Overworked and Underpaid Undergraduate

2003-10-29T17:35:00.000-08:00

The Economics of a Degree

"What's so important about a piece of paper?"
"Why go to school and pay to work when I can work and earn money now?"
"My *random personal relative* has a Master's and now works for a temp agency. However, Bob dropped out of tech school and is earning $60,000 a year!"
"If Bill Gates dropped out of school and became rich, I can too!"
"You don't learn much just by reading a book."

These are all arguments made by people who view college as an unnecessary waste of time. There have been many times where typical-age undergraduate students may look at their working peers and be jealous of their earnings. Despite this short-term jealousy, on average, college-educated workers do earn more then their high school/tech school counterparts throughout their lifetimes, according to data gathered by the US Census.

However, the argument against higher education becomes much more potent when the issue of student debt is taken into consideration. With limited scholarship funds available and the number of grants restricted to all but the poorest portions of society, student loans become a much more viable option. Never mind the fact that undergraduate loans can easily spiral past $10,000. That amount skyrockets even more with respect to private school tuition.

This debt is a humongous burden to graduates fresh out of school as they enter an uncertain economy. As internships become a much more prized commodity, entry-level jobs in certain fields become nearly impossible to attain. As a result, graduates who try to pay their student loan debts often find themselves paying these off with incomes similar to that of their peers who never went to school in the first place. Let's also not forget the case of students who don't even complete their degrees. A friend of mine who used to go to the University of Illinois-Chicago dropped out of his freshman year, but is now saddled with a student loan debt of $7000 (with only $2250 of it covered by Stafford loans, and the rest covered by a local bank). All of this will be paid off by a job with wages that barely reflect the education of a high school graduate.

To make matters worse, one popular view of college is created by a segment of movies that see students as nothing but lazy and indigent bums. Animal House, Old School, and Van Wilder are three movies which craft this stereotype into an art, and it's a popular image that often results in massive tuition hikes. Sadly, those types of students are common occurrences (and idolized) in many campuses. Take your typical state-run school, where a minimum GPA of 2.0 is needed to stay off of academic probation. It's not uncommon to see a student sitting on a large trust fund that can continue through school at a leisurely pace, while not having to worry about any outside concerns such as tuition hikes.

The point of this long winded-rant is that out of a wide range of social initiatives that government could aid, higher education is one of the more important ones. Many students are capable of putting themselves under immense amounts of stress, and indeed, some thrive on it. However, many students also put themselves at an incredible disadvantage by forsaking decent paying jobs in the short-term to better not only their own careers, but society as a whole for educating themselves. To this end, I don't think it's much to ask for students to get a little more assistance. I for one will keep my course as an undergraduate despite missing out on possible economic opportunities in the here and now. Even with the risk of the student loan debts, the payoff is much greater in the end. Additionally, it's a much better alternative to being forced to go back to school after many years in the workforce without any semblance of education beyond high school.

2003-10-12T00:40:00.000-07:00

A Centrist's Dilemma

One of the most difficult things I've dealt with in political bull sessions are accusations of being too soft or indirect on issues. While the majority of these attacks have (and still) come from Republicans, I've seen occasional snipes from people with a much more progressive stance. Such is the dilemma of being a centrist.

Both of the existing political parties in the United States have tremendous strengths from some of their ideologies, and my viewpoints on many issues have come from those respective strengths. Of course, this position leads to a number of interesting paradoxes:

Unlike Michael Moore's denunciation of the "American Dream" (as popularized by 19th century novelist Horatio Alger), capitalism can provide generous benefits to those with the discipline to harness and not abuse their wealth. However, a pure capitalist society will result in the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few lucky individuals who will ultimately misuse their fortunes. Regardless of what the Heritage Foundation may tell you about Social Security and other New Deal-era reforms, they have their place in American law as they prevent the poorest of the poor from becoming destitute and a burden to society.

I may appreciate the extreme sacrifices made by some of America's truly self-made millionaires, but I will not let it devolve to the point where I will refuse an invitation by a good group of friends to go to a party on the weekend for the sake of keeping an extra $20 in my savings account. After all, there are many arguments for a balance between work and play.

Religion has been a source of relief to many people in times of crisis or need, and it does a wonderful job in giving meaning to many people's lives, especially those who have suffered greatly. But it also serves as a crutch for people who have the legitimate means to better themselves in the here and now. To use the tired phrase coined by Karl Marx, it can be easily seen as the "opiate of the masses."

Entrepreneurs take extraordinary risks with little to no help to start businesses which enhance the economic viability of the community that they reside in. While many deserve to be rewarded for their daring and hard labor, they should also be mindful that their workers deserve enough of a wage to meet the bare essentials required to survive and a little more to serve as a cushion in case of disaster. It's the basic argument behind the push for a "living wage."

Despite the misgivings of some peace activists, America was perfectly justified in invading Afghanistan after the September 11th attacks, and the world at large is better off without a theocracy like the Taliban in power. Additionally, America is trying to restore Afghanistan to the status of a country that will not be a third-world enclave capable of supporting well-financed terrorist organizations. This being said, the invasion of Iraq was a farce. It had questionable motives to begin with, and in the lead-up to the war, the Bush Administration knowingly gave the public questionable information which misled everyone at best and decieved at worst. Despite the atrocities of Saddam Hussein, Iraq never was a threat to us and never would have been.

On a more personal level, I am by no means an idealist activist that will willingly protest any pet cause that may come up, like many UWM students did regarding striking Tyson workers in Jefferson. When it comes to my job outside of campus, my political viewpoints are a non-issue. They can be brought up here. However, I especially detest the actions of die-hard Republicans that see many issues in a "black and white" matter and have the gall to call me unpatriotic for questioning some of America's policies. To make matters worse, events like this bit of covert activity only increase my paranoia.

It would be nice to fit in a cookie cutter definition of either a right-wing or left-wing ideologue, but as my senior seminar professor pointed out in class one day, the origin of those terms came from the seating of delegates during the French Revolution, and it's been used in an overly simplistic term to this day. What am I then? The best label would be a centrist and that of the DLC variety. I may have Dave Berkman of the Shepherd Express criticize me for joining Bill Clinton in turning the Democratic Party into a wing of the GOP, and I may have a National Review columnist tar and feather me for assisting Osama bin Laden by trying to unseat Bush in the 2004 elections.

Let them fire away. It wouldn't be the first time I've been blasted for my viewpoints, but these viewpoints have served me well. For now, I'll continue playing the role that I have for the last four years: a university undergraduate with intentions to get his bachelor's degree and find a position in the workforce, while simultaneously making efforts to pursue what Thomas Jefferson referred to as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Is that good enough for everyone?

2003-10-06T22:39:00.000-07:00

Straight from the Heartland

"The only places where these ideas are considered bad are on the two coasts. Where the meat is in the sandwich, the rest of America, these are pretty mainstream ideas." - Trent Lott in a November 2002 interview regarding GOP legislative policy (Source: Washington Post)

Lott's quote sums up one of the greatest divisions in American politics today: the geographical and ideological divisions between the conservative Heartland states and the liberal coasts and cities. Several books have explored this division, which can be clearly seen in the state breakdown of electoral results in the 2000 presidential election.

These divisions are even evident in the makeup of the US government, where the Great Compromise in the Constitution divided the legislative branch into the House and Senate, balancing the power of the most populous states with the more agricultural areas of the nation. There's an air of populist thought that unites the Heartland states into direct conflict with the coasts, as phrases like "out on the Left Coast" or "liberal elite" speak directly to many disaffected people.

Such rhetoric is also partisan warfare, but many of the sentiments behind the rhetoric are genuine and heartfelt. As a life-long Wisconsin resident, I’ve watched far too many people mock my roots in "America’s Dairyland". This is a state which is mentioned briefly in the Kevin Smith movie Dogma, in which two angels desperately try to get back to Heaven because their life in Wisconsin compared to Hell is incredibly dull and boring.

George W. Bush is at his most effective when talking to the people of the Heartland, where his true political power rests. Thanks to populist rhetoric like Lott's aforementioned quote, minor things such as economic and foreign policy that might otherwise harm the "red" states that Bush dominates is usually dismissed because Bush comes across as one of their own. He's often seen as a God-fearing, non-politically correct, upstanding Christian who is not afraid to stand up to critics and do the right thing. Regardless of the reality, this perception works wonders with the public at large.

2003-10-05T23:27:00.000-07:00

Divine Inspiration

Some of the most fascinating stories in history surround the experiences of people who experience a type of epiphany or revelation. History is littered with the stories of such figures: Martin Luther begged for mercy after surviving a wicked storm, and after surviving he pledged his life’s work to the (then) Catholic Church. US Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY) was elected to Congress in 1996 thanks to her outspoken stance on gun control, which was sparked when her husband was murdered and son was paralyzed on a Long Island train in 1993. Then there’s George W. Bush, 43rd president of the United States. Despite living under the shadow of a tremendously successfully family and having the reputation of the family clown, a conversation with the Rev. Billy Graham in 1985 led to a transformation. Fourteen years later, when asked in a debate about his favorite political philosopher, Bush's reply was easily understood. "Jesus Christ, because He changed my heart."

I've never particularly understood the phenomenon of Evangelical Christianity, but some understanding of it can be gleamed from the actions of Bush in office. One of the few Presidents that could match his blatant faith was the 11th president, James Polk, whose main platform was that of "Manifest Destiny". The Mexican War also happened under his watch, and curious fact-seekers will be interested to know that a young representative from Illinois named Abraham Lincoln challenged Polk at great political risk to himself with his "Spot Resolutions."

Ignoring the Iraq debacle for now, many policy initiatives introduced by Bush have been guided by his faith. There was the spirited debate about stem-cell embryo cloning last summer, and the entire issue of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives was spawned thanks to his work.

The impact of all of these policies has still not been determined. However, support for all of these issues varies widely depending on the values of different sides of the American public. More on this later.

2003-10-01T21:46:00.000-07:00

Liberal Media, Take #2

My senior seminar's first critique was due yesterday, and after last week's posting, the topic chosen was the issue of "bias" criticism against the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Thanks to some unbeknownst miracle, I was able to get a few words from Martin Kaiser, the paper's editor. While he did a good job dismissing the aforementioned criticism, he delivered this goldmine of a quote which I'll share with everyone here:

"We [The Journal Sentinel] get criticism from talk shows locally and from readers, but we also get criticism from the other side. During the lead up to the Iraq war, I might get an email in my inbox complaining about how the Journal-Sentinel is such a liberal rag, but the next email will be sarcastically commenting about how tight we are with the Bush Administration."

In other words, he's willing to anger everyone just to get the news out. Just to prove that it's not just conservatives who are crying foul at some of the bigger news organizations, let's take a look at this column from Milwaukee's *other* newspaper, the Shepherd Express:

"A challenge to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Publisher Keith Spore and Editor Martin Kaiser: If there's one thing we can both agree on, regardless of any differences in political outlook, it's that the highest purpose of a free, democratic press is to inform its readers of the truth and to make the maximum effort to correct those widespread beliefs that are factually false. It was, after all, the genius of Nazi propaganda chief Josef Goebbels to understand that if an outright lie, or an inference designed to mislead, is endlessly repeated by those in authority, it will be accepted as true."

Sure Dave Berkman, that's what's happening. Just because the Journal Sentinel isn't calling everything the Bush Administration is saying as a bold lie, they're willing participants in a propaganda scheme. I mentioned this article as a counter-example to some of Charlie Sykes' accusations against the Journal Sentinel to my JMC professor, who did nothing but silently laugh to himself (ironic considering Berkman is a retired JMC faculty member from UW-Milwaukee).

So what's the moral of the story? The lunatics come from both sides. It's just the accusations from the right are more skillfully orchestrated.

2003-09-23T23:30:00.000-07:00

The Liberal Media

When all else fails, it's the fault of those leftie reporters. The slur of "liberal media" is one of the most frequent charges laid against many mainstream media outlets, and it's one that a lot of people accept as fact. In a society where a reporter's worst transgressions create genuine outrage from the public at large, it's not hard to find out why the media is such an easy target. This criticism is not limited to the concerns of individuals either.

Commentators and advocates such as Mark Belling of WISN-AM and Rush Limbaugh have developed this criticism into a fine art. Any story that veers slightly from a conservative viewpoint is subjected to the cry of "liberal media!" The United States isn't alone in this either. In Great Britain, some of the media establishment is dismissed as being controlled by the "Islington Intelligentsia" (referring to a Labour-leaning borough of London) or by droves of "Guardian Readers".

Regardless of whether the claim is legitimate or not, it's something that comes up in political discussion all the time. Any readers out there who particularly enjoy the FOX News Channel are probably familiar with FOX News Watch, which is dedicated to observing the coverage of current issues by other media outlets. Just recently, FOX News spokeswoman Irena Briganti delivered a stinging condemnation of Christine Amanpour of CNN, who had said that the network had muzzled its Iraq war coverage. Briganti's response: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

What a wonderful display of black and white logic. Either toe with party line or get pegged as a terrorist. All sarcasm aside, the liberal bias argument has a little more merit in many university campuses. UW-Milwaukee, while not liberal to the extreme of UW-Madison or Berkeley, definitely qualifies in this category. Last year I got a chance to hear local radio talk-show host Charlie Sykes give a speech to the UWM College Republicans. If there was one main point he drove home to the audience, it was that the students were courageous for keeping to their conservative viewpoints in an overwhelmingly liberal (and occasionally hostile) campus.

It was an interesting point, and certainly many of the Journalism professors on campus have only helped to support this view. Whatever the case, the subject came up once again earlier this morning in my senior seminar class for the JMC department, JMC 661. Our current assignment is to critique the September issues of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and offer our comments on the news coverage. After reading a selection from Herbert Gans' Democracy and the News for the class, I decided to bring up the question. For sake of the article, this professor will remain anonymous.

JMC Professor: "So...does anyone else have an idea of what they'd like to critique about the Journal-Sentinel?"
Myself: "Well, I'm curious as to how the Journal-Sentinel deals with accusations of liberal media bias from its readers and various organizations."
JMC Professor: "...you know, I have to hand it to conservatives for skillfully orchestrating that issue."

What followed was a very rant about some questionable merits of conservative policy (tax cuts, military spending, employment benefits, etc.), which I would have dismissed as partisan banter if it wasn't for his last comments about the whole issue of the "liberal media". Two comments were made that convinced me that this whole subject is a non-issue.

1. There will always be people who will be angry at the press' coverage. All it takes is the skillful handling of some advocates to take these people's anger and answer it with substantial (if tilted) evidence.
2. No matter how bogus a particular statement may be, it will eventually become the truth if it is repeated enough.

Indeed, there's a term for the method used in point #2. It's called the "Mighty Wurlitzer", a CIA term used for propaganda that is repeated over and over again until it becomes accepted as truth. Sadly, that's how the liberal media myth has survived all of these years. If you want to take a look at one of the masterminds behind this myth, look no further than the Media Research Center run by conservative luminary L. Brent Bozell III.

Even if this is a non-issue, it's still stuck in the minds of a lot of people. If it weren't, my professor wouldn't have wasted 10 minutes of class ranting about it, FOX News wouldn't have a news show dedicated to it, and Bozell would be out of a job. Nevertheless, my critique will still be about it. That and there's the whole notion that I spent my last 30 minutes writing a column about a non-issue, which is annoying enough in itself.

2003-09-19T23:46:00.000-07:00

U.N. Vote Backs Arafat

Despite all of the important history surrounding the region, Israel and its neighbors are a pain to deal with. All of the traditions that augment the region's importance are at the root of what inflames the violence around the area. In a little over a week is the third anniversary of the current intifada, which was sparked when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple on the Mount on September 28, 2000.

The aforementioned U.N. vote took place in the General Assembly, which was approved by a 133-4 vote, with 15 nations abstaining. Yasser Arafat still remains a very popular spokesman for the Palestinians, and it's no secret that Israel doesn’t have many friends abroad. Regardless of the motives behind the funding, Israel remains a potent power in the Middle East thanks to United States aid.

Regardless of Israel's unique position in United States foreign policy, any US administration has a right to keep its eyes on Arafat. He may be a popular symbol for the Palestinians, but he originally became famous because of the PLO (Palestinian Liberalization Organization).

Even I'm old enough to remember the days when Arafat was not portrayed as a leader, but as an expelled terrorist. He was a dangerous terrorist at that, credited with founding the Al Fatah organization in 1956. It was only after the Oslo peace accords of September 1993 that Arafat and then Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin reached some type of ceasefire.

While some portions of the current Israeli administration are considering assassination as an acceptable method to remove Arafat, the U.N. is quite correct in condemning such a method. However, the U.N. must also realize that regardless of Arafat's advocate status for the Palestinians, it came at a price. That price was the fact that he caused a lot of pain to get where he did. Whether his motives are justified is questionable at best.

2003-09-16T21:14:00.000-07:00

Total Recall

California. The state has been a favorite target for political critics around the nation on both sides of the spectrum. Liberals will denounce the state for its legacy of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, who (for better or for worse, each had their respective strengths and weaknesses) have been two of the most influential Presidents of the 20th century. Conservatives will denounce the state for the immoral influence of Hollywood and its generally liberal influence on politics. That's not to say that Republicans are exactly alienated in the state either. Two California-based organizations affiliated with Townhall.com are The Project for California’s Future and the Reagan Ranch. Last week I made a reference to columnist Ben Shapiro, who just happens to be a senior at UCLA.

Why all the concern about "The Golden State"? It’s the largest state in the Union, complete with 52 representatives to the US House and a population of over 35 million. Needless to say, a state with such a large population tends to hold just a little influence in national politics. That and there's a gubernatorial recall election going on.

Besides the amusement many people get just by viewing the candidate list, it seems to make sense why Governor Gray Davis is up for recall. As of this year, California’s state budget deficit was listed at about $38 billion. Enter US Representative Darrell Issa (R-CA), who came in and helped bankroll the initial effort to gather signatures authorizing the recall. About 1.6 million signatures in all were collected, and since then...everybody from Arianna Huffington to Gary Coleman has entered the race.

Is this grassroots activist politics at its finest or a hostile takeover from some very well-financed conservatives? The answer probably lies somewhere in between. If Davis really is being dogged by a "right-wing conspiracy", he should be able to resist the attacks. Whether Davis keeps his job or not is questionable at this point. Say what you will about Schwarzenegger running, but he appears to be the main Republican candidate at this point. Besides the obvious celebrity appeal working for him, Arnold should prove to be a fairly moderate governor.

However, I say this with certain conditions. This is not in anyway like the now-famous recall election in which Milwaukee County Executive Tom Ament lost his job after a pension scandal. Unlike the current California recall effort, the Ament recall garnered over 150,000 signatures...amounting to over 15% of Milwaukee County’s population. The percentage of California's population signing recall petitions is much smaller, so it's a rather moot point to make.

Not that there aren't people trying for similar efforts. A July 25, 2003 entry on Charlie Sykes' weblog lists some amusing reader letters requesting an effort to recall Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle after his battles against the property tax freeze. All things considered, Doyle has cut a lot out of the Wisconsin budget in recent years, and he even got praise from Sykes shortly after his election for his budget-snipping philosophy.

A recall election certainly means that the public is paying attention to their politicians. However, some of the recent taxpayer revolts seem to be motivated by nothing more than genuine partisan warfare. Who knows? It’s really on a case by case basis.

2003-09-11T23:52:00.000-07:00

September 11th. This is one of those days that will go into history like the memory of the Pearl Harbor bombings or JFK's assassination, and like many of my professors have mentioned today: it is probably one of the most tragic events you will witness in your life.

One of the most common questions that everyone asked themselves today was this: where were you when you first heard about/saw the attacks?

I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin-Waukesha, and I had just gotten out of a morning calculus class to watch the first TV broadcasts of one of the towers collapsing. It was a very surreal moment, as many students and faculty did nothing but gather around the TV monitors set up in the campus commons. All of my classes were cancelled that day save a lone sociology night class (in which the attacks were the main discussion point). During these first few moments, I could hear comments from some of the students foreshadowing things to come: "This is war." 9/11 also became the first true test of my political leanings, as I learned for the first time what it was like to incur the wrath of patriotism's dark side. Some people may have cheered the increased attendance in churches across the nation following the attacks, but myself and several others saw what it was like to remain even slightly outside the mainstream line of thought at the time.

With this being said, I supported what happened in Afghanistan. At that moment, a good portion of people were fixated on the thought of revenge. Shortly after noon, the then-Taliban Information Minister came on TV as the only foreign leader to not offer condolences about the attacks. Not only that, he attempted to defend Osama bin Laden as a guest. By then people had a fairly good idea of what had transpired, and it was at that time I realized that the Taliban's days were numbered. Less than three months later, they were to be ousted in a military campaign that had an enormous amount of support.

As if they weren't before, bin Laden and al-Qaeda became synonymous with the definition of pure evil, and bin Laden's mug was used as target practice in gun ranges across the nation. Combined with the anthrax scare, the end of 2001 was an extremely frightening and paranoid time. Only adding to the confusion was the genius development of the Department of Homeland Security's color-coded system. While its credibility is suspect today, all of those colors had a lot of influence on the public back then.

Strange to think it's already been two years since then. What has September 11th meant to me? It meant that America's veil of innocence was shattered. No longer could we look frivolously at the world around us. In a ways, it was a violent reunion with...reality.

One other thing I remember about the immediate aftermath of the attacks was the incredible amount of sympathy given around the globe. Things are remarkably different now. Perhaps we'll have a chance to regain our standings with many of the nations that have disagreed with some of our methods in the last two years. Isn't terrorism is something that all nations should see as a common threat to eliminate? Maybe we should occasionally take cues from others to see how things could be managed. Maybe. Here's to a better future for all of us.

2003-09-10T22:42:00.000-07:00

State politically split on economy, poll finds

A friend once stated that at its base level, politics is all about money and resources. Sadly, this is a true statement. It's also not too surprising that the amount of money one has often dictates one's political affiliation, and something about the above article speaks volumes about that. I'm not saying that all Republicans are wealthy, but many of the policies in the party are tailored towards supporting the upper classes. Come to think of it, a recession does create a much more loyal work force. Either obey the boss or risk losing your job. Petty things such as "living wage" or "quality of life" tend not to matter in these times.

It's a lot easier to dismiss cuts to social services when you aren't receiving any, and it's a lot easier to welcome "trickle-down" tax cuts as a boost to the economy when you'll be receiving the bulk of it. To quote the tired phrase used by the GOP time and time again, it's not quite that easy to "pull yourself up by the bootstraps."

Case in point: Ben Shapiro. He's a senior political science major at UCLA and a prolific writer for Townhall.com, otherwise known as the web portal for the Heritage Foundation. It's hard to question Shapiro's patriotism, as he is quite adamant in spewing the "media is liberally biased" line, praising President Bush's overt faith in God, and proclaiming that International law is not God's idea. If anyone here has suspicions about my spin, you can go check for yourself at his archives.

Fair enough. Despise his politics if you will, but it's admittedly a rare occurrence when someone our age takes the time and effort to get involved in the political process so much. However, his credibility took an amazing hit after I read this article about how he might have been sued by Governor Gray Davis (yeah, the one who sunk his state into a huge budget deficit and might be recalled). Take a look at the last paragraph and watch him complain about how he, as an 18-year old at the time, was but the little man with only $8000 in his savings account being targeted by the short-tempered Davis.

$8000?!? Here are a few questions for Ben Shapiro. Do you work and go to school? Are you on financial aid? Have you ever seen what it's like for people trying to live in jobs working barely over the minimum wage and hoping not to get laid off by either market forces or their superiors? Do you really care if your semester tuition gets hiked, or does it not matter because your parents pay the entire bill?

Perhaps if these words came from an entrepreneur who really did create his business from humble beginnings and literally knew what it was like to "tighten his belt", then maybe I'd respect those sentiments a little more. I'm glad to say that those opportunities are still available in this country, and that there are people who are willing to take that risk. However, the current economic policies that we are pursuing do little more than to support the existing upper classes. We've tried "trickle-down economics" before, and that was in the Reagan years. How many people have to be unemployed before this madness stops?

I guess it really depends on who you talk to. After all, in the end...a lot of the politics really is about the money.

2003-09-08T00:47:00.000-07:00

President Bush's Address on Iraq and International Cooperation in the War on Terrorism

I don't particularly care for using the term "War on Terrorism" (especially in capitalized form), but considering the abstract things that President Bush was talking about in his speech last night, it's the best possible way to conceptualize the theme of his speech.

Come to think of it, the theme of his foreign policy speeches hasn't changed much since the September 11th attacks. Mix in the terms "Patriotism", "Terror", "Civilization", "God Bless America", then tailor the speech to the appropriate subject. These have been the essential ingredients in a Bush speech. However, last night saw a slight change in his ideology. It turns out Bush is going to send Colin Powell back to the United Nations to get a resolution from the Security Council requesting member nations to provide a third multi-national force in Iraq.

I have genuine doubts as to the willingness of the current administration to pursue a multilateral approach to dealing with Iraq. Military policy isn't the only category that has seen unilateral action on the part of the United States. Just read some opposition from Townhall.com columnists regarding the International Criminal Court and the Kyoto Protocol. And let's not forget the drama that led up to the repeal of the 1972 ABM treaty between the US and Russia.

Hopefully enough concessions will be made in the Security Council to craft an acceptable resolution for all parties that are involved in the Iraq crisis. Bush's speech seemed at best an attempt to take command of the issue, and at worst it was a desperate attempt to save face while still proclaiming Iraq as the "central front" in the "War on Terror".

Sadly, such patriotic sentiment will only get stronger as this Thursday approaches. When all else fails, Bush can safely bring out the patriotism card and watch all who oppose him shy away in terror (pun intended). Even despite some of the new information that came out of his speech tonight, the theme of his speech remained unchanged from previous post-9/11 addresses.

Take this soundbite regarding Iraq: "We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power..."

Abstract indeed. At this rate, we'll be at war for a long time. But who are we at war with? Islamic terrorists who "hate our way of life"? Again, that definition is too abstract. The more disturbing question is whether there are some who have no desire to see the "War on Terrorism" end. After all, how often does an event like the September 11th attacks happen, and how much dissent has been suppressed within its wake? These are important questions to consider. Let's hope the above guess is not the correct one.

2003-09-06T00:35:00.000-07:00

Regents quietly adjust pay scales

It appears the University of Wisconsin System's Board of Regents has proved yet again that they are clueless about the current budget deficit that's plaguing the state. Seriously, who really cares about the fact that the per-student tuition subsidy went down $585 from last year? So what if they approve of an almost 20% tuition hike at UW-Milwaukee, but still raise the pay scale of UWM's future chancellor by almost $30,000/year?

Forgive my blatant sarcasm, but the last thing the UW System needs at this point is a further excuse for tax-freeze hungry legislators to cut more of their funding. This isn't the first time the UW Regents have angered the Legislature (and their students as well). I remember all too well the $91,000/year pay raise that UW System President Katherine Lyall was granted in November 2001. State Representative John Gard (R-Peshtigo) didn't waste any time jumping on that bandwagon, and to be quite honest...he was justified in doing so.

There are plenty of other entities in the UW System that deserve much more protection than the salaries of its upper administration, especially with the case of the regents. Sure enough, as of the night of September 5th, a hasty press release was posted on the system's official website, stating what was done in the meeting. A quick read of that release might make the aforementioned Journal-Sentinel article look like an alarmist reaction.

Not so. The reactionary tone of Nahal Toosi's article is warranted. This isn't the first time the actions of the UW Regents have resulted in bad PR for the System as a whole. It's not as if the regents themselves will suffer in the long term. Take a look at the biographies of each regent and you'll find several lawyers, the president of two major cranberry-producing companies, and a retired vice-president on the professional speaking circuit which takes him to several different countries.

The point is that these are very affluent and influential regents. No less should be expected of such an important board. However, they should know that authorizing pay scale changes would cause the Legislature to have fits. Unfortunately, there isn't much that can control the regents' sudden actions. In March 2002 the same board decided to freeze the admissions process during the heated budget arguments. Guess what happened when the state decided to reform its budget the following year? Governor Jim Doyle's budget authorized $250 million in cuts for the UW system.

That's shoddy PR work on the part of the board. It resulted in a really nasty tuition raise this year for a lot of students, while I for one would have loved to take just a minute portion of Lyall's yearly salary. In a day and age were the state GOP legislators are more than happy to axe the budget out of any program that displeases them, the UW Board of Regents gave Gard and Co. yet another excuse to cry foul to the public.

With that in mind, I have a message for the Legislature: As a UWM undergraduate that is a recipient of federal financial aid, don't snip the budget of the UW System any further than it already is. Some of us like the aid that the state's taxpayers are giving us, and we can't stand the idiotic actions of this Board that has no idea what it's like to see their semester tuition raise by 50% over the last 4 years. Contrary to popular belief, there are students who care.

I care enough to be writing about this at 2:30AM. And if that doesn't speak volumes, I don't know what does.

2003-09-05T20:04:00.000-07:00

Democrats take aim at Bush during debate

The above article from CNN is a brief cap of yesterday’s debate between Democratic candidates for the 2004 presidential election. I’m glad that the whole issue of the United Nations is coming around, especially considering the current administration’s dismissive attitude towards the UN in the past (and their sudden turn-around this week).

There’s one aspect of the far right that’s always bothered me in the past, but has irked me even more in recent years. It’s the side that vehemently opposes “one-world government”. There are biblical verses spread throughout the Old and New Testament that serve for the basis of this lunacy, as well as other influential groups like Wisconsin’s very own John Birsch Society. Even more amusing is their spin-off page encouraging to "Get US Out!" of the United Nations.

Such nativist sentiment would be a thing of the past, right? Wrong. This isn’t to say that this particular segment of political thought in the United States is in control. In fact, the Birschers vehemently oppose neo-conservatism, and proudly advertises a book calling William F. Buckley Jr. a pied piper.

Even with this spat of name-calling, the JBS anger at one-world government has been shared by the Bush administration until now. There are some aspects of conservatism I do appreciate, especially the ambitious drive and enormous risk that entrepreneurs take to create businesses. Even so, it doesn’t excuse the ridiculous rantings that come out of fringe organizations claiming that “The United Nations Wants to Take Your Gun!” If only those sentiments were kept out of US foreign policy. Maybe some day…

2003-09-03T20:13:00.000-07:00

I forget the exact moment I was first introduced to the blogosphere. Several different entities on the Internet offer their services so aspiring commentators and pundits can showcase their views to anyone that decides to care. All comments aside, if anyone out there is reading this…thanks.

As noted in the above summary, this blog is a place where I’ll have a chance to voice my opinions on current events and politics spanning from the local, national, and global levels. Note my overuse of the first person. If there’s one thing that sets the blogosphere apart from other mediums, it’s the blatant lack of objectivity. Head over to Glenn Reynolds’ InstaPundit.com or Matthew Yglesias’ ‘Fair and Balanced Weblog’ and you see a small sampling of opinions from both sides of the political spectrum.

This isn’t to say that both of the above mentioned columnists are locked into rigid definitions of “right” or “left”. Quite often, visitors will leave their comments to blogs, further contributing to discussions. That’s probably one of the most powerful effects of the medium – the ability to almost instantly comment to one’s posts, adding to the discussion of the topic at hand.

Since the demon of objectivity has been cleared, I suppose it’s only fair to reveal a little bit about myself. I’m a 22-year old senior undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. While my political biases are slightly to the left of center, it should be known that I really have no future desire to be a political writer. The world of politics is a dirty business, and while it is a necessary evil for society – people die for it, and some of the darkest chapters in history are thanks to its machinations.

However, I am most definitely not one of those idealist college students looking to make a mark on the world. Dreamers are most certainly needed in our society, but as a senior undergraduate feeling the adverse affects of massive tuition hikes, all I really care about in the end is getting a job and working like any other productive citizen wanting to establish their place in life.

There are plenty of other viewpoints not revealed, but that can wait for another time. When it comes down to it, our viewpoints are molded by the sum of our experiences, and in political discourse, it does matter. One must ask: does the blogosphere really represent the next step in journalism, or is it just a really creative way of debating the current issues at hand? It’s really hard to say right now, because the answers are coming to light as we speak. Given a choice between apathy and active participation, I choose the latter.

2003-09-01T22:12:00.000-07:00

This is a test post for my new blog. As much as I’d like to start commentary, I still need to take care of some other things before classes begin in about nine hours. Hopefully anyone reading this has had a wonderful Labor Day holiday. Here’s to the new semester!