New Textbooks, Really?

John Curtis - The Corsair

As many a student will attest, financial excess and attending college seldom co-exist.  There is no doubt that a college education is expensive, but this point is only exacerbated by our current textbook system.

I considered taking a Pre-Calculus course this fall as an elective, but eventually passed on the notion.  What I found interesting was the cost of the textbook at $171.  This semester finds students needing to buy a new book, which has been introduced into the Pensacola State College (PSC) curriculum.  My first thought is, “what new discovery have they found in this branch of Mathematics, or in any math course offered at PSC?”  I would be inclined to believe there is none. 

Why must Literature courses, which have textbooks with hundreds of literary works, change the course required books in favor of new books containing the same stories and authors.  Why not utilize all the works in one book before considering a new textbook.  Has Faulkner or Hemingway or Shakespeare written something new since their death?  I hope not.

And then there are history books on eras prior to the 21^st century that must be changed periodically.  Have historical figures such as George Washington, Julius Caesar or Henry VIII been resurrected to add to their historical biographies?  Have the events changed in centuries gone by? 

There are many other courses, which I have not taken, that are subject to this same criticism. 

While there changes that occur daily, are they so dire to higher education that we need to continually change our textbooks?  Why not supplement textbooks with addendums?  I’ve had courses where the textbook was seldom used, because the instructors lectured or taught the course through their presentations.

In fairness to everyone involved, I have encountered instructors who allow their students to use outdated books as long as the student doesn’t mind the possible drawbacks or inconveniences.  I’ve also heard instructors express their sympathy for a student’s plight in the politics of textbooks.

Most people believe our current system of textbook requirements is simply in place for the revenue it generates.  Who is paying?  Those who can very often least afford to pay.  Typical of a political system, there needs to be change.

Most students are more than willing to pay for what is required of them to attain their education goals, but don’t needlessly take our limited resources to feed the greedy beast.

Smoking shouldn’t be banned campus wide

The Corsair staff has recently learned that the administration at PJC is considering implementing a ban on smoking anywhere on the Pensacola campus – a rule which is already in effect on the Warrington campus.

We at the Corsair feel this proposed campus-wide smoking ban would be far too overreaching and unnecessary. While we understand and empathize with why such a ban is being considered, we feel the reasons against such a ban outweigh the reasons in favor.

Granted, secondhand smoke and cigarette litter are legitimate concerns, but forcing hundreds of students who smoke cigarettes to leave the campus is far too excessive means by which to address such issues.

A mass exodus of smokers from campus between classes poses many problems, such as more congestion of traffic, students losing their parking spots, non-driving students struggling to find safe smoking locations, and ultimately more students being late for classes.

We also see no reasonable way such a rule could be effectively enforced. We feel requiring PJC security personnel to constantly be on watch for people smoking on campus would be a complete waste of time and resources.  

PJC already has a rule in place which states that people must smoke at least (NEED FIGURE) feet away from any building. We feel this rule is sufficient enough and should be enforced rather than implementing a campus-wide smoking ban.

It would be far easier to enforce the current rules than impose the proposed smoking prohibition.

However, if the administration just absolutely feels the current smoking rules are not working, we recommend in the very least a smoking area to be designated in a specific location or locations across the campus similar to free speech zones.

These accommodations could be very easily implemented and enforced. And this method would prevent students and faculty from having to leave the campus altogether in order to partake in the legal activity of smoking.

We at the Corsair understand smoking is a problem and has become increasingly unpopular, but we feel the proposed campus-wide ban is the wrong approach to address this issue while other more sensible and appropriate measures could be taken.

Campus No Smoking Directive

• There will be no smoking (students, faculty, staff, guests) within 50 feet of
Buildings 1, 4, 15, 17 and 21. These buildings are now considered non-smoking
areas.

• Individuals who intentionally and repeatedly violate the aforementioned
directives will be referred to the office of the vice president of Student Affairs
(for students and staff) and the office of the vice president of Academic Affairs
(for faculty) for resolution of the situation. Both vice presidents will endeavor to
assist members of the college community to understand the necessity of implementing
these directives.

Glenn Beck is a dangerous unhinged moron

Paul Smith - The Corsair

Conservative talk-show host Glenn Beck has quickly become a rising a star on the Fox News channel. And it’s not hard to see why: he’s a very skilled entertainer. He knows how to rile up a crowd with an act that’s equal parts carnival clown as well as dopey, red-faced mad prophet.

However, the meteoric rise of Beck’s popularity is also somewhat troubling. While he may be entertaining, he also has almost no idea what he’s talking about.

And in the process, he is not only wildly misinforming his audience about important political issues, but he is scaring them into believing the government is turning into some kind of Nazi-Communist regime.

But let’s first demonstrate that Beck has consistently made factual errors before assailing his overall laughably erroneous thesis on government.

He claimed the current health care bill offers insurance for dogs. It does not.

He claimed America is the only country in the world that has automatic citizenship upon birth. This is not true; Canada, Brazil, and Romania all do the same thing, just to name a few.

He claimed that Andy Stern, head of the Service Employees International Union, was the most frequent visitor to the White House. No, he wasn’t. Many other people had visited more times than Stern.

He claimed the founding fathers would have approved of states seceding from the union. Only someone vastly unfamiliar with the founding fathers could make such a ridiculous claim.

He claimed John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, has “proposed forcing abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water to control population.” Holdren said no such thing.

He gave credence to the wild conspiracy theory that the Federal Emergency Management Agency was building concentration camps for a possible government take-over and rounding up of citizens. This one was so untrue that Beck eventually had to offer a correction and bring someone on his show to debunk the theory.

He once asked Pastor John Hagee whether President Obama was the anti-Christ.

He claimed that Obama was a racist. But he didn’t just call him a racist, Beck said Obama “has a deep-seated hatred for white people or white culture.” A few moments later Beck suggested, “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people.” Actually, that was exactly what he said only seconds before.

While there are many more ridiculous claims to list, the most dangerous aspect of Beck’s song and dance routine is his constant insistence that liberalism or progressivism is some kind of Bolshevik plot that will lead to the hideous demon spawn of Hitler and Chairman Mao.

Beck has seriously convinced a large part of his audience that the election of Barrack Obama and Democratic majorities in Congress is paving the way for a totalitarian socialist dictatorship. Not only is this completely fallacious and preposterous, but it demonstrates that Beck has absolutely no coherent understanding of the concept of socialism.

The classical definition of socialism is an economic theory concerning government or public ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. The intricacies are too vast to discuss in full here, but classical socialism has much in common with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ ideas about communism.

However, not only is the classical form of socialism (government in complete control of the means of production) in absolutely no danger of ever happening in America, but this kind of socialism is not even what Beck is referring to.

What Beck and many other modern conservatives call socialism is any form of government or taxpayer-funded enterprise—basically any publically-funded endeavor whatsoever.

This kind of thinking would mean that not only are government-entitlement programs forms of socialism (some of which are almost universally supported by politicians and citizens alike, such as Social Security and Medicare), but this would mean that every local fire department, police department, and public school are all part of the socialist conspiracy.

This would also mean that the entire military and veterans programs (which are paid for by taxes) are socialist endeavors. And, for that matter, this would mean that every government employee whether they be a postman, a soldier, a congressman or a Supreme Court Justice are all just pawns in the socialist game.

The reality is that almost every form of democracy on the planet has some hybrid of free-market capitalism along with tax-payer funded social programs. 

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think-tank, ranks countries each year by an “economic freedom index” which they define as “an absolute right of property ownership, fully realized freedoms of movement for labor, capital, and goods.” This means they rank the countries according to which have the freest markets in diametric opposition to the classical ideas of socialism and communism.

Guess which countries consistently make it to the top of that list: Hong Kong, Singapore, Ireland, and Australia—countries which all have a form of publicly-funded universal healthcare along with many other taxpayer-funded programs.

And for the record, President Obama is not a socialist. In fact, judging by the way his administration has crafted policy, he’s not even a progressive and is barely a liberal.

The Obama administration governs with a centrist ideology that has kowtowed on many issues to corporate interests just like every other president’s administration has for the past several decades.

But Beck has no interest in selling this kind of nuance to his audience. Instead, he chooses to fire up his viewers by shedding crocodile tears, scrawling madcap conspiracy theories on his chalkboard, and soothsaying about the day the brown-shirts will come to abort your babies and send your families to the concentration camps.

Beck may be entertaining, but his rhetoric is dangerous. He wants you to be afraid, but he has neither the facts nor the intelligence to back it up.

So, the next time you watch Beck’s show, don’t be frightened. Just use this mantra to pacify your mind: This man has no idea what he’s talking about.

Go away, Jay Leno

Paul Smith - The Corsair

The recent late-night shake-up at NBC has many people wondering who’s to blame. The conventional wisdom seems to suggest neither talk-show host is at fault, but the real culpability lies with the executives of the NBC brass.

However, make no mistake about it; this is all one man’s fault: Jay Leno.

If you’re late to the game, let me quickly bring you up to speed.

Back in September of 2004, NBC announced that Conan O’Brien would be taking over “The Tonight Show” in 2009, with Jay Leno presumably retiring so he could focus on his stand-up career.

But instead of Leno gracefully fading into his autumn years telling jokes to tourists in Las Vegas, in December of 2008, NBC made the peculiar announcement that Leno would be hosting a new show at 10:00 p.m. (Eastern Time) called “The Jay Leno Show.”

For many, this seemed like a strange and probably bad idea. Very rarely had a talk-show ever been attempted in a prime-time slot. Many thought Leno’s new show would be a colossal failure. In fact, there were even some local NBC affiliates that didn’t want to air Leno’s new show for fear of low ratings

And guess what? “The Jay Leno Show” failed massively, consistently placing dead-last in its timeslot.

This resulted in a low audience lead-in to the 11:00 p.m. local news broadcasts of the NBC affiliates across the country. And a bad lead-in to the local news also meant a bad lead-in to “The Tonight Show” with its new host O’Brien.

Jay Leno’s sinking ship brought down the ratings to both the local news broadcasts and O’Brien.

So, how did NBC decide to handle this problem?

Instead of canning Leno, they decided to try and bump “The Tonight Show” back to 12:05 a.m. (which would have technically made it the “tomorrow” show), and give Leno a new half-hour show at 11:35 p.m.

O’Brien took the high road of principle and integrity, saying to move “The Tonight Show” back a half-hour is to destroy one the most respected and legendary franchises in the history of television, and, not to mention, also royally screw over Jimmy Fallon and Carson Daly’s shows.

And now NBC is showing O’Brien the door and letting Leno take back “The Tonight Show.” This ordeal has been infuriating and surreal for anyone who has been paying attention.

There is no question about it; Leno is to blame for this whole bizarre fiasco because he agreed to do a talk show in primetime, which sparked the whole chain reaction.

And only Leno could fix this mess and save the last shred of his dignity by doing the sensible thing – packing up his things and going home, letting O’Brien keep “The Tonight Show.”

However, there is a more important and very simple reason why everyone should be absolutely furious with the big-chinned host. That’s because, let us not forget— Jay Leno sucks.

Leno hasn’t done anything funny since about 1983. His tenure at “The Tonight Show” was one of the most embarrassing, cringe-worthy, horrendously unfunny train wrecks in the history of American pop culture.

Leno is the undisputed king of bland, vapid, safe, family-friendly mediocrity.

He hosts his shows like a carnival barker at Disney World. He’s like your unfunny uncle making wisecracks at the family reunion. He makes Bob Newhart look like George Carlin.

And he should have just retired gently into that good night last year. But instead, like a brain-hungry zombie that can’t be put down, he’ll soon be back on at 11:35 p.m., once again infecting all of us with his brain-dead humor.

Meanwhile, O’Brien is on the cutting-edge of modern comedy. And though his show sometimes had its own bland moments like every other talk show, O’Brien has always run a consistently more interesting and funny show than Leno. And O’Brien certainly wins in the integrity department.

I think it is our duty as patriotic citizens to punish NBC for eschewing creativity by firing O’Brien and rewarding banality by keeping Leno.

So, please join me in boycotting Jay Leno and “The Tonight Show” until Conan O’Brien is reinstalled as its rightful host – and if that doesn’t happen, then tune in to O’Brien’s inevitable new show this fall on Fox.

Questionable expectancy for the crisis in Haiti

Dana Whitten - The Corsair

The fifth deadliest natural disaster in recorded history was a devastating tsunami no less than five years ago off the Indian Ocean coast. Up to 14 countries were affected by this undersea mega-thrust earthquake killing more than 230,000 victims and causing a worldwide humanitarian awareness that engulfed the globe with not only pity, but fear.

An estimated $7 million was donated to aid those whose homes were devoured by the wave which was measured at 100 feet or 30 meters at its’ highest. Five years later, with the help of countless organizations and donors, those places with the most damage, like Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, and Thailand, are still on the road to recovery from this most unfortunate tragedy.

Regrettably, on Jan. 12 of the already challenging year of 2010, misery on a monumental scale struck again in Haiti. According to the news media, it has been defined as the poorest country in the Western hemisphere, which has been at war with not only its crumbling financial health, but also within itself for the past century. But, brutal leaders and civil rebellion are the least of this sorrowful country’s problems right now as the death toll climbs higher, and hope for a renewed future seems lost.

Even so, the light is never far from the darkest of storms as America reaches out to help those without resources. Already, the American Red Cross Association is said to have alone raised an outstanding $112 million for Haiti, 22 million of which came via text messaging, allowing ages of all kinds fast and easy access for giving donations.

Proud to be an American citizen, I thoroughly support the financial aid we are able to offer. But, my real pride lies with our very own community college. PJC has also joined the fight for ongoing life by organizing fundraisers and channeling the money to Miami Dade College, a fellow community college here in Florida dedicated to helping those of all shapes and sizes that are in desperate need.

As admirable as these deeds seem, there are people in the U.S. that believe our “hand-outs” are causing undeniable economic instability. After speaking with a man here in Pensacola, I found that many Americans actually despise the fact that we give away millions of dollars while simultaneously rendering our already failing economy. He argued that the more money we offer in aid, the less we have circulating throughout our own currency. To a degree, I protested, wanting to believe that even the idea of being an uncharitable nation would be a question against the level of morality and philanthropy that has always defined our homeland as the most generous superpower ever known.

However, something I had failed to notice was the ongoing taxing for foreign aid that comes out of every working citizen’s paycheck and that the donations small business owners, corporate owners, and ordinary Americans dish out were only additions to the flow of money we give away in charity that ceases to have a reasonable limit. Even though poverty levels are reaching a new high that America hasn’t felt since the Great Depression, we have no problem sending money to an economy where there is already a program that has helped Haiti’s economy grow.

The program was developed with the help of the International Monetary Fund in 2005 and made possible the highest growth rate since 1999: a 1.8 percent growth by 2006. Still the thought remains that no matter how much the country has progressed since the appearance of its new leader, René Préval, there is still the factor that no country, whether domesticated or not, can withstand the aftermath of a natural disaster alone.

After many head-pounding days of indecision and doubt, I have come to this conclusion: I shall place my loyalty on neither side and bring forth a rather disturbing theory that many of us have shunned for so long. The simple question here isn’t whether or not we should help these other countries in need, but more precisely, will these other countries help us if the day comes when our country is crippled by a natural disaster as horrific as the aforementioned tsunamis and earthquakes? If so, will they show us the same amount of devotion and kindness that we have shown them?

It is obvious that many good people have faith in the hope that our favor will be returned in a most considerate manner. I, myself, am one of them, but these past few nights I have pondered on this mind-boggling question and found that I have an unwavering love for nationwide independence and security, as well as my moral conscience.

As many other debatable worries have come to pass, I have an optimistic opinion that no good deed ever goes unnoticed and hope for our country’s sake, as well as the world’s, that we have not forgotten the true essence of human nature.

 

‘Climate-gate’ scandal is bogus

Paul Smith - The Corsair

As the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark came to an end a few weeks ago with no real agreement reached between countries, many global-warming deniers back in the U.S. were claiming victory due to the recent so-called “Climate-gate” scandal.

The scandal refers to an incident a couple of months ago where more than a decade’s worth of emails between climatologists were hacked and stolen from a server of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England. After going through some of the emails, climate-change detractors suggested these emails contained statements that proved scientists had colluded to hide evidence which disproves climate-change (global warming).

Only there’s one problem with these claims: the emails say nothing of the sort.

So, let’s go through the major claims of this so called Climate-gate scandal.

One of the emails trounced on by climate-change deniers is a message from scientist Phil Jones where he suggested using a “trick” with some of his data to arrive at a certain conclusion. However, the “trick” in question was not one of deception, but rather referred to a clever way of plotting instrumental records of data. He was referring to a scientific “short-cut,” not a sinister plot to misrepresent data.

Another email cited in this scandal is one from scientist Kevin Trenberth, in which he said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” This line from the email is taken completely out of context and actually refers to an article Trenberth wrote calling for the development of more accurate scientific instruments to measure rising sea surface temperatures, and in reality, he concludes that “global warming is unequivocally happening.”

Climate-change deniers have also claimed that one email shows scientists have colluded to silence critics. This refers to an email written by climatologist Michael E. Mann, where he wrote, “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.”

This email was referring to a controversy that erupted in 2003 when the journal “Climate Research” published a paper that was partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute which attempted to deny evidence of climate-change. The paper did not go through the normal peer-review process (a way of letting other groups of scientists verify the claims and data), and the conclusions of the paper were later rejected by the larger scientific community.

The editor-in-chief of “Climate Research,” Hans von Storch, resigned in protest due to the publishing of this paper. And the journal’s founder, Otto Kinne, eventually admitted that “[The claims of the paper] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper. ‘Climate Research’ should have requested appropriate revisions of the manuscript prior to publication.”

So, after pouring through thousands of illegally hacked emails, climate-change deniers were only able to come up with a small handful of messages which, when taken out of context, appeared to show inappropriate off-the-cuff statements made by scientists, but, when placed in the proper context, actually showed nothing of the sort.

The reality is that the Climate-gate scandal does not prove global warming to be a hoax at all. In fact, what it reveals is that the real hoax is the conspiracy to deny that global warming is taking place.

The vast majority of climate-change deniers are actually either funded or beholden to the interests of the oil, natural gas, and coal industries. Their agenda is to deny that climate-change is taking place for one simple reason: to make more money.

If the world were to combat the reality of climate-change, then the first step is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and to raise these emission standards would cost the fossil-fuel industries a small percentage of their profits.

So, rather than lose a little bit of money, they have colluded in a massive conspiracy to paint climate-change as a hoax, putting the entire world in potential jeopardy just so they can make a few more bucks.

Here are the real facts: the vast majority of those within the scientific community (including the American Meteorological Society and every other meteorological society, every peer-reviewed scientific journal, and the national science academies and societies of every industrialized nation, to name just a few) contend that climate-change is not only a reality, but that human activity (especially the burning of fossil fuels) has largely contributed to this global phenomenon.

Furthermore, the vast majority of those within the scientific community are in agreement that if climate-change continues at its current rate or gets worse, then human beings could be in for catastrophic environmental consequences—that is unless we do something about it.

Corporations are not people

by Paul Smith

The collusion of big business and government has swelled to glutinous proportions in this country. Over $1 billion was spent on last year’s presidential elections alone, much of that money coming as campaign contributions from individuals with direct ties to corporations and special interest groups.

Ever since the Tillman Act of 1907, corporations have been outlawed from donating money directly to political campaigns, so they have had to do it through individuals and surrogates – but all of that may be about to change.

The Supreme Court is now hearing a case that could dramatically change the way elections are financed in this country.

The current case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission will potentially decide once and for all whether corporations have a constitutional right to donate money to campaigns.

The brouhaha started when Citizens United, a conservative nonprofit organization, tried to run television ads for “Hilary: The Movie,” a scathing documentary critical of Hilary Clinton.

However, these commercials violated current campaign finance provisions under the McCain-Feingold Act and were not allowed to be broadcast, prompting Citizens United to sue the Federal Election Commission.

Attorney Ted Olson, representing Citizens United, laid the basis for the case when he argued before the court, “Corporations are persons entitled to protections under the First Amendment.”

And he is correct – partly. Under current laws, corporations are considered to be legal persons with limited constitutional protections.

This idea that corporations are people has legal precedent which dates back to the 1886 Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company. Many cite this case as the legal framework for corporate personhood.

Only there’s one problem: this case did not rule on such a thing at all.

Before giving the ruling for this case, Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite made an off-the-record remark suggesting that the court believed that corporations were entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment, yet his comment was not part of the official decision.

But the court reporter at the time, J.C. Bancroft Davis (a former president of a railroad company), recorded the quote in the syllabus of the case history, and this off-the-cuff remark has been cited as legal precedent ever since.

And that’s how much of history is decided, folks – by whoever writes it down first, regardless of whether it’s accurate.

Alas, after this case, corporations were considered people and were given many constitutional protections previously only available to actual living, breathing people.

Enter this current Supreme Court case, and now Citizens United claims that it is a legal corporate person that deserves free speech under the First Amendment.

Free speech – but how can a corporation speak?  A corporation can only speak one way – with money. But money isn’t speech, is it?

According to another Supreme Court case, yes, it is.

In 1976, in the case Buckley v. Valeo, the court decided that not only is money a form of speech, but spending money to influence elections is protected under the First Amendment – however, at this time, the court was only talking about real people spending money, not corporations.

And now the Supreme Court must decide whether corporations should be allowed to spend money on campaigns in the same way that real people can.

I submit that if the court decides in favor of Citizens United then this country is in serious trouble.

There is no way the average citizen can reasonably compete with the billion dollar coffers of megalithic corporations. Actual people don’t stand a chance against fake corporate people – not to mention that the legal precedent for corporate personhood is dubious at best.

If the court decides the wrong way, this will be the final nail in the coffin for allowing big business and government to merge into one grotesque, rapacious, horrifying beast – and we can’t let it happen.

This Healthcare Reform Makes Me Sick

by Paul Smith

Everyone knows healthcare in America is a bloated, chaotic, diseased nightmare in dire need of massive overhaul and reform.  We have almost 50 million without insurance, and millions of those with insurance are constantly dropped or denied coverage for absurd reasons like “preexisting conditions” (as though life itself was not a preexisting condition worthy enough for proper healthcare).

America spends about $2.5 trillion on healthcare every year (two and half times as much per person as most developed nations), and ranks near the bottom of all industrialized countries when looking at infant mortality, life expectancy and immunization rates.

The state of healthcare in this country is sickening. And now President Obama and Congress have their stethoscopes set to find a proper cure for our ailing system.

Unfortunately, this is America, and we don’t cure anything here; rather, we prefer to find treatments that make the present conditions tenable – and profitable. And so it is with healthcare reform.

Obama laid the groundwork for what his administration would like to see in a healthcare bill and then Congress quickly got to work botching the job as usual.

My tentative prediction is that, after the congressional recess, some kind of healthcare reform bill will eventually pass – that is, if the bills in the House and Senate ever make it out of the committees holding them up.

And I think if it does pass, some good things will no doubt be accomplished: ten of millions currently without coverage will get access to basic health insurance, and insurance companies will see some regulation making it more difficult for them to deny or drop coverage for those who need it.

Yet these reforms do far too little to overhaul this failing system, like trying to save the Titanic with a roll of duct-tape.

There has been much talk of a so-called “public option,” a government-run insurance plan, like Medicare, that millions of Americans could access which would also compete with the private insurance companies and negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies to bring overall prices down.

But mark my words: there will be no public option such as this if this bill ever passes. It’s a pipedream; it’s not going to happen.

Why won’t it happen? It’s for the same reason this healthcare bill stinks: America is the only country in the world that treats people’s lives as a market commodity.

No other nation lets the marketplace dictate their healthcare system, but that is exactly what we do in America. We treat healthcare not as a social service, but as a money-making endeavor.

We distribute care not according to those who need it most (those coughing up a lung), but to those with the most ability to pay (those coughing up the money).

The healthcare industry is a business, and their main goal, like every other business, is profit maximization.

And that’s exactly why many in the healthcare industry are actually supporting this potential bill by Congress, because contained in this reform are government mandates that will require people to purchase health insurance or face being fined.

That means people will be legally obligated to obtain health insurance, which, in turn, means millions of new customers for the private health insurance companies. And that would be acceptable – if there was also a public option.

The healthcare industry has more lobbyists by far in Washington than any other group, and the industry is bitterly opposed to a public option. They do not want to compete with a cheaper, more efficient, government-run health insurance program because that would force them to have to lower their premiums and reduce their overhead costs.

And guess which congressmen are the ones most opposed to a public option? If you guessed the ones who have received the most money from the healthcare industry then you get a lollipop.

The only real solution to the healthcare problem in this country is to start slowly dismantling the current system from the outside in.

I’m not suggesting we outlaw private insurance companies altogether and nationalize the entire industry, but I am suggesting we begin to make the ubiquitous presence of private health insurance unnecessary.

And the only way to do that would be a public option – a massive non-profit Medicare-like government-run health insurance program that would not just compete with the private insurance companies, but would dramatically undercut the competition.

If we can trust the government to run the post office and the military, then we can trust them to run part of the health insurance industry.

They already do a completely acceptable job with Medicare. If you don’t believe me, ask someone on Medicare if they would like to have their service replaced with a private insurance plan (by the way, the overhead costs for Medicare are around 3 percent while the average overhead costs for private insurance companies is about 30 percent).

And I would like to remind everyone that it is being called a public “option” for a reason, because it would be just that – an option. While there will be mandates for people to have health insurance, you would have the option of choosing the government plan or a private plan.

This idea that the government will take over the healthcare industry altogether and begin making important medical decisions for American families is an absolute paranoid absurdity. Even if a massive public plan goes into place, you will always have the option in this country to choose private doctors and private insurance.

So, I hope I’m wrong and that Congress will actually include some sort of reasonable public option in this healthcare reform package, but I have my serious doubts. It looks like all we’re willing to do with our appalling healthcare system is trim off a little of the fat, while also pumping more money and more people into the status quo.

And until we stop viewing people’s lives as just another product in the market place, we will be fated with a diseased healthcare system befitting of such a sickening concept.

Condoleezza Rice Wrong on All Counts

by Paul Smith

Condoleezza Rice has recently taken a job as a political science professor at Stanford University (a position I imagine she was given ironically) and got into a bit of trouble after taking some questions from a couple of students yesterday as evidenced by a recent YouTube video.

The short version of the story is that she committed numerous factual absurdities and may perhaps have admitted complicity in a serious crime. So, maybe we should take a look at the long version of the story, eh?

I suppose the easiest way to do this will be to go through her remarks basically line by line and point out each time she makes a factual error or says something that makes absolutely no sense.

The YouTube video starts halfway through the first question we see her answer. Here is the first part of their exchange:

Rice: … And in terms of enhanced interrogation, and rendition, and all the issues around the detainees. Abu Ghraib is, and everyone said, Abu Ghraib was not policy. Abu Ghraib was wrong and nobody would argue with…

Student: Except that information that’s come out since then speaks against that.

Rice: No, no, no — the information that’s come out since then continues to say that Abu Ghraib was wrong. Abu Ghraib was. But in terms of the enhanced interrogation and so forth, anything that was legal and was going to make this country safer, the president wanted to do. Nothing that was illegal.

Okay, let’s start here. The student is referring to a recent report by the Senate Armed Service Committee called “Inquiry into the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody” (read report here, summary here).

The student was attempting to correct her when she said that the abuses and interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib were not policy before she cut him off.

She flatly denies the student’s suggestion that the recent Senate report disputes her claim that the Abu Ghraib incident was not the result of policy. But the report absolutely does dispute this; here is what it said about Abu Ghraib:

“The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of ‘a few bad apples’ acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited Information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees.”

The report not only claims that “senior officials” were involved in the policy, but it says the policy was crafted to create the appearance of legality, obviously suggesting the policy was illegal.

She claims that the report says Abu Ghraib was “wrong.” However, the report does not just say it was wrong, the report says, “Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

Okay, moving on… She then, at one point, claims the World Trade Center Towers were 80-story-tall buildings. Hate to nitpick, sweetheart, but they were 110 stories.

Eventually the conversation turns to Guantanamo Bay:

Rice: And Guantanamo Bay, by the way, was considered a model “medium security prison” by representatives of the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe who went there to see it. Did you know that?

Student: Were they present for the interrogations?

Rice: No. Did you know that the Organization — just answer me — did you know that the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe said Guantanamo was a model medium security prison? … If you didn’t know that, maybe before you make allegations about Guantanamo you should read.

Here Rice makes another factual error.

What she is referring to is a comment made by Alain Grignard, who is the deputy head of a federal police anti-terrorism unit in Belgium and accompanied a group from the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to Guantanamo Bay. The statement was an off-the-cuff remark of his own and had no affiliation whatsoever with the OSCE. However, many newspapers incorrectly cited him as an OSCE expert at first.

But the OSCE issued a press release attempting to clarify issue (read press release here). The press release in part read, “… he was not employed or commissioned by the OSCE.”

The OSCE has yet to offer any official take on the situation at Guantanamo. So, it seems that Rice is the one who “should read” before making allegations.

Also, Grignard said that holding detainees for years without bringing formal charges or to trial was a form of “mental torture.”

Immediately following this factual error, she makes another one:

Rice: Now, the ICRC also had access to Guantanamo, and they made no allegations about interrogations at Guantanamo.

The ICRC is the International Committee of the Red Cross, and they have made repeated allegations about the interrogations at Guantanamo. For instance, in 2007, they said in a report, “The interrogation process is contrary to international law.”

And in 2004, the ICRC said, “[the interrogations methods] cannot be considered other than an intentional system of cruel, unusual, and degrading treatment and a form of torture.”

Well, that’s a little different than making “no allegations about interrogations,” isn’t it? This woman is unbelievable.

Now, this next exchange is perhaps the most absurd yet:

Rice: What [the ICRC] did say is that they believe indefinite detention, where people didn’t know whether they’d come up for trial, which is why we tried with the military commissions system to let people come up for trial. Those trials were stayed by whom? Who kept us from holding the trials?

Student: I can’t answer that question.

Rice: Do your homework first… The Supreme Court.

The amount of chutzpah and ludicrousness contained in this remark is absolutely staggering.

Rice is basically saying the Bush administration would have loved to let the wheels of justice turn and give each detainee a fair and speedy trial, if only it hadn’t been for that pesky ol’ Supreme Court gumming up the works.

I can only imagine she is referring to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case in 2006 where the Supreme Court held that the Bush administration policy of trying detainees under military commissions or tribunals was unconstitutional. The Court also said the military commissions violated the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions.

So, Rice is attempting to make an argument here, basically saying that the highest court in the land declared a Bush administration policy as unconstitutional, but that the problem was not with the policy, but with the Supreme Court for having the nerve to perform its function and adhere to the US Constitution.

She gives the clear intimation that the Bush administration – the same people who attempted to deny detainees the right of habeas corpus – would have loved for there to be a fair judicial process at Gitmo, but the Supreme Court – the arbiter of the Constitution – got in the way.

My head dizzies just trying to comprehend her twisted logic. If anyone needs to do some homework, it’s Ms. Rice. I would recommend a book report on the US Constitution.

Okay, here’s the final exchange between Rice and a different student, where she may have admitted to a serious crime:

Student: I read a recent report, recently, that said that you did a memo, you were the one who authorized torture to the — I’m sorry, not torture, waterboarding. Is waterboarding torture?

Rice: The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against Torture. So that’s — and by the way, I didn’t authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department’s clearance. That’s what I did.

Student: Okay. Is waterboarding torture?

Rice: I just said — the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture.

The student is referring to memos recently released by the Obama administration which detailed Rice’s involvement as basically a go-between from the White House to the CIA in the authorization of the use of torture – oh, excuse me –  enhanced interrogation techniques.

First of all, notice that she dodges the question of whether waterboarding is torture (which the vast majority of legal experts agree it most certainly is).

But then notice that she admits she “conveyed the authorization of the administration to the [CIA].”

However, if waterboarding is torture (which it is), then even conveying the authorization would be a direct violation of the Convention Against Torture, which she cites.

The Convention Against Torture, a UN treaty of which the United States is a signatory party, explicitly states in Artice II that “an order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.” (read the treaty here)

So, Rice basically just admitted complicity in a war crime.

Also, not only do her actions violate the Convention Against Torture, but many would argue her actions could be considered a violation of the federal statute banning torture, US Code: Title 18, Chapter 113 § 2340 (read statute here), as well as a violation of the War Crimes Act.

And then, to make matters worse, she makes the very bizarre claim that, by definition, if the President authorizes something, it is therefore not illegal.

This harkens back to the infamous gaffe made by President Nixon during his 1977 interview with David Frost when he said, “When the President does it that means that it is not illegal.”

The President is not a dictator, Condi, not matter how much you wish he were.

So, not only did Rice get almost everything wrong in her exchange with these two students, she may have admitted her role in a conspiracy to commit torture.

Condoleezza Rice should never speak in public again without her attorney present. In fact, maybe she should just never speak in public again.

Tea Party Protests Brew Nonsense

by Paul Smith

On April 15, “tax day,” I drove by University Mall in Pensacola where I saw a handful of people holding protest signs. I steered closer to get a better view only to realize what looked like a handful was actually throngs of hundreds of people carrying signs, some of which read “Obama is not the Messiah!” and “The Democrats are Thieves!”

Oh, man… Let the unwarranted hysteria begin.

What I witnessed was the local version of the national protest events referred to as “tea parties.” Apparently “tea” is an acronym which stands for “taxed enough already.”

The movement started among conservative circles that originally encouraged people to send teabags to Washington as a form of protest, and then staged “teabagging” demonstrations across the country.

While it is difficult to find a consistent message among the teabaggers, one thing is very clear: none of it makes any sense.

The protests are largely aimed at the Obama administration’s fiscal policies.

And they have utilized the symbolism of the Boston Tea Party of 1773 to illustrate their dissatisfaction over the federal stimulus package, higher taxes, and “taxation without representation” (as many of the signs read in Pensacola).

However, there are several problems with all of these dissatisfactions.

First of all, while the “taxation without representation” bit was certainly part of the Boston Tea Party, I imagine most involved with these recent tea party protests are unaware that what sparked the furor in 1773 was the lowering, not raising, of taxes on tea. The history is complicated, but basically the American colonists feared that if England lowered the tax on tea, it would undercut the competition and lead to a British tea monopoly. This upset the local merchant class who made a great deal of money selling smuggled tea bought from other countries. So, the colonists were actually upset with lower taxes on tea, not higher.

And I hate to break it to the teabaggers, but there is no taxation without representation in modern America.

Every single person attending these protests has democratically elected representatives in Congress and the White House. They may not be who the protestors voted for, but they are who the majority voted for.

The next problem comes with the idea of higher taxes.

On April 15, the tax policy in effect was really that of George W. Bush’s administration. So, at the time of the teabagging events, everyone was essentially protesting the Bush tax policy, not the Obama tax policy.

But let’s give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they meant Obama’s tax policy when it goes into effect in 2011. What is it exactly about this policy that disturbs them?

Do they realize that Obama’s tax policy only raises taxes on the top 5 percent, those earning more than $250,000 a year?

And the tax rates for the richest Americans will go from 35 percent to 39 percent, a whopping 4 percentage points. The remaining 95 percent of Americans will actually see a tax decrease.

So, unless the vast majority of teabaggers are among the top five percent of the richest Americans, they are in reality protesting a tax decrease.

Also, 39 percent on the rich is still one of the lowest tax rates in last hundred years. Republican President Dwight Eisenhower had a tax rate of 91 percent for the richest Americans; Republican President Richard Nixon had a top tax rate of 70 percent.

And comparatively speaking, the United States has the lowest taxes of all developed nations when looking at tax revenues as a percentage of gross domestic product.

As for the federal stimulus bill, while there are plenty of debates to be had, I hope everyone would acknowledge that something has to be done to try to stabilize the economy.

The idea behind the stimulus package is that since people and businesses are spending less money, the government should spend heaps of money to get the economy growing again. Whether or not this plan will work is yet to be seen.

All in all, regardless of the mainstream media coverage, the tea party protests fizzled across the country, garnering only moderate crowds in most states.

It is not clear what they hoped to accomplish, but I can wager they will have little to no effect on government policy.

I think the most fitting illustration of the pointlessness, failure, and factual inaccuracies of these ridiculous tea parties was the event held at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas which was headlined by the insufferable Glenn Beck of Fox News.

Apparently they thought the Alamo was a great place for starting a revolution. Someone really should have told them that the Alamo is one of the most famous symbols of failed revolution in history. It is the site of the famous battle where the Texian settlers lost to Mexican troops in 1836.

Remember the Alamo? These people obviously did not. I would imagine the next major teabagging demonstration will be held in Waterloo, Iowa.

Next Page »