Meet the Super PAC

Presidential candidates are not alone in the race to the White House. Reporters, staff members, and supporters surround them on the campaign trail. Yet the most powerful player in the upcoming election is a newbie: the super PAC.

Super PACs are the money-raising vehicle of the 2012 election, and "are emerging as de facto subsidiaries of the traditional presidential campaigns," according to The Washington Post..

Super PACs are technically independent of candidates and parties. The Washington Post also cites that they are supposed to abide by Federal Election Commission (FEC) rules prohibiting coordination with campaigns.

The "candidate super PAC" is a consequence of the Supreme Court ruling in 2010 that allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.

“The candidate super PAC, which is new to 2012, is the most dangerous vehicle operating in American politics,” said Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, in The Washington Post. “It is a way, in essence, for candidates to raise and spend unlimited money from wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions for the benefit of their campaign. That takes you very close to unlimited contribution limits.”

The top GOP candidates--Romney, Perry, Bachmann--all have one of more super PACs dedicated to raising campaign funds. The Democratic super PAC, Priorities USA Action, is generating revenue to help President Obama in his reelection effort.

Super PACs are the candidates' purely pecuniary alter egos, pumping money into their White House bids. And the FEC recently made the relationship between the candidate and his or her super PAC even more intimate.

According to The Washington Post, the agency decided that candidates are free to raise money for super PACs within the bounds of federal contribution limits.

Furthermore, the FEC has loosened its standards to allow a closer relationship between campaigns and outside groups. According to a legal settlement announced this week, super PACs will be now permitted to make donations directly to candidates without forming a separate organization, "as long as the relevant funds are segregated." Thus a single group can contribute money to a candidate's campaign and spend unlimited funds to assist the same politician.

“These PACs will now be able to do what the candidates and parties can’t do,” Brett Kappel, a campaign-finance lawyer at Arent Fox said. “It’s moving the entire political system into super PACs.

The new face of American politics is not someone with values that I can support or oppose. It is not someone with whom I can communicate. It is not somone who can negotitate with foreign countries, comfort citizens in a time of crisis, or has a vision for domestic healthcare policy. The new face of American politics is not human.

Citizens vs. FEC: "Freedom" Taken Too Far in 2012

Abe Lincoln needs to revise the Gettysburg Address. It says America is a “government of the people, by the people, for the people.” It won’t take him long, though. Just insert “corporation” where “people” once was.

Last year, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (FEC), a bitterly divided Supreme Court ruled that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections. Though we as Americans value freedom of expression, since when are corporations entitled to the same First Amendment rights as individuals?

This decision goes beyond violating the principles of our democracy. It threatens them. And it has given wealthy people and influential, well-connected politicians the power to potentially sway the 2012 election.

The justices in the majority interpreted free speech rights much too broadly—and incorrectly. It is an absurd and dangerous claim to say corporations are just like people and are entitled to the same rights: Companies are artificial, legal constructs that exist to make money. Corporate spending on politics is not comparable to ordinary Americans’ support of a candidate.

Citizens United was out to prove otherwise. The organization created “Hillary: The Movie,” a flick that essentially argued why Hillary Rodham Clinton was unfit for presidency. The FEC restricted Citizens’ right to advertise the film during the 2008 primary season.

David Bossie, part of Citizens United and a Republican campaign operative, sued the FEC. According to The Washington Post, a lower court sided with the FEC in 2008, but Bossie was not satisfied, and brought the case to the Supreme Court.

The decision overruled two well-established precedents that restricted corporate spending to support or oppose candidates. The 2002 law, known as McCain-Feingold, banned the broadcast, cable, or satellite transmission of communications paid for by corporations or labor unions 30 days before the presidential primary and in the 60 days before the general elections, according to The New York Times.

President Obama described the decision as “a major victory for big, oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”

According to The Washington Post, Citizen United’s prominent lawyer, Theodore B. Olson, was particularly attached to this case because of his late wife’s investigations on Hillary. Olson transformed the case from a single attack on McCain-Feingold to an all-out assault on the law’s constitutionality.

What really is unconstitutional, however, is the extension of rights intended for real persons to artificial creations. In a 1988 New York Times article, Ralph Nader and Carl J. Mayer note how the framers of the Constitution “knew about corporations but chose not to mention [them].” The constitution’s rights are meant to equalize and empower the people, not moneymaking entities.

Corporations have only economic interests at heart, and now, they have free reign to “inject as much money as they jolly well please into federal campaigns,” said Jason Linkins of The Huffington Post. While an individual might be attracted to a candidate because of plans to reform healthcare or education, a corporation does not think in those terms. In fact, a corporation, though composed of many individuals, does not “think” at all. It acts according to what will be most profitable, which in turn, empowers the people within a corporation, as companies hold more economic power and sway than do most Americans.

Individuals have the right to support or oppose a candidate because that candidate will be leading his or her country. No matter what the reason for someone’s support of a candidate, that person represents only herself in a vote or donation. Who is the corporation representing, and precisely why is it involved in our community? Yet masked in a cloak of anonymity, the corporation can shout louder than ordinary Americans with its billions and billions of dollars.

When enormous corporations can spend unlimitedly in federal campaigns, the voice of the people is lost. And is a democracy not a government of the people?

Instead of upholding the principles of the First Amendment, the five justices in the majority have actually destroyed the rights for the ones who are truly entitled to them—the people. By extending the same freedoms to corporations, the peoples’ power diminishes in value. This decision truly twists the First Amendment, and in effect, causes it to lose its purpose for everyday Americans.

And now, the repercussions of the decision are beginning to surface.

According to The New York Times, Gov. Rick Perry of Texas is among the top political fund-raisers in the country, with a "vast network of wealthy supporters eager to bankroll his presidential ambitions." During the first half of 2011, the Republicans Governors Association, of which Mr. Perry is chairman raised a record $22.1 million.

Gov. Perry's strength as a fund-raiser is due in large part to his tenure as governor: he is the longest-serving chief executive in Texas history. Texas is also a "treasure trove of Republican money," and "has few restrictions on political giving." Individuals and political actions committees (PACs) can give unlimited amounts to candidates for governor. According to a study by Texans for Public Justice, half of Gov. Perry's campaign contributions (approx. $51 million in the last decade) have come from just 204 donors giving $100,000 or more.

Money can't buy you love, but it sure is powerful.

Federal law caps at $2,500 the amount individuals can give to any one candidate during the primaries, which will thwart Gov. Perry from raising money nearly as easily as he has in the past.

However, thanks to the Citizens vs. FEC decision, whatever money his wealthiest supports cannot give directly to Gov. Perry can aid his campaign indirectly via "Super PACs." A direct consequence of the court decision, Super PACs are independent groups that can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support a candidate. Former Perry aides and his supporters have set up around a half dozen Super PACs in recent weeks.

At this point, it's hard to tell how Super PACs will affect the ultimate result of 2012. After all, the degree to which political advertising is incorporated into a person's vote is, in most respects, immeasurable.

Perhaps I'm naive to believe that money should be silenced in order for the people's true voice to prevail. Of course, it has to play a part in the campaign to some extent--otherwise, there'd be no campaign. However, corporations and Super PACs (and whatever else that may emerge) possess superhuman privileges. With the chance to spend infinite amounts of money during election time, corporations hold most of the cards. Corporations are freer than we are.

Reality, Pixelated

I overheard a woman with a huge yellow daisy bow on the subway this morning tell her friend, "Like, seriously, she's so out of it. She doesn't even have a Facebook."

The friend aggressively nodded her head in agreement.

At first, I thought the crazy flower monstrosity had gone to the woman's head. As someone who delayed getting a Facebook until the very last minute, I can relate to and empathize with someone who eschews social networking, which I consider one of the major negative side effects of the Internet. (In all honesty, I wish I had grown up in the 1920s, but that's a different story.) I still don't understand why people think the rest of the world cares about what they're doing at that moment or their favorite song lyric of the day. I don't understand why it's as though something hasn't happened unless it's been posted online. Furthermore, I don't understand where people find time to constantly post these "statuses" or "tweets" (thankfully, I can avoid Twitter completely). The most hysterical thing is when someone posts a complaint about how much they have to do. Um, try getting off the Internet? Crazy, I know!

Still, the woman's comment stuck with me throughout the morning. I thought back to the day where I decided I needed to give in and get a Facebook. I had felt incredibly left out without one, as though I were missing out on some hilarious inside joke that everyone was laughing about at school each day. Acquaitances would ask me for my "Facebook name," and I had to admit that I didn't have one; it seemed almost criminal. Yet what finally convinced me to surrender was the urging of my friends from summer programs, who believed Facebook was the best way to stay in touch.

So, I have one. I only post statuses if something epic happens, and I use it for funny pictures and to stay in touch with people. As with anything, it's tolerable in moderation.

Yet, this virtual communication creates a stark divide between those who use it and those who reject it. The network has a way of lodging itself into our own computing systems. I recall birthdays, schools, favorite songs, and even last names by remembering the setups of profiles. It's as if by not having one, a person is choosing to exclude herself from a part of reality and live in an easier world without notifications and status updates. They are the ones who live in a fantasy, because sadly, Facebook is so undeniably a part of today's reality.

What happens in the physical world and what happens in the pixelated world have grown too dangerously intertwined to untangle. The mere fact that I am writing this all down (or rather, typing this all up) signals that we've now become programmed (pun intended) to blend the two realities. Thoughts become a virtual conversation. A "like" or a comment becomes an incredible compliment. Photos become public amusement. Profiles become one of the many ways in which the world views and judges you.

Now, excuse me as I go to link this page to my Facebook.

Bachmann Off Reality Ranch

Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that "not all cultures are equal, not all values are equal" in October 2008.

In that interview, according to The Huffington Post, she implied that she believed people of the Muslim faith had an inferior culture to that of the United States and the West. Today, she denigrates and isolates another group of American citizens: gay men and women.

This month, according to The New York Times, Bachmann signed a pledge in Iowa opposing "any redefinition of marriage."

Marriage is federally defined as between a man and a woman under the Defense of Marriage Act. Thus, even same-sex couples who can be legally married in their home state will need to file separate federal tax returns. They are not eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, and owe extra income taxes on their spouse's health insurance benefits, a cost straight couples do not have to pay.

And, of course, gay couples who live in states that prohibit same-sex marriage do not have the right to celebrate their love.

According to Bachmann, we actually lose our "civil liberties" by affording every citizen the right to be married. In 2004, with Massachusetts soon to allow gay couples to wed, she told a Christian television network, “We will have immediate loss of civil liberties for five million Minnesotans. In our public schools, whether they want to or not, they’ll be forced to start teaching that same-sex marriage is equal, that it is normal and that children should try it.”

It's a bit comical (and frightening) that someone running a serious presidential campaign doesn't understand the separation of church and state. Furthermore, in a country founded on the principles of equality, liberty, and freedom for all, it is appalling that someone who supports a form of legal discrimination is a candidate for the Republican nomination. (If one group of citizens can be married and another cannot because of sexual orientation, that's unequal and unjust--that's discriminatory.) With her deluded perspective and evangelical faith bleeding into her politics, I pray that Bachmann stops preaching to our citizenry and Washington.

I respect that everyone has his or her own beliefs. Yet this woman believes that it is an "interesting coincidence" that swine flu broke out under two Democratic presidents. She believes that the "normalization" of homosexuality "through desensitization" poses a threat to this country. She believes that by accepting homosexuality, we are encouraging children "to try it." I can neither respect these views nor understand how Bachmann thinks she's grounded in reality when she speaks.

I have two questions: Where did this woman come from, and how did she get this far in American politics?

Of course, there is no question that Bachmann has a built-in pool of conservatives in this country who support her pro-life, anti-gay stances, and her religious views already run rampant in Washington.

According to The New York Times, until recently, Bachmann was a member of Salem Lutheran Church, which holds that "a believing member" cannot "remain a practicing homosexual in defiance of God's word." (Where in the Old or New Testament does it say God opposes homosexuality? I read the Bible, and didn't find any such thing.)

When Bachmann arrived at Minnesota's Statehouse as a new senator in January 2001, gay marriage "was not an issue." Minnesota had already enacted its own version of the Defense of Marriage Act. In November 2003, Bachmann emerged as "Public Enemy No. 1 to Minnesota's gay rights advocates," according to Don Betzold, a former chairman of the State Senate Judiciary Committee, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court declared that state's law banning same-sex marriage unconstitutional. She vowed to introduce a constitutional amendment. "We can't have that in Minnesota," she said.

When Out Front Minnesota, a gay rights group that supported legal recognition of domestic partnerships and nondiscrimination initiatives, lobbied at the Statehouse, Bachmann made it known that she was opposed to its agenda. “She had ex-gay people,” Monica Meyer, the group's executive director, said, “who would tell her [gay] constituents that being gay was wrong and immoral.”

She worked with the Minnesota Family Council, which opposes abortion and gay rights, to plan a series of “Minnesotans for Marriage” rallies at the Capitol. They organized churches to send buses. According to The New York Times, Bachmann promoted the events on Christian talk shows.

The Minnesota House adopted her bill, but in 2006, it stalled in the Senate.

Bachmann has since co-sponsored four resolutions opposing same-sex marriage. In addition, a constitutional amendment prohibiting gays from marrying will be on the Minnesota ballot in 2012.

See this link for more hilarity provided by Bachmann: http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/the-10-craziest-michele-bachmann-quote. Too bad that she chose politics over comedy. Then, at least, we could freely laugh at her statements, without fear that one day she will run the country.

The Humanities Genius

In President Barack Obama's State of Union speech this year, he said science, technology, engineering and math will guide the country's future.

"Maintaining our leadership in research and technology is crucial to America's success ... if we want innovation to produce jobs in America and not overseas, then we also have to win the race to educate our kids," Obama said.

I understand that the president needs to advance the United States' role as a leader in technology development and scientific research in order to compete globally. I only wish that the intellectual value and meaningful analytical skills gained through studying the humanities and social sciences would somehow be acknowledged amidst the countless calls for more funding for education in mathematics and for the training of a new generation of scientists.

Those advocating increased funds for science and mathematical programs do not deserve criticism. According to SEDL, a private, non-profit education research, development, and dissemination corporation, only 38 percent of U.S. fourth graders and 33 percent of eighth graders were rated proficient or advanced in math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in May 2011. The need to improve the quantitative abilities of American children is indisputable.

As a college student interested primarily in the social sciences, I'm simply frustrated. It seems that many doubt the merits of studying anything but mathematics or science in today's fierce global economy.

One evening near finals time, in the John D. Rockefeller, Jr. library (affectionately known as the Rock) at Brown, I was in the process of taking my political science textbook out of my book bag when one student who shall remain unnamed commented to me, "Wish I were studying that bull right now."

I looked up at him (or her), perplexed. The student went back to a studying calculus as if he or she said nothing out-of-the-ordinary. Yet, comments of that nature are not unheard of at Brown and its peer institutions with other ambitious students looking to gain a competitive edge. To them, studying the humanities has no purpose in their plans to "make bank," a phrase I heard in my first week of freshman year.

I did not go to college to study how to "make bank." Rather, I went to study topics that interest me. I'm interested in politics, international relations, literature, the arts. I'm interested in topics I have not yet discovered (I only just finished my freshman year, after all). That does not mean that I will be a starving writer with no applicable skills living in a cardboard box in Providence, Rhode Island after I receive a useless diploma. And it certainly does not mean that I am not just as ambitious in my endeavors as my pre-med peers.

The purpose of an education is a confusing one. An education is eye-opening. It helps us discover our passions and understand other cultures. It helps us read the newspaper and understand the significance of the headlines in a broader context. Yet an education must also prepare us for the economy. It must give us the skills we need to become employed.

Yet those two objectives need not be mutually exclusive.

There have been numerous instances this semester that left me speechless. (Literally.) After talking with another unnamed student about his or her courses, I asked why they were taking a specific course they mentioned. The student replied, "Oh, I don't really want to take it. I just will need it, y'know, so I can put it on my transcript and resume." So I can make bank.

At Brown in particular, where we have no distribution requirements, students are encouraged to take courses that interest them and courses that are outside of their comfort zone. I did not know the purpose of my schedule was to impress a future employer. Rather, I would hope that the passion and extensive knowledge in the subjects I pursued would be a major factor in any decision to hire me.

While our nation needs doctors and engineers, undoubtedly, the message need not be implicitly sent that studying the humanities is superfluous. Certainly, America's children must learn how to think critically, analyze literature, and write effectively. Even standardized tests like the MCAT and DAT have a reading comprehension section--even scientists need to be able to clearly express their research in writing.

Instead, the message needs to be made clear to students of the humanities and social sciences that their studies are not worthless.

After discussing this topic with a few of my fellow social science students and friends at Brown, we came to the conclusion that because we enjoy what we study, we are, in fact, benefitting from our educations the most.

During this conversation, I listened to how complexly and effectively they formed their words and expressed their emotions. This was no doubt in part due to their impeccable knack for oral presentations in class and writing academic papers. And I arrived at a separate conclusion (one that I had already known, but have been doubting due to unnecessarily-slipping confidence in my course of study): We are just as genius as anyone who can take a derivative.

(In fact, I can do that as well.)

Proud to be New Yawkers

One of the last forms of legal discrimination has just been nullified in New York State.

On Friday night, June 24th, the Republican-controlled state Senate voted 33-29 to legalize gay marriage in New York.

It was only two years ago that gay marriage was easily defeated in the then Democrat-controlled Senate. Now, same-sex couples can head to the alter 30 days after Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo signs the bill. Gov. Cuomo, who pledged during last fall's campaign to push for gay marriage, believes New York continues its legacy as a beacon for social justice movements with this bill, according to Politico.

The new law not only permits same-sex couples to swap rings, but also allows them marriage benefits afforded to straight couples. Now, couples who marry and reside in New York will be able to file their state tax returns jointly. Married couples will also be the first to automatically inherit their spouses' assets, even in the absence of a will.

However, under the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, gay couples will still need to file separate federal tax returns. According to The New York Times, they will not be eligible for Social Security spousal or survivor benefits, and will continue to owe extra income taxes on their spouse's health insurance benefits, a cost straight married couples do not have to pay.

Despite this, the new law is a huge, well-deserved victory for the gay community in New York, across the country, and for equality. New York is joining Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire, Iowa and Washington, D.C., in legally recognizing gay marriage. In our federalist system, while perhaps a hindrance in some respects, gay marriage is comparable to an infectious laugh, an exemplary instance of policy diffusion.

While marriage is defined as between a man and a woman at the federal level, I'm still perplexed that it is legal to deny same-sex couples the right to be married in the majority of U.S. states. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. If some states in the Union are giving its gay citizens the right to be married and some are not, is this not an inequality in and of itself? Perhaps this is where our federalist system falters.

The question of whether marriage is a right comparable to the right to freedom of speech or religion requires a whole new post, and I'm not sure I have a definite answer. However, the question of whether marriage is a fundamental right is irrelevant. If one portion of citizens have the opportunity to be married and another does not, marriage need not be considered a civil liberty in order for its denial to the gay population to be grossly unjust.

Furthermore, because marriage brings with it undeniable financial and other benefits to couples, it is not solely decorative. That is, it is simply unfair that some citizens are afforded those benefits and some are not due to sexual orientation. If a person wants to marry someone of the same sex, they should be able to and receive the same benefits afforded to straight couples. The government oversteps its boundaries when it tells citizens that their choice for a life partner is a wrong one. People do not "choose" to be gay, just as people do not choose their race or gender at birth. Gender, race and sexual orientation are not reasons to privilege one group and disadvantage another.

At least for the moment, we can celebrate the fact that marriage equality has arrived in New York, and hopefully, we are one step closer to it at the federal level.

Brown Prevails Over Anti-Gay Protesters

http://blogdailyherald.com/2011/03/23/crusaders-for-traditional-marriage-take-over-waterman/

A faction of the American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property, a national organization that opposes gay marriage, descended upon the Main Green at 11 a.m. this past Wednesday morning while I was in Spanish class.

Equipped with bagpipes and medieval-looking banners, they disrupted my class, and attracted 20 onlookers before being forced to relocate to public property by the Department of Public Safety.

Some students called the protest "a hate rally," and flooded the scene with makeshift signs and noisemakers, unafraid to chant and make their opinions known to organization officials.

Brown students sang and marched down Watermann and Thayer, following the tail of the Society's eerie, bagpipe tune, until the organization was essentially forced to leave. A celebration erupted as the last of the men drove away in their vans.

Clearly, Brown students not only know how to exercise their 1st Amendment rights, but also use them to prevail over hateful speech.

The Value of the Written Word

There are many perks to having a blog. For one thing, posting feels like a semi-productive use of time. But mostly, I love that it's another chance to write, and what I write can be made available to the virtual world within a matter of seconds.

In this year's State of the Union address, Barack Obama focused on his plans for education reform, and emphasized the nation's slipping competitiveness in math and science. According to the most recent Nation's Report Card, a Department of Education survey on grade-level proficiency, only 21 percent of twelfth-graders were proficient in science in 2009, and 26 percent were proficient in math. In order to compete in a post-industrial knowledge economy, of course Obama is correct in his assertion that education programs in the maths and sciences need to improve.

At first, Obama's speech made me feel obsolete, as math and science are not where my strengths and interests lie. But after he finished, I realized Obama failed to mention a undeniably important skill that even the most brilliant scientists need in order to coherently share their findings.

Writing.

Only 24 percent of twelfth-graders were found to be proficient in writing; yet, Obama did not mention any plans for improving English programs (or foreign language programs, oddly enough, which are essential in today's global society).

Maybe writing proficiency is not what makes a country "competitive," but would anyone's education be complete without it? Maybe the folks at home wouln't want to hear that a portion of our budget will be used for improving English language programs nationwide ("Our tax dollars are going towards what?").

Yet writing is a form of communication that is essential not only in story-telling, but also in sharing new ideas and discoveries, in analyzing texts or phenomena, in describing the world we inhabit. It is the ultimate form of expression, creativity, and a true catharsis.

Maybe I am obsolete. At least I'll be able to write about it.

Should We Be Forced?

This past winter break, 480 students at Bard College participated in a mandatory program called Citizen Science, a rigorous, hands-on course that familiarized students with lab equipment and computer modeling, and taught them about all aspects of disease, including detecting germs and managing pandemics.

Bard's president, David Botstein, the brainchild behind Citizen Science, said, “The hidden Achilles’ heel is that while we’ve found ways to educate scientists in the humanities, the reverse has never really happened. Everybody knows this, but nobody wants to do anything about it.”

Students neither receive credit nor grades for their work. Certainly, the initiative allows students who normally would not choose a science-based course to learn without the pressure that inevitably accompanies a graded class.

The National Academy of Sciences, in its 2005 report, "Rising Above the Gathering Storm," said that the United States "faced a future of economic decline if it failed to make significant investments in research in and teaching of science and mathematics," according to The New York Times.

Thus, the question: should we be forced to learn science, perhaps even pursue it? Even if we're not a "science person?" And what does it mean to be a science person anyway?

Also according to The Times, only 16 percent of American college students received a degree in natural sciences or engineering in 2006. In China, 38 percent of students majored in a scientific field that year.

For those who aren't scientifically-inclined, and don't know how they'd fare in a traditional Chem or Bio course, perhaps Bard's initiative is a good thing, offering students a chance to test the waters--without fear of drowning amidst pre-meds or engineers.

Yet what is really the motive behind Citizen Science? Is it simply to expose the "humanities people" to science (an aim normally achieved through general education requirements)? Or, is it an attempt to gain more "science people"? And can Bard's no-pressure method achieve this goal?

Although there is no grade, the students have a final project. According to The Times, one group project was a dance performance that illustrated how an infleunza vaccine works.

While this sort of thinking is innovative and certainly requires a thorough understanding of the material, if Bard's goal is to encourage further coursework and majors in the hard sciences, perhaps Citizen Science is not the most accurate introduction. (If, on the other hand, Dr. Botstein simply wants the humanities people to have some understanding of science, then this is a unique method to achieve that aim.)

Bard's initiative begs the question: should we learn what we want to learn (within reason), or should we be forced to pursue fields of academia that will make the United States more "competitive" on the global scale? Is our education for ourselves, for the sake of learning, exposure to new things and understanding our place in society, or is our education meant to help our nation "compete"?

It's in bad taste to end a post with a series of questions, but obviously, I'm without the answers.

Why We Should Actually Criticize the Tiger Mother

I don't remember much about being seven years old. Yes, I vaguely remember going to school, doing my homework, and taking piano lessons and tennis lessons. But mostly, I remember wild sleepovers with my friends, arts and crafts projects with my mother, and pool parties in my backyard.

Early last week, Americans denounced Amy Chua, a Yale law professor; in her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, Chua details her extreme "Chinese" parenting style, while accusing American parents of lacking authority. Though she even mocks her own methods, some of what her book revealed simply cannot be laughed off.

Chua's two daughters were not allowed to have friends over or sleepovers. They couldn't make silly arts and crafts projects like I did, or watch TV or play video games. Though America is undeniably filled with parents who push and pressure their kids, Chua didn't stand for nonsense (though why Chua equates fun with nonsense is what's truly nonsensical), and only demanded excellence from her daughters. As a result, they get straight A's and win musical competitions.

The stories that point to Chua's severe parenting are the ones that enraged America, such as when Chua deemed her daughters' handmade birthday cards as being unsatisfactory and demanded they make new ones, or when Chua threatened to burn one of her daughter's stuffed animals until she played a piece of music flawlessly.

These extreme accounts horrify me, too; however, I feel there is a deeper problem with Chua's style of parenting, a crucial one that many American critics are missing in their broadsides against her.

Chua is raising her children to live in a world without social interaction.

Her children might be mathematically-advanced and musical geniuses, but how do they fare in the cafeteria? Maybe lunchtime isn't a class with a grade, but it sure as hell is an important component of the school day. And while Chua pushes her children to constantly build and strengthen intellectual and musical skills, what setting does she provide to let them build their characters? No matter how well her daughters can take a derivative, if they can't work in teams or interact with their peers, those skills won't take them very far.

Perhaps her daughters will have "success" in the future, however Chua defines it. For a number of reasons aside from Chua's parenting, they probably will. Yet they already lost out on something: fun. I never won musical competitions, or any significant competitions for that matter, as a child, but my childhood accomplished more than theirs. I can look back on it and remember my crazy play dates and slumber parties, both of which helped shape my character and my internal moral compass. I learned way more about life and about myself from those interactions than from any elementary classroom lesson.

Maybe my childhood wasn't a success in Chua's eyes. I would be horrified if it were.

AZ in the News (Again)

Stories on the shooting in Tuscon are flooding the newspapers (and their online equivalents), but Arizona was in The Times yesterday for a different reason: its new backward education law.

A new education law, which took effect Dec. 31, bans classes that "promote resentment toward a race or class of people" or "advocate ethnic solidarity instead of the treatment of pupils as individuals." While the law sounds ethical on paper (though I'm a little fuzzy on how it defines "ethnic solidarity"), Arizona's new attorney general, Tim Horne, used it to prohibit a Mexican-American ethnic studies program in the Tuscon Unified School District. Mr. Horne is the man who wrote the law.

And I thought we were in the 21st century.

Mr. Horne accused the program of "brainwashing" Latino students, claiming it taught "ethnic chauvinism" because it uses works by authors critical of the United States' historical relationship with Latin America and its past treatment of Latinos.

Where does critical thinking come into play if students learn "one side" of the story, and don't engage with relevant texts that shed a new, perhaps unfavorable, light on the United States for a particular issue? Isn't an education supposed to encourage students to understand their place in the world? How can they do that when perspectives are removed from the discussion?

I had an English professor this year who emphasized the "Aha!" moments in essay writing. Similarly, isn't an education (or an ideal education) a series of "Aha!" moments, in which different pieces of a greater picture come together in a way you never thought imaginable?

The students in the Tuscon Unified School District won't have these "Aha!" moments any longer, at least when it comes to Mexican-American relations--a crucial part of the American historical narrative.

Tuscon school officials say the program has helped students keep their grades up and stay in school.

Jersey Shore at B&N

The fact that the "Jersey Shore" is today's most popular television show reflects the pathetic state of American society. Still, I'm not a "TV snob"--I watch my fair share of junk television, though I'd like to think "Millionaire Matchmaker" and "The Real Housewives of New York City" are at least a tad more respectable. We're all entitled to the mental downtime these shows provide.

Yet the fact that "Snooki" is writing a book (a novel, not an autobiography), titled A Shore Thing, crosses the line.

The girl whose claim to fame is excessive partying, drinking, and general shenanigan-type behavior, the girl who said "I'm too pretty to be in jail," should not be on the shelves at Barnes and Noble alongside great writers, intellects, pundits, researchers, or people simply with a good story.

Currently, I try to avoid the "Jersey Shore" phenomenon: I turn off the TV, dodge conversation about it, and choose not to buy Snooki products. Yet once a book with Snooki's beehive-hair on its cover enters my bookstores--well, that's when I'll be furious.

Simon and Schuster is the publisher behind Snooki's book; if you'd like a different Simon and Schuster read, pre-order a copy of Live and Let Love. The book comes out on February 1st. A link is below:

http://books.simonandschuster.com/Live-and-Let-Love/Andrea-Buchanan/9781439191354

That's What She Said

I thought the headline was sarcastic when I saw it flash across my computer screen on The Times website.

According to New York City Schools Chancellor Cathellen P. Black, birth control just might be the solution to school overcrowding.

Yesterday evening during a meeting with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and his school overcrowding task force, Ms. Black addressed the problem head-on:

“Couldn’t we just have some birth control for a while?” Ms. Black asked. “It would really help us.”

Demographic projections predict a shortage of 1,000 school seats by 2015 in the downtown Manhattan area.

Yes, Ms. Black laughed at her own comment. Still, perhaps I'm not getting the joke. I certainly don't find it funny.

Ms. Black's spokeswoman, Natalie Ravitz, offered an apology on behalf of Chancellor Black, and characterized the comment as an "off-handed joke."

Isn't it so comforting to know City kids are in the hands of a woman with a sense of humor?

Maybe I would find the "joke" funny if it were part of a conversation at my dinner table. But coming from the chancellor--the woman whose job it is to ensure that our children receive an education--I find it nothing short of twisted and disconcerting.

Re-Assessing Our Stance on Gun Control

The debate over gun control is indubitably a heated and complex one, with a vast abyss of middle ground that makes forming a clear opinion a difficult feat. The Constitution’s Second Amendment states that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and not only are the applications of this amendment in question, but also the precise meaning.

Gun rights advocates claim that people have the right to own arms for their defense. Yet as cognitive beings, people have the ability to choose what to do with a weapon once it is in their possession. In the case of Jared Loughner, clearly a disturbed individual, he made the choice to use a gun to kill in a fatal rampage outside a Tuscon grocery store on Jan. 8, 2011. According to The New York Times, Loughner legally purchased the semiautomatic Glock pistol used in the shooting at Sportsman’s Warehouse, which sells hunting and fishing gear, on Nov. 30 in Tucson. State gun laws in Arizona allow the carrying of a concealed weapon.

Furthermore, Loughner "had repeated contact with law enforcement officers over the years," according to The Times, and yet, he was still able to purchase a weapon.

Perhaps the saying should go: "People kill people, and can more easily do so when weapons can be purchased just as quickly as shoes."

Simply put, I don't trust all of my fellow citizens. While of course not everyone who purchases a gun intends to pull the trigger, I don't believe every person is capable of handling gun ownership. What I certainly do believe is that many, many tragedies--murders, suicides--could have been avoided if guns were not so readily accessible.

Plus, for those who believe owning a gun for defense purposes is a wise safety precaution, statistics from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence say otherwise. A gun in the home is eleven times more likely to be used in an attempted suicide than to be used to injure or kill in self-defense. And of these attempted suicides with a gun, more than ninety percent are fatal; in comparison, only three percent of suicide attempts with drugs or cutting result in death.

We need to re-assess the Second Amendment. If a gun is legally allowed to be in the hands of every American, how many lives are we putting at risk? How many guns will land in the wrong hands? And most importantly, are public safety and gun ownership mutually exclusive?

The National Rifle Association called the Loughner rampage a "senseless tragedy"--senseless it was, indeed. So does it not make sense that the right to live in a secure nation should come before the right to keep and bear arms?