When Barack Obama first began his quest for the Democratic Party's nomination three years ago, the Dow Jones industrial average was around 14,000 and the world and national economies were in the midst of a boom. By 2008, America's financial industry was in shambles, credit markets were frozen, housing values were decreasing and the economy was in the worst shape since the Great Depression. Add Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea to the mix, and you have got yourself an astounding set of international and national challenges.
This past Monday, I opened up my copy of the New University and was unpleasantly surprised by the article, "Catch 22: Regulating Climate Change During a Recession." The article seemed like a standard opinion, yet its assumptions concerning the future of energy reform in the United States were insidious in their capability to convince the average reader of their merit, and thereby encourage complacency.
Savana Redding's life as a 13-year-old was significantly more complicated than most. When I was 13, my primary concern was what girls thought of me and how soon I could get contact lenses. Others worried about their grades or soccer teams. Unlike us, Redding was stripped searched by school officials based on the uncorroborated tip of a fellow student.
In a recent press release, United Airlines claimed to have receive over 700 complaints last year from passengers who had uncomfortable flights solely because they were seated next to an obese person. In response, the airline carrier adopted a policy regarding the problem. Under the policy, if a passenger is deemed too fat to fit into his or her seat comfortably – the criteria for this is if the passenger is unable to put down the arm rest or buckle the seatbelt with an extender – then that passenger will be charged for an additional seat on the flight for the inconvenience. This development is the latest in a series of attempts to discriminate against obese people, which is arguably the only socially acceptable form of discrimination focused on an entire group of people.
On April 20, the New University published an editorial entitled, "Paying to Play: Buying the ASUCI Presidency," in which the Editorial Board argued for spending caps in ASUCI elections. We stand behind that editorial. Without spending caps, election campaigns have become caught in an arms race, with each candidate forced to spend ridiculous amounts of money in order to remain competitive. This leaves students who don't have large amounts of funding behind. ASUCI campaigns should be fueled by thoughtful proposals and ideas, not by money.
