Non-Approval

We've seen this before, but last time there was a boring/moderate Republican running a weak campaign against President Barack Obama.  What will save him this time?

The public is finally coming around.

Are you?

 

We Remember

As we remember those whom we lost, we also remember those who served without a second thought.

September 11, 2001.  We will always remember.

Red Lines: Military Defense or Political Pressure?

by Zach Moore
President of BU College Republicans

Roughly one year ago our president, the commander and chief of the military, made a statement that solidified the position of the United States on the use of chemical weapons. Imaginary or not, President Obama stated that use of chemical weapons by Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, would cross “a red line for us,” and therefore we would respond with military action. By creating this red line without UN support, President Obama put the United States in not only a foolish position, but casted our fate in a solo mission against the deadly Assad Regime. 

After threats and intelligence of chemical weapons throughout the last year, the president refused to reinforce this imaginary red line he single handedly traced.  Now, Assad has committed a massacre against his own citizens, and the United States is forced to act due to the words of a political figure.

Through this situation the question arises, do red lines really protect the American people and prevent military action? Logically speaking, no they do the exact opposite. They expose us to dangerous and involuntary political actions due to political pressure. However, speaking emotionally as the left does, a red line is some sort universally supported monstrosity, built with metal spikes, electric fencing, and barbed wire protecting the American people and preventing a war. Sadly, a red line is nothing more than a failed president’s rhetoric, in order to make a train wreck of a foreign policy look like it has legitimacy. In reality, President Obama put the United States at major risk by making this statement, and now is forced to act on those words in order to save his already failed presidency. Most importantly, such red lines put far too much political pressure on our leaders. Now, we have a president who is attempting to build an image, rather than protect our citizens. In order to avert this, you can see the president trying to dump the load of pressure onto our legislatures for it to no longer be his fault if he breaks his promise of a red line induced military strike. Moreover, as of recently, the president even denied his comments about enacting a red line, by saying “I didn’t set a red line; the world set a red line”, another obvious attempt of our president shifting the blame of his attempted actions onto another body of legislature.

Since when do we as American people find this as acceptable? What happened to the president taking responsibility, standing up, and taking a clear and signified position on an issue? Even further, the president continued to contradict himself in his attempt to shift the blame around August 20, by saying, “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.” Notice how the president states, “a red line for us,” “my calculus,” and even, “my equation.” By “my”, Mr. President, I would hope that you are referring to yourself, commander-in-chief of the military, and by “us” the United States of America. However, as I recently highlighted, the president said the world set the red line, not us. Once again, rhetoric with no logic.

Our president speaks strictly with emotion, and through that blinds himself and the rest of this country to the power of his words and what he says as a leader. As the citizens of the United States, we need to learn to hold leaders accountable for their words, so that a president does not have the ability to make emotionally backed statements such as Obama’s on an imaginary red line.

Rebutting "Five Easy Steps..."

Anthony Beard
BUCR Advisor

The campus community was recently forwarded this link to an article titled "How the American University Was Killed, In Five Easy Steps", which basically blames the entire downfall of higher education on conservative principles.  Thought it was important to share a rebuttal.  So far this summer my reading has focused on intellectual works such as Atlas Shrugged and Academically Adrift, so it’s nice to have some light reading that requires less thinking. 

I would say while I obviously agree with the premise of the importance of education, it’s a wild assumption to think that H.G. Wells was specifically speaking of higher education.  To think that traditional university or college education is the penultimate education one can receive in life strikes me as a bit narcissistic.  What I find even more narcissistic is the thought that a faculty member’s wage is equivalent to a migrant worker.  I read The Press Enterprise and I sincerely believe George Milton would disagree.

By no means do I disagree with the downfall of higher education being linked to “poor educational outcomes in our graduates, the out-of-control tuitions and crippling student loan debt.”  As I rebut this article I see the same issues, but recognize the true causes of them.

Before I get to that, I would also point out that I am neither a war-monger or a corporation, yet I am not foolish enough to see things as simply black and white as this article does and assume that the culturally liberal upheaval of the 1960s didn’t come with any drawbacks, such as out of wedlock birth, which leads to increased poverty, which leads to more crime and (ironically enough) less education.  I’m grateful that the 60s brought us open-mindedness, but as all revolutions do, they also brought about consequences.  You don’t need to love war and big business to see that.

But on to the rebuttal...

#1: First, you defund public higher education

To address one immediate thought, Pennsylvania is not defunding education; the oft perpetuated lie.  State funding of basic education has steadily increased each year going back to the 2010-2011 fiscal year (the final year under Governor Ed Rendell).  Some folks get confused, since there was federal stimulus money that was added to the expenditure in 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, but when it comes to how much Pennsylvania taxpayer money is going to basic education, it has increased each year under Governor Tom Corbett.

The writer seems to go on a tangent when the topic of attacking political correctness comes up.  So to quickly address that, political correctness runs completely counter to the idea of open dissent, the downfall of which the writer laments.  It can’t go both ways.  We cannot champion being PC and also expect dissention.  The very essence of being politically correct means we cannot say what we honestly think; thereby, avoiding true dissent.  Unless, of course, the actual goal is to just dissent against opinions we dislike.  Personally, I find it remarkable when a student dissents against such a lack of diverse thought in higher education,

Back to topic, it’s a safe area of agreement to say that the percent of 18-25 year olds enrolled in undergraduate studies has generally increased over the years.  While the historic value of higher education in the area of humanities and liberal arts cannot be understated, we can simply not have more and more of our young adults enrolling in these studies, or else it will contribute to a consistent unemployment rate of over 7% (like we've had for years).  I stand by the merits of fields of study such as English, history, psychology, and economics, but they rarely have a positive result in employment.  The immediate defense of these studies is the intangible benefit of “expand[ing] the mind, develop[ing] a more completed human being, [and] a more actively intelligent person and involved citizen.”  Ignoring how differently one can define “complete”, “intelligent”, and “involved,” it’s important to consider the cost of that benefit.  Is it worth the student accumulating over $35,200 in debt to earn a degree that leaves him or her unemployed or underemployed?  Is it worth taxpayer money for a student to earn a degree in philosophy, but now finds him or herself unable to pay rent and needs to move back in with his or her parents?  And while underemployed, interest continues to build.  What is a poor liberal arts major to do?  Why, grad school of course!  And while more debt is being added for this education, assuming the student has not received more taxpayer money for a likely useless degree, more interest accrues and the student is not earning money during that time to pay off any debt.  Gleaning lessons from recent housing turmoil, we know that owing more money than something is actually worth is chaos.  This will inevitably lead us to a burst in the higher education bubble.

In addition, there is evidence to suggest the more federal government gets involved with paying for education, the more expensive it becomes.  When you subsidize something, you get more of it.  So if tuition is subsidized, there will be more tuition.  And just forgiving debt doesn’t solve any actual problem.

And quite briefly, while the article bemoans the attempt of conservatives to more easily manipulate citizens, I think there are countless articles and books that would argue that students are inundated with liberalism (which is even getting more extreme) at college (and in The Department of Education) far more than conservatism, which makes a mockery of the writer’s premise.  It is not the conservatives that are at the forefront of indoctrination.

 

Where Al-Qaeda Stands

by Dan Lacca

Before I proceed with this entry, I feel I am obligated to mention that there are over a billion Muslims in the entire of world. The majority of which live out there day to day lives in peace and harmony with the rest of us. This entry is NOT about them.

Al Qaeda was formed during the years of 1988 and 1989 right in the middle of modern globalization. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse, and advances in Information Technology were making it possible for non-state actors to coordinate across international lines challenging the interactions of states with other states as the fundamental principle of international affairs. When Osama Bin Laden created Al Qaeda, he was able to build a vast centralized network that operated across national borders. He became the leader of one of the largest non-state international organizations in the world. The organization’s primary goal was to ultimately break off all foreign influences in Muslim countries, and create a global Caliphate. On September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda proved just how powerful a non-state actor could be with the right resources and leadership. By embracing irregular warfare, Al Qaeda was able to hold out against the United States, and Osama Bin Laden evaded capture. Finally on May 2, 2011, United States Navy Seals killed Bin Laden in a compound in Pakistan, after an intense ten year long man hunt. Upon his death, many questions were raised about the future of the war on terror. Perhaps the most important question being asked was “what would the future of Al Qaeda would be without the man who founded this global network?”

Since Osama Bin Laden’s death in 2011, the structural integrity of Al Qaeda has been hotly debated. Its central command is believed to be still intact, functioning in the tribal areas of Pakistan. There are still reports of Al Qaeda operations taking place across the world, most recently Syria. Rather than being structured as an international organization operating under a single chain of command, Al Qaeda has decentralized into multiple independent factions. Some believe this a ripple affect caused by Bin Laden’s death that will ultimately lead to Al Qaeda’s demise.

Make no mistake. Al Qaeda may have been weakened, but it is still very much alive.It seems for the time being the organization’s primary focus has shifted from an ongoing conflict with the United States, to more local operations. Each faction operates separately from the core command acting on its own local or regional agenda. For example: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb is the North African faction. Their primary objective is an overthrow of the Algerian government and to replace it with an Islamic state. Al Qaeda’s Syrian faction has played a major role in the ongoing civil war, with a similar objective. These are both local insurrections and although the central command under Ayman Zawahiri supports the movements it has little involvement in any of the daily operations. The factions are loosely held together by a simple pledge of allegiance to one another and sharing the common goal of reestablishing a caliphate in the Middle East. However, this is the exact goal the organization was founded on.