorists like Osama bin Laden. I admitted that at first this may seem like a contradiction in threat and response, but that in fact one has nothing to do with the other.
You see, nuclear weapons are a deterrent to rational, normal governments- not radical, Islamic, and state-less jihadists. They are a deterrent to nations like Russia, China, North Korea and Iran, not al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or any of the other terrorist groups who seek to destroy the lives of innocent civilians.
Why maintain a nuclear arsenal then when terrorism is the main existential threat against the USA? Because terrorism isn’t the only threat against the USA.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that the Soviet Union collapsed into Russia and China is becoming increasingly capitalistic, these two nations pose a very real threat to the USA, especially in the long term. Russia is not only dramatically rebounding economically but is becoming more and more aggressive on the world stage, under the leadership of Vladimir Putin and his successor Dmitry Medvedev. Likewise, China is becoming a major economic powerhouse which will eventually translate into a major military powerhouse.
But Russia and China are not the only two long-term potential adversaries we face. In the shorter term, North Korea, Iran and Syria pose serious potential nuclear threats. Emotions in the Middle East continue to be (?)aflame as the USA gallops around nation building.(?)Unfortunately it may come to the point where sultans and Muslims alike feel the only way to get on equal footing with the USA will be to develop nuclear weapons of their own.
A cursory overview of the United States’ current and future threats (all which involve nations that currently possess nuclear weapons or ones which are actively seeking them) makes it abundantly clear that it would be quite foolish for the US, in any way, to make itself vulnerable to these nations by weakening its own nuclear arsenal.
Why then do some people advocate the abolition of the United States’ nuclear weapons cache? I believe such advocacy is powered by several factors:
1. A lack of understanding of the threats against our nation.
2. An unrealistic and blinding (but very respectable) idealism.
In the case of my Japanese friends, it seemed as if these were the two most prevalent reasons they supported American abolition (when considering the fact that they are from Nagasaki, it is easy to understand their short-sided impracticality.)
One will note that I label such blinding idealism as respectable, and I do not do so facetiously. I truly believe such idealism is respectable, as I share in the belief that the end goal of American and international policy should be the total abolition of nuclear weaponry- I merely want to pursue this goal in a way that ensures the safety and security of the USA.
If we contend that the primary responsibility of government is to protect its citizens against threats foreign and domestic, then to disarm ourselves in a way that would give Russia, China or some other nation a nuclear tactical superiority would be not only foolish but irresponsible, and represent a failure of American government.
Pain at the Pump
By Barbara F. Delo
Tuition, books, food…..gas.
The 2,500 students who park their cars in Fordham’s parking lots every day will have to dig deeper into their pockets this year. For many of the students who drive daily to Fordham, the price of commuting far exceeds the price of books and is inching up on the cost of room and board. Gas prices, in particular, have reached such high levels that both presidential camps have put forth plans to help ease the burden of high gas prices.
In January of 2007, the average price of a gallon of gas nationwide was $2.27. In July of 2007, the average was a record high $4.16 a gallon.
What does this mean to the typical Fordham commuting student? A recent fill up of a midsize car at a Mobil Station in Nanuet, New York cost sixty-six dollars, and the round trip from there to Fordham used a quarter of a tank of gas. It would cost a minimum of $1908.00 for a Fordham student from this area to drive to classes four days a week for an entire school year. Add to that amount $450.00 a year for tolls, $440.00 a year for a parking pass, higher gas usage when the traffic is bad, and an occasional trip for a football game and the price tag for a commuting student from Rockland County is above three thousand dollars a year. Gas expenses for a student from Monroe or Yorktown Heights would be a little higher, for students from Yonkers and White Plains, a little less.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the price of foreign oil on the world market is far and away the biggest culprit in the increase in gas prices. America imports 66% of the crude oil used in this country primarily from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, and Mexico. As countries like China and India put more cars on the road, the demand for gasoline world wide increases and drives up the amount oil producing countries can charge. These higher prices are then magnified as the oil moves to the United States because of the recent devaluation of the dollar.
Taxes represent the next highest portion of the price of gas. In 2007 the national average for combined federal, state, and local taxes represented 24% of the total price of gasoline.
Other contributing factors, like natural disasters, that affect the oil infrastructure and investment in the oil supply by speculators have a smaller impact price of oil.
What will our next president do?
Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama’s proposal for dealing with the current energy crisis focuses on reducing America’s oil consumption. He proposes to achieve this through an “Apollo like commitment” to new technology that would provide alternatives to oil as our primary fuel and add efficiency to our cars. According to his official campaign website, an “Obama Administration would invest 150 billion government dollars over ten years towards the development of biofuels, plug-in hybrids, and renewable energy.” He also proposes to send government checks to low income families to help defray the cost of higher fuel prices.
Obama’s current plan leaves in place existing bans on new development in either the oil rich Anwar region of Alaska or in our nation’s numerous offshore oil deposits. This plan is, therefore, acceptable to even the most stringent environmentalists. However, it still leaves foreign oil as a significant source of our nation’s fuel until technological breakthroughs succeed in changing the face of the automobile industry. Recently, Obama has shown signs of wavering on this environmental commitment.
Republican presidential candidate, John McCain has a more vigorous plan to alleviate the present gas crisis. His plan would approach the problem on a number of different fronts. Named by his campaign the Lexington project, his goal is to address both short term prices and to make America free of dependence on foreign oil by the year 2025.
Short term, McCain proposes a gas tax holiday that would bring relief from federal taxes to all citizens. He also supports lifting the ban on off-shore drilling increasing domestic oil production within two years. Lower prices could be realized even sooner as anticipated new supplies would decrease the need for holding back large reserves. “We have trillions of dollars of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy,” he explains.
As part of his overall plan, McCain would also encourage research on new energy technologies, including biofuels, renewable energy sources, and battery technology. To do this, he would offer tax incentives and bonuses to companies for breakthrough technology. Finally, McCain sees controlled nuclear power and development of clean coal technology as part of a long term plan to free America from dependence on foreign oil.
Both the Obama and McCain plans oppose irresponsible oil speculation.
As the politicians debate the issue in Washington and the presidential candidates argue their policy positions, Fordham commuting students are left battling the higher gas prices here at home. Students adjust their schedules to fit needed classes into as few days as possible. They check websites to find the lowest gas prices and they look for carpools. Some students detour across the George Washington Bridge to Jersey for cheaper gas. A few daring students even park on Fordham road, a risky endeavor as campus security reports a significant number of car break-ins off campus each semester, to avoid the recently increased parking fees. But be wary of this. A better course of action might be to use the new parking plan offered by the school that offers a lower fee and pay-per-usage coupons.
Even our teachers are not immune from the higher price of gas. And for Fordham graduates who nab prestigious jobs in The Big Apple, the pain of commuting may be just beginning.
Tuition, books, food…..gas.
The 2,500 students who park their cars in Fordham’s parking lots every day will have to dig deeper into their pockets this year. For many of the students who drive daily to Fordham, the price of commuting far exceeds the price of books and is inching up on the cost of room and board. Gas prices, in particular, have reached such high levels that both presidential camps have put forth plans to help ease the burden of high gas prices.
In January of 2007, the average price of a gallon of gas nationwide was $2.27. In July of 2007, the average was a record high $4.16 a gallon.
What does this mean to the typical Fordham commuting student? A recent fill up of a midsize car at a Mobil Station in Nanuet, New York cost sixty-six dollars, and the round trip from there to Fordham used a quarter of a tank of gas. It would cost a minimum of $1908.00 for a Fordham student from this area to drive to classes four days a week for an entire school year. Add to that amount $450.00 a year for tolls, $440.00 a year for a parking pass, higher gas usage when the traffic is bad, and an occasional trip for a football game and the price tag for a commuting student from Rockland County is above three thousand dollars a year. Gas expenses for a student from Monroe or Yorktown Heights would be a little higher, for students from Yonkers and White Plains, a little less.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the price of foreign oil on the world market is far and away the biggest culprit in the increase in gas prices. America imports 66% of the crude oil used in this country primarily from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq, and Mexico. As countries like China and India put more cars on the road, the demand for gasoline world wide increases and drives up the amount oil producing countries can charge. These higher prices are then magnified as the oil moves to the United States because of the recent devaluation of the dollar.
Taxes represent the next highest portion of the price of gas. In 2007 the national average for combined federal, state, and local taxes represented 24% of the total price of gasoline.
Other contributing factors, like natural disasters, that affect the oil infrastructure and investment in the oil supply by speculators have a smaller impact price of oil.
What will our next president do?
Democratic presidential hopeful Barak Obama’s proposal for dealing with the current energy crisis focuses on reducing America’s oil consumption. He proposes to achieve this through an “Apollo like commitment” to new technology that would provide alternatives to oil as our primary fuel and add efficiency to our cars. According to his official campaign website, an “Obama Administration would invest 150 billion government dollars over ten years towards the development of biofuels, plug-in hybrids, and renewable energy.” He also proposes to send government checks to low income families to help defray the cost of higher fuel prices.
Obama’s current plan leaves in place existing bans on new development in either the oil rich Anwar region of Alaska or in our nation’s numerous offshore oil deposits. This plan is, therefore, acceptable to even the most stringent environmentalists. However, it still leaves foreign oil as a significant source of our nation’s fuel until technological breakthroughs succeed in changing the face of the automobile industry. Recently, Obama has shown signs of wavering on this environmental commitment.
Republican presidential candidate, John McCain has a more vigorous plan to alleviate the present gas crisis. His plan would approach the problem on a number of different fronts. Named by his campaign the Lexington project, his goal is to address both short term prices and to make America free of dependence on foreign oil by the year 2025.
Short term, McCain proposes a gas tax holiday that would bring relief from federal taxes to all citizens. He also supports lifting the ban on off-shore drilling increasing domestic oil production within two years. Lower prices could be realized even sooner as anticipated new supplies would decrease the need for holding back large reserves. “We have trillions of dollars of oil and gas reserves in the US at a time we are exporting hundreds of billions of dollars a year overseas to buy energy,” he explains.
As part of his overall plan, McCain would also encourage research on new energy technologies, including biofuels, renewable energy sources, and battery technology. To do this, he would offer tax incentives and bonuses to companies for breakthrough technology. Finally, McCain sees controlled nuclear power and development of clean coal technology as part of a long term plan to free America from dependence on foreign oil.
Both the Obama and McCain plans oppose irresponsible oil speculation.
As the politicians debate the issue in Washington and the presidential candidates argue their policy positions, Fordham commuting students are left battling the higher gas prices here at home. Students adjust their schedules to fit needed classes into as few days as possible. They check websites to find the lowest gas prices and they look for carpools. Some students detour across the George Washington Bridge to Jersey for cheaper gas. A few daring students even park on Fordham road, a risky endeavor as campus security reports a significant number of car break-ins off campus each semester, to avoid the recently increased parking fees. But be wary of this. A better course of action might be to use the new parking plan offered by the school that offers a lower fee and pay-per-usage coupons.
Even our teachers are not immune from the higher price of gas. And for Fordham graduates who nab prestigious jobs in The Big Apple, the pain of commuting may be just beginning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
