Vassar Chronicle, November 2012

7/29/2019 Vassar Chronicle, November 2012

1/20

ChroniCle, November2012

Vol. XXII, Issue 2

THE VASSAR

CHRONICLENovemb

Vassar Sondra FarganiSonLocaL ELEctionS

NatioNal rhEtoricinthE ELEction SEaSon

office Hours, p. 8-9

Economics ProfEssorPaul

Johnson on ThEu.s. Econ

Ch

chronicLE EditorS

ProjEct ELEction rESuLtS

P. 10

3

5


2/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

Staff Editorial

Vassar & Local

National Affairs

Foreign Affairs

Debate & Discourse

HumourThe Last Page

EdiTor-in-chiEf

Will Serio

sEniorEdiTor

ZackStruver

Natl. & ForeigN aFFairs

Debate & Discourse

copy& style asst.

proDuctioN & DesigN

proD. & DesigN asst.

illustrator

Michael GNathan Ta

Arushi Rai

Jenna AmAlina Rose

Christa GuJoshua ShFlore Di Sc

Madeleine

ourEditorSStandbEhindthEirPu

Win10ForEachmiStakEFoun

TheVassarChroni

VaSSarchronicLE@gmaiL

Letters Policy: The Vassar Chronages its readers to voice their opinionLetters to the Editor, several of whiclected for publication in each issue wito the authors race, religion, sex, geidentity, or ideology. Please addressdence to [email protected]

Nota bene: The opinions published

sar Chronicle do not necessarily repof the editors, except for the Staff Ediis supported by at least 70 percent of Board.

tableoF coNte

staFF eDitorial

Democratic Discourse Requires Rhetoric

You cant handle the truth! because in democracy, truth is subjective.

Advertising Policy: All advertisbe clearly demarcated as such. [email protected] for rates. Asubject to editors discretion, withourace, religion, or sex.

TotalFilm.com

thE VaSSarchronicLE

PagE 2

As you read this, chances are thatyou, a responsible member of ourAmerican democracy, have a lready

cast your vote in the 2012 election or willdo so soon. Unless youre one of the fewpeople who voted for Jill Stein or GaryJohnson, youve cast your ballot for one ofour two major political parties, signalingyour alliance in our ongoing cultural andeconomic wars. Its all too tempting, afterthe last few months of conicting attackads accusing either Obama or Romneyof apologizing for America or settingwomens rights back f ty years, to settleinto an easy pessimism about the fate ofdemocracy in our polarized republic. Afterthree presidential debates characterizedby Romneys gaffes about binders full ofwomen, Obamas zingers about bayonets,or talking-head commentary on Bidensgrin, one could understandably lamenthow the candidates have seemingly givenup on debating the facts in favor ofrhetorical point-scoring.

But as Sophists like Gorgias would say,there is no such thing as the facts. Asmuch as we detest Romneys inability tosee the self-evident fact that deregulation

and upper-income tax cuts wont get usout of our current economic malaise, thetruth of the matter is that in our rhetoric-based democracy, nothing is a fact;there are only arguments. Our politicalcandidates may clash over whether ornot Bill Clinton-esque tax policies lead toeconomic growth or whether deregulationof banks always causes economic distress,but there is no absolute, Platonic truththat will ever be reached on these issues.Indeed, the fact that our candidates andvoters continue to argue about the relativemerits and justice of healthcare reform orour response to climate change indicates

that our democratic discourse remainshealthy.

Polarization, that favorite target ofcommentators and apathetic voters acrossthe nation, can also be interpreted as abarometer for our democratic health. Thepivotal importance of Get Out the Votedrives, as well as Obamas and Romneysattempts to galvanize their respectiveDemocratic and Republican bases throughtraditional rhetorical tropes, illustratethat democratic discourse still remainsas important as ever. Undoubtedly, itis problematic that most of Americahas been so convinced by the left-rightdichotomy that they are unwilling to givecredence to the arguments of the opposingideology. Looking beyond Election Daythough, it should be our goal as citizens tomake a greater effort to engage with oneanother and challenge our self-evidentvalues, painful as it may be.

The real grist of democratic discourserelies on methods of argumentation. Oneis not persuaded by truths per se, butby the arguments that frame them. Thebasic structure of an argument requiresthat any claim one makes have some sort

of empirically or analytically veriableproof (i.e., through statistics or logicaldeduction). Arguments should also havesome sort of signicance within thediscourse as it has been framed. As such,it should go without saying that almostnobody will be persuaded by argumentsthat lack some sort of veriable proof orany sort of signicance. Yet even whenarguments are grounded in solid facts,such as job report numbers or GDP growthgures, argumentation remains pivotal.The art of twisting the presentation anddelivery of this information is the heartof rhetoric. For instance, both Romney

and Obama jumped on the recentunemployment report for their ownopposing purposes, claiming the numberswere negative and positive, respectively.

Yet it is the arguments that are blatantlywrong that most warrant responses inour democracy. For example, MissouriSenatorial Candidate Todd Akins claimsregarding legitimate rape have rightfullyignited a political restorm, with one-timesupporters distancing themselves fromthe embattled candidate and a plethoraof ofcials, commentators, activists, andmedical professionals rising to refutehis spurious claims. By countering hisargument with arguments of our own,democratic discourse prevails and weshape our political landscape to reect ourbeliefs. This stands in sharp contrast tothe all-too-common tendency to dismiss acandidate, usually Romney here at Vassar,as a liar. Unwarranted dismissal of acandidates ideas, be it an outrageous onelike Akins or an economic policy that wedisagree with, denies that the idea meritsa response. Since democratic discourse ispredicated on the rhetorical clash betweendiffering ideas and viewpoints, denial only

helps these ideas continue to function asacceptable in our society.Democracy relies on a dynamic notion

of ideals like truth and justice. Indeed,the democratic system of the UnitedStates experiences shifts in values becauseour government reects the present wantsand needs of the people. It is only whenwe cease arguing with each other andadhere to a Platonic notion of one singletruth or correct policy that democracyhas truly died.

The Staff Editorial is agreed uponby at least a 70 percent majority of theEditorial Board.


3/20


Sondra FarganisFormer Vassar Sociology Professor

VaSSar& LocaL

Iam writing to ask your support for thecandidacy of Sean Patrick Maloneyfor the U.S. House of Representatives,

Terry Gipson for the New York StateSenate, and Didi Barrett for the New YorkState Assembly. Like you, I am deeplyworried by the rancor and partisanship atthe national and local levels. I am as wellconcerned not only that Barack Obamamay not be returned to ofce (unlikely,perhaps), but that if returned, he will nothave a viable Congress to work with himon the many issues facing the country. I amalso concerned that New York State send toAlbany representatives who are forward-looking, progressive, and committed toinclusion of talent irrespective of class,race, or gender. This trio of candidatesseems to me to be on the mark here: I havemet each of them and they understand thetensions which stretch back to the nationsorigins, of honoring equality and liberty.

They see citizenship as being at the coreof the Constitution. They understand thespecics and particularities of this District

and they put forward policies to addressjob creation, but also the needs of thosewithout jobs or working at underpaidjobs with minimal hours. They appreciatethe problems facing health care, but alsothe need to assess not simply costs, butthe practical consequences for concreteindividuals should we dramatically reduceservices. They are aware of decits, but alsoof the need to protect entitlements; for ifour political leaders are addressing onlythe decit, we shall nd ourselves with thediminution of responsible programs at thecore of decent government action.

This trio also talks of the importance forthe citizenrys involvement in the politicallife of the community and the nation at large.They worry about policies that give an unfairand detrimental edge to moneyed interestsand each of them reiterates the absoluteimportance of voting: of registering to vote;of getting out the vote; of holding politicalconversations on how to vote. In this spirit,I would ask you to take the opportunity tomake this election count by actually voting,and urge at least ten people you know to dothe same. It would be a terrible shame if thecandidates you want to see elected miss outbecause we did not vote or did not help in

whatever ways we can to turn out the vote.I shall be voting for Sean Patrick Maloney,

Terry Gipson, and Didi Barrett on theWorking Families Party line. I believe it isimportant to have a vital, progressive partyin our district and I have supported WFPfrom the outset. Their platform includes:raising the minimum wage, meaningfultax reform, a strong defense of Medicare,Medicaid, and Social Security, and anacross the board commitment to publiceducation and quality centers of learning.In addition, the WFPI know, I do notlike the Partys name that much eitherisstrong on issues of womens rights, LGBTrights, and reproductive rights. I have beenimpressed with the candidates they haveendorsed in the past and triply pleased fortheir endorsements of Maloney, Gipson,and Barrett. I can understand if you wantto support this trio on the Democratic Partyline: it will not be a deal-breaker for ourfriendship.

Many of us have not recovered from JohnHalls defeat in 2010 and we have waitedfor the chance to present a candidate whohas the potential to defeat Nan Hayworthand restore a Congressional seat that takesinto account the progressive interests

of the 18th Congressional DistriPatrick Maloney is that candidatof us congratulated Steve Salandprincipled stand on gay marriage; is a fuller story of Salands voting remust be taken into account. It is imthat we take a stand in oppositioplank of the Republican Party regressive on social issues, on issues, and on environmental isswhich has allowed the Tea Partypolarize politics and put a hold oneven the most modest reformseconomic system. I am condent thGipson and Didi Barrett will work oof those of us who share an opposRepublican and Conservative agehas, at its core, a deeply felt oppoPresident Obama, to the liberalisNew Deal, and to the embrace of coand economic and political inclumatters to us.

I look forward to our celebratingNovember 6th.

Sondra Farganis was a methe Arlington School Board andSociology at Vassar from 1979 to 1is currently a Trustee of the PougPublic Library.

Fmr. Professor Sondra Farganis Endorses Local Democra

For the Vassar Campus, October28th was not the most pleasantof Sundays to experience on our

otherwise beautiful campus. While theeve of our presidential election drew evercloser and the anticipation for its results

continued to rise, another much moreominous event was about to take place.As Hurricane Sandy made its way up theAtlantic, millions of Americans along theEastern seaboard prepared to hunkerdown in preparation for the hurricane tomake landfall sometime Monday.

At Vassar, the wind was beginningto pick up as the evening dragged intothe night. What began as an otherwisecool October day ended with a howlingwind that picked up leaves and tossedthem around the Residential Quad. Allthe while, an uncomfortable feelingcontinued to grow across the campus asthe storm barreled toward us. Despite theuncertainty of what Sandy would bringto our campus the next day, along withthe weather gradually becoming worse,

a small handful of students gathered inthe Faculty Commons to dedicate a fewhours of their time for the sake of thepresidential election, and incumbentPresident Obama.

It was quiet, for the most part, inthe College Center, as most people hadretreated to their dorms and respectivehousing, expecting the weather to take a

turn for the worse sometime that night asit transitioned to heavy gusts of wind andrain. Despite the weather, the electionwould still take place on November 6,and there were still students who wantedto help do their part in helping inuencethe outcome of the election. Thesefew students all gathered around theirlaptops, dialing into an automated systemthat connected them with families inPennsylvania, giving them an opportunityto ask the people on the other end of theline who they planned on voting for comeElection Day.

The phone bank was being operatedthrough a group called Vassar Studentsfor Obama, which was established inconjunction with the Vassar Democratsand the Hudson Valley Obama for

America re-election team. The group has

focused on a wide variety of activities forthe re-election season, ranging from door-to-door trips in swing states, to meetingwith like-minded organizations in nearbyLafayette College, and of course, phonebanking. This certainly wasnt their rstphone bank, and not their last, even as theelection drew to being just 9 days away.Just two days later, the Vassar Democrats

met once again for their weekly meetingas well as additional phone banking.Thank you for your time, said one

of the phone bankers as I sat down inthe Faculty Commons. We spoke briey,as time was of the essence between theweather and the necessity of getting callsin before the end of the night. Originallythe phone bank had been canceled asall Obama for America activities weresupposed to end at 5 oclock, but aftersome convincing from the eld organizers,the phone bank was back on. As I spokewith the student, he mentioned the widevariety of events the Vassar Democratshad been organizing in conjunction withthe re-election campaign, ranging fromthe aforementioned trips to workingwith local candidates like Sean Patrick

Maloney to help with campaign efforts.

Whether or not you agree wthe Vassar Democrats are doithing worth commending iproactive efforts to assist the mof their political alignment, anefforts for election or re-electionstudent I spoke with put it, thvery galvanizing e ffect within theatmosphere, and politics, at tim

certainly feel apathetic, at best,Vassar campus. While our schopress efforts for programs such registration, politics have been talk about or draw attention tooften opting out for very jaded mein the wake of 21st century polaIts a philosophy that has becomeat Vassar.

Come Election Day, whether oPresident is Barrack or Mitt, or you agree with the candidates avalues, you must commend the of Americans who worked in camlocal and national, much like thDemocrats, doing their part to ithe outcome. In an atmosphVassars, its only all the harder, deserve credit for their hard w

election season.

Joshua ShermanContributor

Vassar Dems Active in Campaigning Despite Campus Apat

doyouLikEWhatyourErEading? WanttojointhEStaFFoFTheVassar ChroniClVaSSar& LocaL Editor, coPy EditorS, PhotograPhErS, and iLLuStratorSnEEdEd.

[email protected]


4/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

Family court exists at the peculiarintersection of the family and thestate, in a realm of law that attempts

to balance the right of a family to conductits affairs privately and the responsibilityof a community to collectively ensure a safeand positive community. This marginalposition, as a checkpoint on the border ofpublic and private life, becomes precariousfor judges, who must weigh expediency,required in resolving often violent orunstable issues and confrontationsbetween family members, with theirimplicit role as a judge to make the mostjust decisions under the law. Especiallyimportant is the position that family courtstake in protecting children. A large portionof family court cases deal with parentalrights over a child and the protectionof a child from abusive or dangeroussituations. As Judge Joan A. Posner ofthe Dutchess County Family Court notes,

Youre not making decisions about moneyor contracts, but about where a child lives,who a childs gonna go home with today,whether youre gonna cut off somebodysvisitation, whether youre gonna removea child from her parents, whether youregonna grant an order of protection. Thevery nature of the decisions made by familycourt judges require a degree of socialsupport not found in normal civil andcriminal courts. The historical evolutionof family courts reects the necessity fora court based on community involvement,but current legal standards and a lack ofresources make implementing the missionof family court difcult.

Family courts arose in the nineteenthcentury in the social milieu of modernity.Industrialization presented new forms of

technological tension as well as scienticdevelopments that fostered an increasedquality of life. Postbellum society sawan increase in the mechanization as theUnion war effort created an infrastructurethat necessitated an increased reliance ontechnological innovations. For example,city streets were dubbed dangerous forchildren as horse-drawn trafc increasedand automobiles were introduced.Children were integrated into the homefor their protection, and parents were heldresponsible for keeping their children safe.At the same time, the Civil War introduced

widespread sanitation through the UnitedStates Sanitary Commission. Moraland religious organizations pushed forincreased sanitation in the household andthe protection of children from disease andthreats to their mortality, especially fromabusive parents.

In 1875, Henry Bergh, the founder ofthe American Society for the Preventionof Cruelty to Animals, and ElbridgeGerry, his lawyer, founded the New YorkSociety for the Prevention of Cruelty toChildren (NYSPCC), a non-governmentalorganization that worked to protectchildren who faced abusive situations intheir homes. The creation of the NYSPCCsparked the development of societiesfor the prevention of cruelty to childrenaround the country, and these eventuallyevolved into state child protective servicesbeginning in the 1960s, after child abusebecame a national issue.

Professor Merril Sobie of Pace UniversityLaw School notes that an increasingchildrens caseload, the growth of the socialsciences, the development of childcare

agencies, and the inappropriatenessof mixing childrens and criminalproceedings made the establishment of afamily court inevitable. Thus, the unwrittenlaw behind family court is the idea that itwould be improper for a criminal courtto deal with the removal of children froma bad home. The role of a family court isto regulate the most basic social unit - thefamily - and to ensure that the basis for oursociety remains safe for all.

Contemporary family courts are in aconstant state of emergency, as JudgePosner notes, You can hear testimonyfor maybe fteen to twenty minutes, andyou have to decide whether to remove thechild from the parents care and custodyand place that child in foster care. Youdont have the time - you dont have theleisure - to sit down, meet with your courtattorney, talk about the case, and look atall aspects of it. Basically the buck stopshere, on my shoulders. I have to makethose decisions throughout the day, onmany many casesyouve gotta make[those decisions] quickly and use your bestjudgment. You bring your experience andyour sensibilities to the job. The DutchessCounty Family Court hears anywhere fromsix to seven thousand cases a year betweenthree judges, all of whom need to quicklydecide each case based on their legalintuitions and instincts that have beendeveloped in their years of legal practice.The key, in all cases, is nding a permanentliving situation for the child. This becomesproblematic when the court spends a shortamount of time on each case, and whenthe court lacks the resources to properlyimplement decisions.

The amount of time devoted to eachcase is, by necessity, short, as the lawdemands quick and efcient resolutions.Judge Posner explains that some of thispush for quick decisions makes sensebecause children shouldnt live in limbo.Law-makers and judges believe that anobligation exists for the court to nd apermanent living situation outside of fostercare, where children tend to languish,as soon as possible. Family court judges

have two real alternatives in determiningwhether or not to terminate parentalrights in any given case. The rst is toreturn the child to the parent and ensurethat the parent does what is necessary tomaintain proper care and custody over thechild, while the second is to terminate the

parents rights entirely and put the childup for adoption.

Judges have difculty making decisions

based on, what Judge Posner sees as, afalse dichotomy between law and justice:I think that when youre confronted withan application to terminate a parentsrights to a child forever, and make thatparent a legal stranger to the child, thoseare among the most difcult cases becauseyou know that youre forever changing thelife of that child. And while sometimesthe law will point you in one direction,the facts and circumstances sort of pointyou in a different direction, and havingthose meet is sometimes very difcult.And when the law sort of is asking you orrequiring you to do something that youdont feel comfortable doing, thats one ofthe greatest challenges because Im alwaysfocused on the children, and whats bestfor the children who come before the court.Sometimes the law is on your side, andsometimes it isnt.

For example, sometimes the bestdecision involves granting a parent limitedrights over their child, such as supervisedvisitation or placement in a group homethat has the resources to assist parentswith limited mental or physical capacitiesin raising their children. Indeed, justicedemands these sorts of decisions, but thelaw requires a judge to decide quickly. Thecourt does not have the luxury of holdingoff on making a decision to wait for theproper resources to arise. According toJudge Posner, this prevents the court frommoving [cases] in a positive direction.When a judge lacks the ability to grant aparent supervised visitation rights becausethe court can only oversee two families inthe visitation program at any given time,

they are forced to make decisions to the best interests of the child.

If family courts are to imdecisions that reect the best intthe child, lawmakers and commneed to examine the original ifamily courts and their important

in community life. Family courout of child protection movemesaw t to look out for the inte

mistreated children in society. the lack of resources and time proper decisions, contemporarycourts merely mask the problemabuse and familial violence. Wheare focused on efciently gettingout of an abusive home, they do to reduce violence in the commudo they seek to help parents parenFamily courts are required, by lamore ready to remove a parentthan they are to provide resourcea parent retain rights over their ch

Family court judges make dbased on the context of their comthat effect families in a very basicDutchess County, this means thamake decisions for families inand rural areas and middle anclass families. The disparity of rmakes distributing assistance in pdifcult, and forces judges to soarbitrarily grant parents either lino rights over their children. Proimplementing a just family courarise in borderline cases, cases judge could either grant or deny rights. These problems will resolved when the law catches ucommunity-based conception of ju

Judge Posner is committed to redomestic violence and promotingequality in the community, and isber of such organizations as the DCounty Coalition Against Domestlence and Sexual Assault and the Judicial District Committee to PrGender Fairness in the Courts.

VaSSar& LocaL

Family Court Judge Sees Conict Between Law and JustZack Struver,Senior Editor

Arushi Raina,Debate & Discourse Editor

PagE 4

The Honorable Judge Joan A. Posner (second from left) poses with her colleagues in the County Court System. She is one of three judges on the Dutchess County Family Court.

Youre not making

decisions about money orcontracts, but about wherea child lives, who a childs

gonna go home with today,whether youre gonna cutoff somebodys visitation,

whether youre gonnaremove a child from herparents, whether youregonna grant an order of

protection.


5/20


As Election Day draws near, and anation that has been systematicallypummeled by a barrage of ads

coming from both campaigns wearily awaits

the results, its not uncommon to hearcandidates statements dismissed as beingonly rhetoric. Such comments are morethan mere systems of political apathy, asthey speak to a widespread misconceptionof what rhetoric is and how it effects thedemocratic process. It is timely then thaton Thursday, November 1, the Departmentof Greek and Roman Studies Blegen FellowCurtis Dozier presented a lecture titledClassical Rhetoric and the PresidentialCampaign: Perspectives on Speech, Politics,and Democracy in 2012. Professor Dozieris currently working on a book examiningthe Institutio Oratoria of the rst-century Roman rhetorician Quintilian; forThursdays lecture, however, the focus wason the impact of Classical Greek rhetoricon modern political discourse. Specically,

he examined electoral discourse in lightof Aristotles fourth-century CE , or Art of Rhetoric, a multi-volume treatise that most scholars havestudied only in so far as it can be mined forinformation on other Greek rhetoriciansand philosophers. While many voters arekeen to dismiss rhetoric as the art of usingverbal puffery to avoid addressing hard,factual issues, Prof. Dozier pointed out thatAristotle and others in democratic Athenshad a very different idea of what rhetoricwas. Rhetoric then may be dened as thefacility of discourse, the possible meansof persuasion in reference to any subjectwhatever, Aristotle believed. It is withthis understanding of rhetoric as the artof persuasion that its impact on Americandemocracy can best be grappled with.

In democratic Athens, where every malecitizen was eligible to be called upon to servein public ofce for a short term, success inpolitics depended almost entirely on onesability to deliver persuasive speeches beforethe Assembly; a skilled enough speakercould make almost anything happen, be itchanging a law or extending a term limit.It should come as no surprise then thatGreek intellectuals devoted so much ink tolaying out and codifying what constitutedpersuasive speech. Aristotles denitionof rhetoric relied on tripartite appeals toemotion (logos), virtue (ethos), and reason(logos), and it is here that the heavy hand ofAncient Greece is most apparent in the 2012election cycle. Voters dont need to look veryfar or hard to hear President Obama or MittRomney appealing to emotions such as fear,

anger, shame, indignation, and, yes, evenfriendliness. When Democrats advocatingfor universal healthcare espouse lines likeAmerica is the only industrialized Westerndemocracy that doesnt provide healthcareto all its citizens, or when Republicansaccuse the President of apologizingfor America, they are engaging in theimplicitly rhetorical exercise of appealing toour sense of national shame to advance anagenda. Prof. Dozier also explored how therhetorical dichotomy between appeals tohatred and friendliness have the Aristotelianfunction of signaling that a candidate has

the same friends and enemies as the voter.Republican recourse to Ronald Reaganand Bill Clintons ubiquitous associationwith Obama are thus a rhetorical methodfor signaling the candidates respectivealliances. More provocative is therhetorical appeal to indignationin 2012,most often indignation at undeserved goodfortune. Lines like Romney was born witha silver spoon in his mouth or The mediasupports Obama are designed to energizevoters against a particular candidate byexploiting voters sense of indignation. Thiscan also be seen clearly in the Tea Party andOccupy Wall Street movements respectiveindignation with government spendingand Wall Street prots. Key to suchAristotelian discourse is the dichotomythat exists between emotional opposites.Whenever a candidate seeks to inspire hopein their audience, they must also instilla sense of dread around their opponent;Obamas message of hope and changeimplicitly cannot function without alsomaking listeners afraid that Romney willappoint four Supreme Court justices or rollback reproductive rights. As Prof. Dozierprovocatively noted, if you feel dread at thethought of a Romney or Obama victory,rhetoric has effected you.

Ethical appeals are, according to Prof.Dozier, how the candidates ask voters toTrust me. The 2012 election cycle hasseen a large amount of appeals to andreia,or manly courage, the most obvious beingPresident Obamas I gave the order tokill Osama bin Laden. Interestingly, Prof.Dozier asserted that the prevalent criticismof Romney as a ip-opper is an ethicalattack on his manly courage, for, underlyingattacks on his constant changes of positionis the notion that he is not brave enoughto stand behind his words and simply says

whatever an audience wants to hear out offear of rebuke or losing votes. Conversely,Romneys business experience has beenused by his campaign to draw attention tohis supposed economic wisdom.

The most important of all ethical appeals,and a key tenet of rhetorical discourse, is acandidates sense of justice. Over the lastfour years, American politics have seenintense debate over the justice of issuessuch as healthcare and taxes. PresidentObama and Democrats have argued thatit is just for all citizens to have access tohealthcare, the aws and limitations ofresultant legislation notwithstanding;

conservatives have countered that is not justto compel taxpayers to subsidize healthcarereform or for the government to mandatethe purchase of insurance. Many of themost emotional and divisive invocationsof justice this election cycle have evolvedaround reproductive rights and contendingnotions of justice for women, or whatconstitutes the beginning of life.

Prof. Dozier drew attention to thepivotal importance of these debates to thehealth of our democratic system, for theyillustrate that our societal conceptions ofjustice are not static, but evolving. Eventhough the Supreme Court has ruled onthe constitutionality of the Affordable CareAct, upholding its legality, candidates havecontinued to spar over the relative justiceof its components. While the notionsthat healthcare is a basic right or that it isnot ones place to pay for anothers careseem self-evident and beyond reproof tothe contending sides, Prof. Dozier wasemphatic in warning against such absolutenotions. Indeed, he looked tellingly to fth-century sophist Gorgias, the Nihilist, whobelieved that there was no set reality andwho delighted in using rhetoric to make theweaker argument the stronger; in one case,he even exonerated Helen of Troy from thetraditional blame laid at her feet for theTrojan War. The Sophists lled a uniqueplace in Athenian society, where theirrhetorical skills were highly sought afterbecause they were the key to power andinuence. In contrast was the philosophyof Plato, who believed in one absolutetruth that could, in an ideal state, be rigidlyapplied to society. America denitelyleans toward the Sophist camp, in thatour politicians and lawmakers constantlychallenge our notions of justice, rather thanaccepting a static Platonic form. Plato, Prof.

Dozier reminded the audience, didnt wanta democracy. The provocative question is,do we?

The third tenet of Aristotelian rhetoric isthe one that, at rst look, appears to be whatvoters want most: appeal to reason (logos).Throughout the debates, President Obamaand Romney were criticized for avoidinghard facts and real arguments. Voterswant to hear more about job numbers, taxplans, and budgets. As Prof. Dozier pointedout, even when one of the candidates seemsto do just thisPresident Obama saying,for instance, Bill Clintons tax policies ledto one of the strongest economies in recent

times, and Ill follow policies likelogic is inherently awed. Both iand deductive reasoning rely on assumption that historical data be relevant to the modern situit common assumptions like Reagan lowered taxes and oversaweconomy, therefore low taxes alway

a strong economy or Wall Streetafter a period of deregulation, deregulation always leads to ecrash. Such points are to be arguand challenged, not dogmatically as fact, particularly in a rhetoricwhere fact is something that cabe reinvented and represented, whsupposedly non-partisan fact-engage in a subjective exercise in prreality. The drama surrounding whnot President Obama called the embassy a terrorist attack, orlumped it in with other acts of terAmericas jubilation when Candycorrected Romney on this poiwhen the issue remains open to sinterpretation, is a perfect exambesides, facts and gures dont g

voters as effectively as appeals toand virtue any better now than thdemocratic Athens.

Despite the comforting assertconstant bickering over justice the health of our democratic systevoters and students have been by some of the more radical arto come out of this election cycleMan-made climate change is a mykey to coming to grips with suchlies in argumentation. On issuesclimate change, scientists and activrelied too much on a Platonic attitman-made climate change is bothself-evident, but, Prof. Dozier poinsuch blanket assertions lend thto rejection when not accompasupporting argumentation. It is

undemocratic to simply label a ca liar, as Mitt Romney is oftenon tax issues, in that such an acdenies that arguments can be mbehalf of Romneys views and idhealthier to refute an argument thto recognize its validity. Moreoclimate change issue occupies a matrix of virtues. It may be benreduce carbon emissions, but it equally detrimental to our induway of life. Is it necessarily justindustrialization in developing coIs it even prudent or possible tocountries like China to adhere to achange plan?

Despite this, there are limitationDoziers mostly optimistic prognAmerican democracy. Most importhe rhetorical point of view is the of money with speech by the Court and the removal of most ccontribution limits for corpHealthy rhetorical discourse onchange, for example, cannot happatmosphere where one side of the alike oil companies, is able to use itto shut down or out-broadcast the oside. Despite these issues, and name rhetoric has among Americait is the basis for our entire desystem just as it was for Classicaland rhetoric is here to stay.

nationaL aFFairSRehabilitating Rhetoric: Classical Athens and the 2012 Electi

Michael GreeneNational & Foreign Affairs Editor

The Pnyx, the platform where speeches were delivered in democratic Athens.ickr.com


6/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

nationaL aFFairS

PagE 6

Fracking Ignored Despite Troublesome Connecti

Erin MurrayContributor

I

n April 2010, the Deepwater Horizonrig explosion made everyone care, fora split second, about energy-extracting

methods in the U.S. All of a sudden, peoplestarted asking more questions about whatwas used to obtain petroleum; concerngrew about what is left behind when theoil and gasmen leave. This concern set thestage for opposition to the new practiceof Hydraulic Fracturing. Hydrofrackingbecame the new it movement for thesort of people who, in 2006, told everyoneto go see an Inconvenient Truth but wereback to leaving the computer on overnight6 months later. Now hydrofrackings 15minutes of infamy have passed, but theproblems are still the same and very real.

Fracking is unlike most peoplestraditional idea of an oil well. The goal is toextract natural gas from the porous shalerocks the gas was formed in. Fracking wells

inject liquid into the rock, which causes itto crack. Rigs can then access the naturalgas inside. There are problems withproduction wells, but most of the troublecomes from what the energy companiesare putting into our earth and leavingbehind in their injection wells. Proppantsand fracking uids are cocktails of benignand toxic chemicals including toluene and,in some cases, benzene. After the gas hasbeen extracted, the leftover waste uidsare disposed of using injection wells. Thesewells are supposed to store the wasteliquid in impermeable rock that prevents itfrom getting to the water supply. There isdebate as to whether the injection wells aredependable or not. In addition to concernsabout water, the very structural integrityof our world may be at stake. Some of

us are already living with the negativeconsequences of fracking.Im from Oklahoma -- the heart of oil and

gas country. Our whole economy revolvesaround companies that bring petroleumand natural gas to the nation. I have anuncomfortable relationship with it. Thebreakfast on the table in the morning ispaid for by the companies I condemn in

the afternoon. But this relationship hastaken on an ever-increasing abusive aspectthat I cant ignore. On November 5, 2011,I was writing a paper in the library hereat Vassar when I received a call fromhome. A 5.6 magnitude earthquake had

hit Oklahoma that was felt as far awayas Illinois.

Prior to 2010, Oklahoma recordedroughly 50 earthquakes a year, allof them very minor and the majorityof them undetectable by the averageresident. However, 1,047 earthquakeswere recorded in the state in 2010 alone.The 5.6 magnitude earthquake was theclimax of a cluster of quakes that rangedfrom 2.2-4.7 in intensity on the Richterscale, and thus was not a lone event. Theseismic activities on November 5 werecentered in Lincoln County, Oklahoma,where there happens to be over 180injection wells. An abnormally highnumber of earthquakes are also occurringin Ohio, where there are also a largenumber of well sites. It seems as if these

innumerable fractures left behind in theEarth by the drilling have shifted thestability of the ground in a region of theworld never known for seismic activity.Many in the industry claim ignorance, thatthis could not have been predicted if in factthere even was a connection between thewells and the earthquakes. If you happento a do a little research, however, you canlearn that government institutions havebeen observing this causal relationshipsince the 1960s.

The U.S. Army constructed the RockyMountain Arsenal (RMA) Well in 1961.The Army shut down the well in 1966 afterdiscovering the possibility that, accordingto the RMA, the injection of waste uidswas triggering earthquakes in the area.This conclusion was proved when, in 1967,

a magnitude 5.5 earthquake hit the usuallyseismically calm area of Denver, Colorado.The U.S. Geological Survey actually hasan F.A.Q on the ofcial Department ofInterior website with a question asking,Can we cause earthquakes? Thisofcial government websites answer is,Earthquakes induced by human activity

have been documentedin a few locations in theUnited States The causewas injection of uids into deepwells for waste disposal The U.S.Geological Survey states that the 1967

earthquake in Denver is the largest andmost widely known earthquake to resultfrom uid injection. However, if theearthquake experienced in Oklahoma wasindeed caused by hydraulic fracturing,then it surpasses the Denver earthquakein intensity. These earthquakes are not theonly problems that the oil and gas industrydenies responsibility for. Many people wholive near well sites have had their watercontaminated with methane and knowncarcinogenic chemicals.

Fracking has lost its place in thelimelight, so Food & Water Watch stageda Global Frackdown on September 22ndto try and rectify this situation. Thoughmost protests were small, an impressivenumber of people attended protests inlarger U.S. cities and internationally in

South Africa and France. Both Bulgariaand France have banned the process inthe last year. This is not enough. Everyoneneeds to confront this issue as it representsa critical juncture in our world, both on asocial and physical level. When I arrivedhome last winter break after the series ofearthquakes, I surveyed the supercial

damage to my childhoodhome. There were new cracksin the drywall. Our windows n

longer sat rmly in their frames. Owould jam in the frame or openown accord. Compared with ein the state, closer to the epicentearthquake, our damage was laminimal. The mostly aesthetic that my house now carries is compared to the bigger picture oOklahoma and all the states expehydraulic fracturing, or any othfrom the oil and gas industry, stalist of states involved is growingwith the discovery of the Mshale, and now includes Texas, CPennsylvania, and New York. Thethus far has been shocking, but as a rude awakening to the realisituation. Fracking is on the of irreversibly damaging the ho

lives of many people throughout Though hydraulic fracturing cto be relayed as a positive movethis country, as time goes by it is see through this faade fabricateenergy industry. These issues faprominence, but that does not medetrimental effects are fading too.

doyouWanttomakEyourVoicEhEard?

TheVassar ChroniCleEncouragESyouto

SubmitcoLumnSandLEttErStothE Editor.contact [email protected]

SPEEchiSciViLizationitSELF. - thomaS mann

agna.us


7/20


nationaL aFFairS

Greg PerryContributor

Corporations are legally obligatedto make as much money off ofconsumers as possible. Their role in

the stock market requires them to act inthe best interest of shareholders. Drasticproblems emerge when these institutions,that provide services that our society andpersonal wellbeing rely upon, are motivatedexclusively by prot.

The present dynamic is one in which thesearch for prot and social benets existas mutually exclusive considerations. Thisneed not be the case. The theory behindcorporations is one which espouses benetsfor the public. It is rooted in the concept thatsuccessful companies have a heightenedcapacity to contribute more to the economy,yielding a collective benet. Praxis has,obviously, demonstrated differently.

Individuals distinguish betweencorporations by their products andservices. Yet, these distinctions fall apart

when one notes that all corporations actaccording to prot. We make the mistakeof conceptualizing the differences betweencorporations as distinctions in function,while they all merely follow various avenuestoward fullling the same goal. Theirfunctions are homogeneous and entirelyself-interested.

Even at the level of the individualemployee, performance is measured byamount of prot brought to shareholders.

If one fails to make enough money for thecompany, or expresses dissent to companypolicy, they, in all likelihood, will be red.Higher-ups in the corporation can be suedand even imprisoned if the case can bemade that not all potential prots had beenunlocked for the company. Exploitationof legal loopholes is par for the course.Although corporate law varies state by state,the mandate to maximize shareholdervalue is ubiquitous.

News media is no exception. Itseems self-evident that the function ofmainstream news should be to informthe public in as much of an accurate andrened manner as possible. Evidently,this is not the case. All of our mainstreamnews media are corporations. Thus, theirprimary motivation is to make more and

more money. Media corporations makemore money by attracting more consumers.Because consumer statistics dictate thebehavior of the company, news mediacorporations have the direct incentive ofmaking the news entertaining.

The American public is entertained byprovocative, shocking, hyper-condensedimages and sound-bites that provide banaltwo-sided arguments on every issue, thecorrect answers to which are withoutexception somewhere in the middle. Newsmedia allegedly attempts to cater to popularperceptions in order to establish a presence.However, the output of our news media has

a much larger effect on popular perception.This is evident not only in the diffusion of

particular sound-bites attached to particularissues, but also in the manner by which wehave been conditioned to frame politicaldiscourse and conceptualize our politicalclimate. Among the various toxins which

incessantly exude from popular news mediais the fallacy of fty-fty representation.The premise of the idea entails that in anydebate, one should seek to offer equal airtime to each of two sides, regardless of whatclaims or prescriptions might emerge.

This idea is incredibly popular amongthe mildly informed. At face value, equalrepresentation sounds like a universalideological trump card. To oppose anythingdubbed 50/50 seems inherently intolerantor unfair.

To think in this way is to deliberatelydisregard context. Fact checking exists,and it should constitute an integral partof ideological debate. Instead, it is treatedas though it were an incompatible eld ofstudy. Various renditions of unreality arepresented in proportion to the belligerence

of their projection. Televised news mediaare among the worst culprits. Rarely is itthe case that a pundit will jeopardize theirimage of fairness and balance by pointingout a false premise.

Thus, we have a structure whichdiscourages holding political stanceswith conviction, and instead constructsan imaginary moderate or centristcamp to which most people belong andwhich everyone should aspire to. Thisrepresentation is utterly fallacious. Themedia body which espouses this centristconventional wisdom is the same collectionof entities which is most responsible forshifting the political spectrum. The appealof appearing moderate is a product ofpopular culture, and is rooted in a system ofinstitutionalized ignorance.

The idea of truth has been lost.Undoubtedly, there exists an implicationthat truth entails a gradient of probabilitybased on the vigorousness of the projectionby each side. The news has transformedits focus from investigative journalism tothe reporting of what people think, withoutmuch consideration of the degree to whichthose thoughts are factually supported.Yet, the former image remains, along withthe persistent capacity to dene whateverybody knows. One is constantlybarraged with so many eeting instancesof contradictory claims and faulty statisticsthat it becomes quite an endeavor to wadethrough the misinformation.

Sadly, we do not live in a delightfulworld in which most people are politicallyknowledgeable or engaged. In our system,ignorance and apathy run rampant, andthe people who benet from it are the sameindividuals with the power to effect itsperpetuation. More money is to be gainedfrom catering to this state of affairs thanfrom opposing it.

The imposition of ignorance has longbeen the primary weapon of the rulingclasses. With a complacent populace comesan untold extent of leeway for corruptpolicy makers. Local property taxes almostexclusively constitute the funding forour public schools in this country, withstandards of education varying state by

state. Just to spell that out briey, thismeans that low-income areas receivedrastically lower funds for education, solow-income individuals receive substandardeducations, rendering socioeconomicmobility just about impossible. Not onlydoes this preserve wealth gaps of revoltingproportions, but it also aggravates themby deteriorating the state of the generalpublic. Inconceivable amounts of moneyand power have been accumulated fromthe extortion of the populace in accordancewith this structure.

And then came Citizens United.The upcoming election constitutes the rst

run for presidency after the Supreme Courtsdecision in 2008 to include corporations

in the category of individual people as itpertains to the First Amendment. For thoseof you uninformed, this decision is nothingshort of catastrophic.

To be a person bearing Freedom ofExpression, in this context, translates tobeing able to contribute unlimited sums ofmoney to political candidates. For actual,individual, human beings, this makessome modicum of sense, albeit in tunewith the other aspects of our sociopoliticalstructure which are rooted in thefallacious assumption of meritocracy. Forcorporations, it doesnt even come close.

Corporations constitute the largest non-state economic entities in existence. Theyare collections of very wealthy individuals,exclusively disposed toward expanding theirwealth, under the guise of a legal ction of

singularity. Of the largest 100 economicentities in the world, 44 are corporations.

The drastic consequences of CitizensUnited became evident as we approachedElection Day. In the rst half of Octoberalone, the amount of money spent onpresidential campaigns was roughly tentimes what it would have been before theCitizens United ruling. On top of the roughly$6 million that was previously allowed, over$55 million has been forked over whichwould not have been otherwisein a twoweek period.

If the utter dismantling of our

representative democracy has registered with you, feel free tominute and think about it.

In the meantime, for an speculative analysis on how maninterruptions and eyebrow twitcheto lose an election, tune in to our news networks.

There is a stigma in conventionalsome variety of inevitability, surrthe will of corporations, that confrontations as useless and legisunenforceable. Despite our situatdefeatist perspective is not necessaevident, yet it is self-fullling. It is corporations hold enormous aminuence, thus it is enormously di

oppose their agendas. However, than inherent state of affairs. Morewallow in hopeless despair serves their transgressions.

Corporations derive their inupolitics through nance, which, exponentially increasing for the payears, is not irreversible. We are close to heading in the right dHowever, the framing of this important.

A corporation is a group ofPeople are often greedy. This is need legislation to prevent selsThe problem is the legal frawhich prioritizes the pursuit of prthe public interest, and thus enexploitative behavior, not the seitself. Corporations act met

according to corporate law, at risk oto exist. To amend corporate law wto change the behavior of corporati

Theoretically, this would amounlittle; a mere accession of thirty wcurrent legislation.

In practice, the resources reqexercise such change would includeengagement of proportions so masthe prospect seems ludicrous. So lohave systems in place which activaccess and dilute the quality of infothe general public will remain subunengaged.

Media Corporations Subject to Perverse Incentiv

Various renditions ofunreality are presented in

proportion to the belligerenceof their projection.


8/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

WS: How do you think the U.S. economywill perform over the next 5 years or so?

PJ: Over the next 5 years, unless theres

a big change in policy, which I dont reallythink will happen, were likely to see prettyslow growth. One of the problems at themoment is that households just arentspending because they had such a blowthey lost a big chunk of wealth, 401ks aredown, their balance sheets are in pretty badshapeso theyre busily doing things to gettheir balance sheets back in decent shape.So what do they do? They save, becausethats pretty much the only thing they cando. Theyre spending less.

In the long-term, it actually wouldntbe a bad thing if households spent less.As a society we dont save enough, so thatwouldnt be a bad thing. But in the short-term, thats a drag on aggregate demand,and that slows down the rate of growth ofGDP.

So Im expecting relatively slow growthover the next 5 years, and that means,amongst other things, a relatively slowreturn of the unemployment rate to itsnormal level due to a relatively slowcreation of jobs.

WS: Do you think an Obama economywould differ signicantly from a Romneyeconomy in that timeframe?

PJ: I think the economy would actuallydo better under Obama than it wouldunder Romney, but its a bit hard to tellwith Romney because we dont actuallyknow what Romneys going to do. Forexample, Romney wants to cut taxes,and hes claiming that hell eliminate alot of deductions and balance the budgetthat way, but the Tax Policy Center hascrunched the numbers as best they can andthey actually nd that the middle class endsup paying more in taxes, so thats got to bea drag on demand and thats got to slow theeconomy down. So, if we accept that, andthen we believe that middle class taxes willbe lower under Obama, then its likely thatthe economy will do better under him thanit would under Romney.

WS: Even though the job creatorswould have more money under Romney,supposedly?

PJ: The job creators story is just that,its just a story. It turns out that, if you takethe $250,000 cutoff thats often thrownaround, a very small fraction of thosepeople are actually small business owners.The sorts of people that are making that

kind of money are doctors and lawyersand investment bankers. It also turns outthat, in gross terms, small businesses arentterribly good job creators. So its true thatin net terms small businesses create a lot ofnew jobs, but a lot of small businesses fail.

So, in gross terms, over the last 10 years,small businesses have not created a lot ofnew jobs.

WS: So where does our job growth comefrom?

PJ: The big businesses.WS: So, why dont we reduce taxes on

big businesses?

PJ: I think we should actually reducetaxes on lots of businesses. One of the taxreforms that I would do, if I were givenmy druthers, would be to eliminate thecorporate income tax altogether, for acouple of reasons. One is that it vastlysimplies things; it takes away all thedouble-taxation arguments, whether youbuy those or not. It also takes away a lotof incentives for lobbying and other things

that wed rather not see happen.Obviously wed need a way to recoup

the revenue, because you lose a fair bit ofrevenue; so Id eliminate all the corporatetax breaks because theyre no longervaluable. So all the corporate welfare goes.And then the other way you recoup therevenue is to tax it back from those thatbenet most from the elimination of thecorporate income tax, so youd increaseindividual rates at the high-end.

WS: One common argument that getsthrown around is that simplifying the taxcode will make it more pro-growth. Do youbelieve that argument?

PJ: I think thats true for a couple ofreasons. The big reason, in my mind, isthat because tax code is so complicated andthere are so many loopholes and people

looking for loopholes, it creates all thesedistortions, and thats certainly not pro-growth. Making it simpler would eliminatea lot of the distortions. And, instead ofpeople spending their effort looking fortax loopholes and lobbying, which is totalrent-seeking activity and not conduciveto growth, those folks would go and dosomething that was actually useful, andthat would also be pro-growth.

WS: Although this would also helpreduce compliance costs, what would thosesorts of people involved in this industry doin the short-run? In other words, where

would these hordes of H&R Block workersgo?

PJ:Well, pro-growth is long-term. Theseare things that will play out over 10 or 20years. With a lot of these policies, theresalways some dislocation: theres winners

and losers in the short-run, but in thelong-run were all winners. Id much ratherhave the market, for all its failings, makethese sorts of choices, rather than quirksin government policy or having the choicemade by lobbying to get the rules changedin their favor.

WS: Recent GDP numbers showed thatour economy grew at only 2% last quarter.What do you think are the main factorskeeping growth so low in the U.S.?

PJ:2% is better than its been in the recentpast, but its also far from great. Post WorldWar II average growth has been about 3%,and coming out of an economic downturnwe should be above average. We ought tobe able to get 4% out of the economy for awhile without putting any upward pressureon ination, since weve got plenty of excess

capacity. And indeed we need some growthrates of that sort of magnitude to make aserious dent in unemployment. Weve notcreated anywhere near as many jobs as weneed to create coming out of the recessionto get the people that lost their jobs back toa state of employment. So, we need somerapid growth.

So whats keeping growth slow? Theshort answer is just a lack of aggregatedemand. Investment, for example, islow. Consumption is low. Householdsand businesses just arent spending theirmoney, and thats reducing demand. Wevealso had the state and local governmentscutting spending because theyve lost somuch revenue, and thats also been a dragon demand over the last few years. So theshort-run story is a demand side story;

weve got plenty of idle capacity, we couldbe producing a lot more than we are.

WS: Do you think that governmentspending is crowding out privateinvestment, at this time?

PJ: No, because the crowding outargument just doesnt apply in the currentsituation. The crowding out argumentapplies at full employment, and it appliesin that situation because theres not muchcapacity to produce more goods andservices. So if the government demandsmore goods and services, the only placethat can come from is if the private sectorgets less. So, that means less investment,less consumption. Thats the crowding outstory.

In the current situation, weve got theeconomy operating at below capacity, so

the government can actually demand moregoods and services without that reducingthe goods and services available to theprivate sector for investment.

WS: What kind of economic policieswould you like to see out of the nextadministration in order to jumpstartaggregate demand in a meaningful way?

PJ: Well, the policy I really like, andwhat I would have liked them to havedone right at the beginning of the Obamaadministration, is public works. Wehad this situation where we had a lot ofpeople involved in construction that were

unemployed; they lost their jobsthe housing industry collapsed. Sohave been a relatively simple mput them to work doing all sorts orefurbishing schools, xing potroads, building new roads and

a lot of that work thats availabdone. The advantage of doing thawhen the recession is over, we this infrastructure thats been refor newly built, and that increproductive capacity of the economget an extra effect from that afteras well.

Id actually like to see somedone now. The difculty now is thprobably not politically feasible. thats one of the reasons why thestimulus was less than what a lot ecsaid it should have been, which wapolitically infeasible to do more. Tpolicy part of it, at the moment, wmore spending on that sort of thmaybe some tax cuts, but for peowould spend the money, not for

creators.

WS: So, in the short term yousee the government spend a lot oAs such, what would you do to br

the debt, if anything?PJ:Well, weve got to be careful

not the dollar value of the debt thatinterest; its more about the debtto the size of the economy. And threason why it cant stay, relative toof the economy, where it is at the indenitely. The debt held by thwhich is the part that matters, is abof GDP. Theres no reason why it cthere forever. It isnt important that number down, although, othequal, its better to be less in dmore in debt, so if it did fall were nto be too upset.

The issue is how do we get it to stanothing is done, it actually tends toitself. If the Bush tax cuts expireeconomy improves, that actual

out enough revenue to get it to for about the next 8 to 10 years, ato the Congressional Budget Ofreal problems are if the Bush tax extended, because we lose a big revenue, and, down the road, thhealth care costs, particularly MIf nothing is done, and those twhappen, the debt goes through theends up somewhere on the order of GDP in 20 or 30 years. Wed ranot happen; we dont want healthcto consume such a large fraction ofoutput.

nationaL aFFairS

Will SerioEditor-in-Chief

PagE 8

Econ. Prof. Paul Johnson on the Economy, Govt Spendi

Zack Struver

So whats keeping growthslow? The short answer

is just a lack of aggregatedemand. Investment,for example, is low.Consumption is low.

Households and businesses

just arent spending theirmoney, and thats reducingdemand.

oFFice HourswitH proFessorpaul JoHNsoN

Continued on Page 9

Its not the dollar valuof the debt that is of an

interest; its more aboutdebt relative to the sizethe economy. And ther

no reason why it cant strelative to the size of th

economy, where it is at moment indenitely.


9/20


nationaL aFFairSJohnson On Post-Financial Crisis Regulatory, Fiscal Pol

The big issue is what we do abouthealthcare spending, both publicallyand privately. Its not just a public sectorproblem. Paul Ryans voucher plan doesntaddress the problem at all; it just shiftsit from the public sector to the privatesector. The problem is still going to existin healthcare unless something is done. Soweve got to do things to slow the rise ofhealthcare costs. Theres some experimentsgoing on in hospitals with the way theydeliver healthcare and the cost savingstheyve been able to achieve. We can do alot of stuff that we dont do in preventativecare. One of the problems with theinsurance market in the U.S. at the momentis that no insurance company has any largeincentive to offer coverage for preventivecare, because then you can take yourgood health and go to another insurancecompany which is going to benet fromyour good health that the rst insurancecompany has subsidized. So theres a biasagainst covering preventative care.

Diabetes, for example, is very expensive totreat but relatively inexpensive to prevent.So we could be changing things like the U.S.diet, which is atrocious. In many ways, weeat our way to higher health care costs. Itwould be much more sensible if we didnt.There are things we could do, but nobody isactually addressing the problem, except forMichael Bloomberg in his own special way.

The other thing is that we are almostcertainly going to have to pay higher taxes.The U.S. is, as far as the industrializedworld goes, a relatively low tax countrydespite what people will tell you.

WS: How would you prefer to see thishappen?PJ: I would make the tax structure

more progressive. As far as the personaltax structure goes, I would also simplifythat. I would abolish all the deductions.Everything. All the deductions go. Imtalking about my ideal world. In my idealworld, there are no deductions. And ratesare lower, of course, because then you savea lot of money, and then we can make thestructure more progressive, particularly atthe very high end.

The other reform I would do in my idealworld, and this one wont get very far, isthat Id tax people as individuals, not ashouseholds. So, right now, we give you atax break if youre married, but if youremarried and dont le with your spouse

you get penalized, so I would actually justtax people as individuals regardless of theirmarital status.

WS: Backing out of your ideal world,what would you do about the deductions wehave now? Which ones would you reduce orget rid of that are politically feasible?

PJ: The home mortgage interestdeductionI hate itbut its very popularwith middle class people because they getsome money. But it turns out that taxpayersat the higher end benet much more; thelions share of this so called tax expenditurethats generated by the home mortgage

interest deduction accrues to higher incometax payers, because they have highermarginal rates, they live in bigger houses,and they have bigger mortgages.

So how do you solve that problem ina politically feasible way? You cap thededuction at some gure like 150% of thecurrent median deduction, which meansthat more than half of the people who aregetting the deduction still get it and theydont see any change, but then people whoare getting a huge deduction have it loppedoff.

We over-subsidize housing, and this waspart of the problem behind the bubble in2008. There are enormous subsidies forhousing in the U.S., and so people consumemore housing because the governmentwill subsidize your housing consumptionif you buy a house. So the fact that peopleconsume more housing because itssubsidized, means thatand this is aversion of the crowding out argumentthere are fewer resources available forproductive things like investment. So,

one of the longer term pro-growth effectsof this, apart from making the tax systemmore sensible, would be that we have moreresources for investment and productivethings, and that means higher incomes foreverybody, because well have more capital,so workers will be more productive and sotheir wages are higher.

WS: On that point, what do you think ofthe housing market currently? Do you thinkthat its bottomed out? New home sales areup at 2-year highs.

PJ: I was actually surprised by thatbecause theres still a lot of houses inforeclosure, so, in my perception, there is alot of excess supply in the housing market.Theres a lot of excess supply in Nevada,for example, but if you cant nd a job inNevada, then theres no point in going

there to live and buy a house. So maybethat excess supply just doesnt factor intonational home prices because its excesssupply in areas that people dont want tolive in at the moment.

Its possible that the market hasbottomed out, but the average home pricesare still above the long-run average. If youlook at the graph of home prices, theres a

fairly stable long-run average, in real terms,before the run up started in the 90s, so itmay well be that the new long-run averageis higher. Theres only a certain amount ofreally desirable places to live and theyregetting crowded, so thats going to tend topush up prices. Or it may be that priceshave further to fall. However, what is fairlycertain is that prices arent going to go upto anything like they were before the crash.That was a bubble. So unless theres anotherbubbleIm hoping that people havelearned their lessonif anyones expectinghome prices to go back up to anywhere nearwhere they were, then theyre going to bevery disappointed.

WS:With that in mind, how much blamedo you put on a specic administration,Congress, or legislation for the housingcrisis?

PJ:Where the buck stops is actually withthe regulators. The industry was poorlyregulated, and its an industry that has to beregulated because the problem was that wehad a lot of people acting in their own best

interest, and that had undesirable effects.People that were in this originate-and-sellmortgage business, loaning money andthen selling mortgages off to investmentbanks that created the collateralized debtobligations, they were acting in their ownbest interest because issuing mortgages andthen selling them increased their incomes.And the investment banks were acting intheir best interest; they were packaging upthe mortgages and then selling them. Soweve got all the actors involved acting intheir own best interest given the rules of thegame that they were facing. The problemreally is that the rules werent a good setof rules. And who sets the rules? Well, thegovernment makes the laws and writes therules of the game, so at the end of the day itwas that the rules of the game werent right.

So its a long-term regulatory issue. Itsprobably true that the repeal of Glass-Steagall under Clinton made things worse.Its also true that the SEC was basically toldto turn a blind eye to certain things under

Bush. That certainly didnt help.But was that the cause? No. It really is aregulatory issue, and part of the solutionhas got to be things like breaking up the

big banks; theres no reason for tto be so large. They should be brinto smaller institutions so that thlonger too big to fail.

We also need nancial instituhold more capital. They have an to hold as little capital as possiblethey can make more money if tas little capital as possible, and ucurrent rules of the game, impliexplicitly, they dont bear the riskthat. The risk, as weve now seen,to be borne, to some extent at the public sector. The public sebail them out. And the public seto bail them out. We had no choibail out the banks because everso interconnected that they weliterally, too big to fail. So, if we ato bail them out, we should requirehold more capital so they become lentities. Theyre in a really great pobe in currently, because they privprots and socialize the losses. Wall be so lucky.

WS: Following up on that pissue, whats your opinion of DodOne of the accomplishments that PObama trumpeted after signingFrank into law was that there wno more bailouts. Does Dodd-Fraaccomplish that?

PJ: Dodd-Frank just doesntenough. It does some things, like it derivatives trading, which is grthe big thing to my mind is that institutions need to hold more capto give them a cushion so that, whprices fall, they dont become bank

Theres been very little done to shappened from happening again.happen again, and the history of tsuggests that it almost certainly wilagain. Theres a great book by Kind

calledManias, Crashes, and Paniis a really great piece of economion all sorts of, well, manias, craspanics, over the last several years. And the thing that, for embarrassing as an economist whthis book, was that you could takeof these crises and you could readbut for the details, the language wthe same as whats happenedTheres an eerie similarity in thesand theyve been occurring for hof years with greater or lesser frbecause of, basically, our psycfailings as human beings.

So, unless we have a really gof regulations, and regulate ththen its almost certainly ghappen again. Going back to th

I made before, we havent chanincentives for peoples actiopeople on Wall Street have pretthe same incentives they facedso, what are they going to do?going to behave in pretty much tway they b ehaved bef ore. The oand-sell mortgage industry hamuch gone away: Countrywbeen bought by Bank of Amerat the moment, its actuallydifficult to get a loan to buy abut somewhere, somehow, theanother bubble and another

In many ways, we eat ourway to higher health care

costs.

dailybail.com

Continued from Page 10


10/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

nationaL aFFairS

PagE 10

Editors Prediction: As Ohio Goes, So Goes The Nati

This election season, Ohio embodiesthe center of the electoral universe.With 18 electoral votes up for

grabs, both candidates have focusedplenty of time and money on the BuckeyeState. Nevertheless, over the past fewweeks, polls have consistently shown thatObama has a slight lead in Ohio, typicallyon the order of one to two percent.Consequently, Obamas team should feelslightly more comfortable than Romneysheading into Tuesday, as Ohio would put

Obama over the necessary 270 electoralvotes per the Electoral College mapshown above.

In our opinion, the true swing statesin this election are: Florida, Ohio,Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, and NewHampshire. These six states constitutethe set of states that, according to NateSilvers competitive state summary, haveless than four to one odds that eithercandidate will win them. Other states,such as Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Nevada,Michigan, and North Carolina, that manypundits and websites have labeled as

swing states, appear to favor one of thecandidates too much to really t thedescription. As such, we have ceded thosestates to their respective likely winners,leaving the electoral math at 253-206 infavor of Obama.

Fortunately for Obama, he has manypaths to victory. For example, he can cedeFlorida, Virginia, Colorado, Iowa, andNew Hampshire and still win so long ashe holds Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan,Pennsylvania, all of which he is at least

88 percent likely to win accordingSilver, and the all-important Ohicurrently favors him at nearly 84 It would be close, with the nal271-267, but a win is a win. Mnearly all of those states (Iowa, CNew Hampshire, Virginia) are cleaning towards Obama, so thunlikely scenario.

Nonetheless, it is not outside thof possibility that Ohio couldtowards Romney. In that case, tthus far would probably all haskewed in the same directionRomney, which means that he wlikely to win states that would nbe as heavily in Obamas favor,Virginia and Florida. If any additiof the undecided states we have

(Colorado, Iowa, and New Hamgo red, Romney would win the ECollege.

Ultimately, since these pollsbased on likely voter models,condent that the actual electionand turnout will reect the consensus of the polls, in thof good weather. So, perhapimportant than anything else, Oa zero percent chance of rain on according to The Weather signaling a potentially sunny Democrats across the country.

EdiTor-in-chiEf

Will Serio

sEniorEdiTor

ZackStruver

Nate SilverFiveThirtyEight


11/20


Although this article is in print onElection Day, well before the pollshave closed, and was written more

than few days in advance of November

6th

, I am condent enough in the recentconsensus of polls to say that PresidentObama will likely be re-elected. As ofNovember 4th, Nate Silver, renownedstatistician and author of the New YorkTimes blog FiveThirtyEight, calculatedPresident Obamas odds of winning at about85 percent. Therefore, unless the polls thiselection cycle have been systematicallybiased against Romney, which is certainlypossible (albeit highly unlikely), its aboutthat time to break out your Hillary 2016and Christie 2016 signs.

This was certainly not the case just a fewshort weeks ago. If this article were in printshortly after the rst presidential debateon October 3rd, my conclusion would havebeen signicantly different. GovernorRomney did exactly what he needed to

in order to keep the race competitive: hepresented himself as a moderate alternativeto President Obama. Meanwhile, PresidentObama seemed lethargic and unableto refute any of Romneys numerousarguments and criticisms, much to thedetriment of his sizable lead. Consequently,the election became about as close as itsever been as both national and state pollsswung heavily towards Romney.

Immediately following the debate theObama team was clearly worried, and forgood reason. According to many politicalpundits, Obamas advisers and surrogatescollaborated for roughly 10 minutesbefore entering the spin room with theirmessage on how the debate went. But theirspin didnt matter because the countryhad just witnessed a historic moment

in presidential debates. According to aGallup Poll on October 8th, Those whoviewed the debate overwhelmingly believeRomney did a better job than Obama, 72%to 20%... Across all of the various debate-reaction polls Gallup has conducted,Romneys 52-point win is the largestGallup has measured. As such, one thingwas undeniable: the President had to do farbetter in the two subsequent debates, andVice President Joe Biden had to be on theattack in the debate against CongressmanPaul Ryan in order to reignite theDemocratic base.

Before October 3rd, the only peopleI knew that publicly expressed theirsupport for Romney were registeredRepublicans. But after Romneys stellardebate performance, it seemed to become

more acceptable for independent andmoderate voters to express their interestin voting for the Republican presidentialcandidate. The reasoning is obvious: helooked and sounded like a President, whileObama appeared tired and uninterested.The greedy, heartless plutocrat, aboutwhom the Obama campaign waxed poetic,didnt show up; instead, we all met formerGovernor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney:a brilliant reinvention about which Obamaseemed unprepared to respond. FormerPresident Bill Clinton framed it best onOctober 9th at an Obama rally in Las Vegas.

He explained how Moderate Mitt showedup at the debate with a sunny face andobscured the truth about his plans afterhis strategists realized that this ship issinking faster than the Titanic. Even thiscompelling argument from, arguably, themost highly regarded president in modernhistory wouldnt be enough to stem the tide

of Romneys momentum.

Counterintuitively, Romney seems tohave benetted even more from his rstdebate performance than he would haveotherwise due to the character assassinationcarried out by the Obama campaign team.By virtue of being continually criticized

on personal matters that arent readilyapparent in a debate setting, peoplesexpectations of how well Romney wouldfare in the debate were signicantlylowered. Accordingly, even though theattacks regarding his work at Bain Capitaland owning Swiss bank accounts wereunavailable for use in the debates, the

effects of these impressions still lingeredin voters minds. This reasoning alsoprovides a logical foundation for how theObama team tried to reverse Romneyslow expectations before the rst debate.Obamas campaign staff continuallyappeared on TV and in news articlesrepeating the same basic line: Romneyrepresents the most prepared debater indecades. Ultimately, the Obama team wasunsuccessful at lowering expectations forObama or raising expectations for Romneydue to, at least in part, the effectiveness oftheir previous attacks.

Moving on from this pivotal momentin the race, Obama stopped Romneysmomentum and returned it to his side viathe Vice Presidential debate and, moreimportantly, the second presidentialdebate.

During the former, Biden ferventlyattacked Ryan on the Republicans plans

to reform Medicare and the tax code. Ryan

held his own though, quelling fears that hewould not be ready to step up as presidentshould something happen to Romney. Still,this debate did not matter nearly as muchas any of the presidential debates.

During the latter, Obama took a page

from Bidens book and came out swinging.He consistently refuted Romneys pointsand even talked over Romney at severalmoments. One particular moment thatstood out above all the others occurredwhen Romney accused Obama of worryingabout politics the day after the attack onthe American embassy in Benghazi. In

response, President Obama chastisedRomney, wagging his nger and staringhim down, stating, And the suggestionthat anybody on my teamwhetherSecretary of State, our U.N. ambassadorwould play politics or mislead when we lostfour of our own, Governor, is offensive.Thats not what we do. Thats not whatI do as President. Thats not what I do asCommander-in-Chief [Emphasis added].The tone and body language were clear anddominant, demonstrating that Romneyhad crossed a line he shouldnt have.Immediately following this, Romney was

proven wrong via an instant-faby CNN moderator Candy Crowlequestion of whether Obama had cattack an act of terror in his rconference following the tragic evethese two moments in mind, and aof his strong comeback, Obama his stature and brought the mo

back to his side.Obama continued to hold his

the third presidential debate, debate didnt matter as much as thsince viewership was far lower rst two due to competing sportMoreover, for those who did wafact that Romney agreed with Obmost foreign policy issues made thuninteresting. Overall, the punditspolls agreed that the debate was a draw, which allowed Obama this slight advantage over Romnthe second debate and continue upward movement in the polls.

Since the nal debate, people hinundated with ads and nothing mhappened to change the state of The slight advantage in the pollshas held will likely lead him to an victory on November 6th, since failed to connect with voters and the momentum he desperately neelosing ground in the second debatnot to say he did poorly in the secthird debates, rather that Obama rin the second debate and they drew in the third debate, so the moseems to be in Obamas favor.

With these game-changing momin the past, the referendum versuframing of this election seems to hup fairly well, although it has becomore complex. In one sense, Rmain argument for why he shelected has remained unchanged: polices have failed to lead us into

economic recovery. Moreover, Rreferendum argument has been onenhanced by his vague economic such, he has been unable to claw apercent in national polls, and is into Election Day at a clear disadv

On the ip side, Obama framelection as one between two clearthrough character and policy difObama has also been much morto defend his record than Romwas apparent in the second debresult, he was able to attack Romboth being vague and, when Romspecic, for being out of touch. Tvicious attacks both sides engagedaimed toward shoring up their rbases, while their plans for the futintended for swing voters.

With this framework in mind,easily discern why Obama is theto win on Tuesday despite the rhehave seen from the pundits. Evenenthusiasm gap, where the Reside holds a signicant advancomparison 2008, Obama is simbetter position to win. So, as boththeir best to get out the vote andwith bated breath as the electiotrickle in from the swing states (eOhio!), we should all remember story was written far in advance: 11November 4th, to be exact.

nationaL aFFairSDespite Romneys Reframe, Obama Holds Electoral Ed

Will SerioEditor-in-Chief

CNN

In the rst presidential debate of 2012, held on October 3rd in Denver, Colorado, Republicannominee for president Mitt Romney was the clear winner over President Barack Obama.

CBS

In the second presidential debate, held at Hofstra University on October 16th, President Obamastared down Governor Romney while answering a question concerning the recent attack on theU.S. embassy in Libya.


12/20

ChroniCle, Novemb

Victoria WeissContributor

Undecided Voters Lack Relevant Facts from Obam

nationaL aFFairS

PagE 12

During campaigns, most candidatesmake promises, many of whichare later broken. Strangely, one

candidate has largely abstained from making

promisesPresident Barack Obama. For apresident who ran his entire rst campaignon the concept of Change, his re-electioncampaign seems to be Keep Calm and CarryOn. President Obama has not made manypromises or outlined many specic plans forthe next four years. One of the few promisesObama has actually made is to bring troopshome from Afghanistan by 2014a viewRomney agrees with. The lack of specicgoals for the next four years could lead anundecided voter to look at the DemocraticPartys platform in order to make aninformed decision about who to vote for.

The platform, however, is also lacking inpromises and goals. The main structure of theDemocratic platform is quite simple. First, itnames things the President has done whilein ofce. Second, it provides a list of vague

ideals behind which the party stands. Third,

it says that Democrats and the Presidentare committed to the aforementioned idealslisted. Finally, it slams the Republicans andGovernor Romney when they disagree.While simple, the platform will no doubtresonate with millions of voters across theUnited States. An undecided voter, however,might notice something missing. The

Democratic platform very carefully avoidssaying what the Democratic Party wantsto get done in the next four years. As such,it makes little sense that Romney has beenhounded regarding gaps in policy planswhile Obama has been given a pass.

One reason for this lack of specicitymay be due to an increasingly partisangovernment where it is difcult to garnerenough support to pass bills, even forthose with highly detailed plans forimplementation. While current polls predictthat Democrats will remain in control of theSenate, Republicans have also made gains inthe polls. Not only will the Republican Partyhave a signicant showing in Congress,but the GOP has become increasinglyconservative, partially in response to theObama administrations policies. As such,

if re-elected, President Obama will face

an uphill battle to get anything done. So,despite the polarization, he needs to havea more concrete plan and not just generalideals. Although he will undoubtedly haveto compromise, without more strategy, theGOP will prevent almost all bills not alignedwith the GOP platform from passing. Evenwhen Obama has had a plan and a very clear

idea of how to follow through, he has haddifculty pushing bills through Congress. Forexample, four years ago Obama had big ideasfor healthcare reform. Some of his ideas didnot make it into the nal bill, but others suchas universal coverage did. The Republicansopposed the bill and did not vote for it. Infact, not a single Republican senator votedin favor of Obamacare, and it only passedby increasing funding to Nebraska to swaythe one Democrat, Senator Ben Nelson,who had initially not voted in favor of thebill. If Obama had such difculty when hehad a comprehensive plan, how will he farewhen he attempts to uphold his vaguelystated ideals? With such a poor record ofbipartisanship, how does he expect to swaythe Republicans in Congress over the nextfour years?

Perhaps his campaign strategy conveys

how he will deal with this probPresident is not campaigning tovotes of conservative Republicancampaigning to win the votes of Dand moderates. For this reason, hdiscussing with the public how to work with Republicans. In thiscycle, he needs to separate himself

as possible from the GOP for his Debase. He is probably not giving any dany promises so that Romney doesthe chance to rip his plans to shreas Obama did to Romneys tax planreason why the Democratic Partyvague makes sense, but moderate uvoters may be annoyed, since thisdifcult to make an informed deciswho to vote for. Still, track records away to see the patterns candidatesand can give an insight into how a cmight act or vote in the future. In anstaged as a choice between two codifferent visions of where to take thStates, highlighting his accomplisha good strategy for Obama, but notThe combination of accomplishmfuture goals would be ideal for u

voters to make informed decisions.

U.S. Must Adopt UNCLOS to Avoid International R

The United Nations Convention onthe Law of the Sea III (UNCLOS)codies historys most comprehensive

framework of maritime and oceanic law.Negotiated between 1972 and 1982, the treatyspans 320 articles and nine annexes. Thetreatys importance cannot be overstated; itcovers environmental, industrial, military,navigational, territorial, economic, andpolitical concerns. UNCLOS determines thelegal character of over 70% of the worldssurface. Backed by a governmental body,the International Seabed Authority, andempowered with the rights of regulationand dispute resolution, UNCLOS provides apowerful tool for managing the internationalsphere.

The United States, however, has failedto ratify the treaty. Though supported bythe Ford and Carter administrationsaswell as a bipartisan coalition of the JointChief of Staffsthe Reagan administrationentered ofce determined to remove theUnited States from the convention. Afteran extensive policy review that concludedwith a return to negotiations in good faith,roadblocks in the re-negotiation of ArticleXIs deep-seabed mining provisions weremet by a hesitant American delegation.On July 9, 1982, six months before theconventions conclusion, President RonaldReagan announced a U.S. withdrawal. Nowexcluded from the 160 member state body,the U.S. stands in solidarity with NorthKorea, Libya, and Somalia in oppositionto the treatys establishment. Lackingmembership, the U.S. now attempts toprotect its oceanic and maritime rightsthrough unilateral proclamations in deanceof international consensus.

We can no longer afford this belligerence.The Cold Wars end and the rise of a multipolar

system have made unilateral procl

Vassar Chronicle, November 2012

Documents

Transcript of Vassar Chronicle, November 2012