Jewish groups upset with Obama's latest decision

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

The state department announced today that the United States will try to get back into the United Nations Human Rights Council.  Why isn't the US currently in the UN Human Rights Council?  Well it was, until during the Bush administration, they boycotted this group because of its criticism towards Israel, and its refusal to criticize other countries like Sudan.  Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that this is in an attempt to bring about a "new era of engagement" under the Obama administration.

However major Jewish groups across the country are "outraged".  They explain that the track record of the UN Human Rights Council is "abysmol".  They refuse to lend aid to situations such as Darfur and turn their back on the violation of human rights that occurs in the member countries.

The UN Human Rights Council is a stage for much slander against the State of Israel and President Bush realized that they would not get anywhere by being a part of this group.  The United States wishing to join back in this group will cause a setback in the Israel-US relationship, as well as hurt many Jews in the country.

I agree that joining this group is probably not the best thing to do at this time, especially when Israel is currently under as much scrutiny as it is.  If the UN Human Rights Council does fail to look at the member countries violating human rights, than there is no reason that the United States should feel inclined to be a part of it.  So far, joining this group has caused more turmoil than it has good, and for that reason alone, it hasn't been worth it.

Are We Safe?

With North Korea gearing up to launch a rocket into space, America and governments around the world are preparing to respond. Or, at least they should be. According to a NYT article, the Obama’s administration has decided not to try and stop the launch. While this may seem okay, consider that Secretary Gates said, “I don’t know anyone at a senior level in the American government who does not believe this technology is intended as a mask for the development of an intercontinental ballistic missile.” That, along with North Korea’s nuclear program, should put fear into Americans.

Instead, the President chose to focus his efforts on Pakistan and Afghanistan. While this is noble and generally seen as an okay thing to do, this is not the time. North Korea is not considered a stable country, as it is under a communist regime, and steps should be taken to stop inroads that cannot be reversed. If they do launch this rocket, then it spells danger for democratic people across the world. What is probably not going to happen will be a direct launch from North Korea to, say, Japan. No one is a winner in that situation. What worries me is that they could give the technology to groups that intend to do harm, such as Al Qaeda.

This is a serious test for the President. It does not only have an implication in terms of his negotiation skills, but it also concerns the validity of his “diplomacy first” international relations scheme and overall judgment. He appears to be ignoring the advice of his Defense Secretary, which could cost the lives of innocents. This could signal his disregard of the opinions of those with another opinion.

It is also worth considering that the only legitimate threat from another foreign government is from an atomic warhead or other missile. Why should we not protect ourselves anyway? There are always things that are unpredicatable, and this would be a good investment. After all, we spend as much as the rest of the world combined on defense. Who is going to invade us? This would also fit in with President Obama’s non-interventionist policy.

There is, however, undoubtedly more behind the decision that what I have described here. Regardless of any ignorance the public is afflicted with, the resolution of this international situation will forebode partially our nation’s fate for the next four years.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/washington/30military.html?ref=todayspaper

Paying in Full as the Ticket Into Colleges

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/31/education/31college.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us

This article addresses the current trend in university admissions of steering away from accepting incoming students on a need-blind basis, and beginning to accept wealthier students who are in no need of financial aid. Although colleges and universities are a business, and are looking to make money for their institution, we need to look at the implications of such a trend. There are economic realities, of course, to offering financial aid to a large number of students, but shouldn’t the bottom line of a university be to educate the students to their greatest ability, and to be confident, when they leave, that they will succeed in their chosen career? The discrepancies are clear, and the gap between the students attending the most respected schools and community schools, for example, will greatly expand. There will be a larger hierarchy to the American education system; talented lower-income high school students will almost be forced to attend a college or university that does not challenge them to the extent essential for them to thrive. Meanwhile, many international and less talented higher-income students are being accepted into respected schools without as much as a blink of an eye by admissions. The pure fact that they can pay the full tuition with no financial aid is enough reason for them to be allowed into the freshman class.

This is wrong; criteria for acceptance is steering away from the best SAT scores, the highest number of AP courses taken and passed, etc., it is now based on the ZIP code you live in, or your parent’s background. Of course, one can argue that all the earlier criteria is still looked at and taken into consideration accordingly, but let’s be realistic; according to the article, a stellar student with the highest G.P.A. in their high school in need of financial assistance will become second best to the less-than-mediocre student that comes from a wealthy town, lives in a multi-million dollar home, and can easily pay the tuition set by the school. It’s a reality, and it’s not fair. The United States is known for its level playing field, especially in education. Of course, universities itself vary across the nation, but it has been a common practice for years to accept students on a need-blind basis. Diversity will suffer on college campuses; the wealthy will be attending the most respected schools in the nation, while the average will be forced into the rest. This is an elitist situation, for sure.

After reading this article, it’s somewhat obvious that this trend has permeated at least somewhat into our campus. Bentley is a predominantly wealthy campus, and international students attending the university are at an all time high. I would hate to think that next year, or five years down the line, people wouldn’t be able to attend this excellent school just because their wallets were stopping them.

Torture Failure - Ross Milne

New information has recently come to light which has proven that one of the main suspects in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Abu Zubaida, was actually not involved in the attacks at all. Abu Zabaida, who has been incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay for the last seven years, actually did not have any contact with Al Qaeda until well after the attack occurred, and this interaction only happened because of their fear of a quick United States invasion of Afghanistan. As more facts come to light, it turns out that Zubaida was only a spokesman for radical Muslim groups, not a planner of international terrorist threats, even though former President George Bush called Zubaida "Al-Qaeda's Chief of Operations" and a "trusted associate" of Osama Bin Laden.

Now, the question is what to do with this man, who is not nearly as dangerous as what we thought he once was. For seven years, members of the CIA were pressured by the Bush administration to subject Zubaida to waterboarding and other severe interrogation procedures, and the only useful information that was procured from him was given before the waterboarding began. He still has been accused of having connections with the Ahmed Rassam, who was caught planning a bombing of Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve in 1999. The evidence is there to convict Zubaida of this crime and send him to jail, but CIA officials are afraid that if the case goes to trial the details of the torture used in their interrogation will come out in the public, and Zubaida would be acquitted because of the unnecessary torture and illegal gathering of evidence. This, in turn, would set up a legal precedent which would essentially let the hundreds of Guantanomo Bay prisoners be let free. Which is better for America? Giving a prisoner the chance of a fair trial and potentially setting him and other dangerous men free? Or sending him to Jordan where he will sit in jail for the rest of his life without a trial? If the CIA remembers what this country was founded on, it will give Zubaida a legitimate trial, and if he is proven guilty, then they can do whatever they want with him. The government can't preach transparency and hide their actions. That's hypocrisy, not democracy.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/03/30/officials_torture_confessions_not_proven_useful/

Disregard this post.

Stimulus Ideals Conflict on the Texas Prairie

After Congress passed a $787 billion stimulus bill last month, President Obama is finding that this money is being put to use in ways that go against the priorities set by his administration. A fraction of the money ($27.5 billion) in the stimulus bill was set to be spent by the states under the category of transportation. For example, New Hampshire plans to use the money to widen a highway in order to make it easier for its southern residents to commute to Boston, where an increasing number are finding jobs. This improvement may sound great on paper, but when compared to Obama’s wishes for how the money should be spent, it doesn’t quite make the cut. Obama stressed a change in how the country views development as well as wean it off of dependence on foreign oil, to go along with environmental concerns. The need to spend stimulus money as fast as possible and create new jobs, however, makes for a clashing of priorities.

Obama gave the stimulus money to each state for them to spend on their own so that the money could be put to use quickly. One of the most prominent problems with this so far is that the states are using it to develop away from their most populous centers. Many argue that the money should be used to improve those areas that depend on transit or suffer from congestion on the streets. One place where this is a major debate right now is in Texas, most notably in the prairie lands that surround the city of Houston. The state is using the money given to them in the stimulus plan to build a 15-mile, four-lane toll road through the middle of a prairie around Houston, a job that will cost them $181 million.

Not only did this upset environmentalists in the Houston area, but it also shows how the states are abusing and mishandling the money given to them by the federal government. President Obama made public his opposition against sprawl, which is a term used to describe the expansion of urban environments into its surrounding rural setting, and encouraged officials to use “innovative thinking” when allocating the money. This is in fact the opposite of what Texas is doing. By creating this new highway around the city, sprawl is going to happen at a rapid pace. Obama said that the days of building endless sprawl are over; apparently Texas didn’t get the message. With an expected 21,000 new homes on 11,400 acres in this new development, Houston is going to expand more and more, effectively killing the wildlife and prairie environment outside of Houston and creating more sprawl. Also, innovation is seriously lacking in this instance. A new highway does nothing but increase our need for oil as more and more people will be driving their cars along this new road. Furthermore, as these developments are constructed away from the city of Houston, there will be more people settling far away from the main centers of employment, resulting in longer commutes for everyone. Texas did a poor job in this instance as the money could have (and should have) gone into solving problems affecting the city of Houston, including improving public transit, building new roads or modifying the old ones to reduce congestion, and helping the poorer sections of the city. Any of these alternatives would have fit better with Obama’s initial hopes for the stimulus bill where he stressed innovation to go along with environmental concerns. Here’s to hoping that the other states will put the money to better use.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23sprawl.html?pagewanted=1

Safety or Freedom?

Legislators are currently trying to pass a law in New Hampshire that would require drivers to wear seat belts while driving. New Hampshire is currently the only state in the US without a seat belt law. One would think that a law like this would pass relatively easily since all the other states have one and it’s in the name of safety. However, there is quite a bit of opposition to the passage of such a law.

People in New Hampshire like to live by their motto “Live Free or Die” and therefore have felt that it was their own decision on whether or not they should wear seat belts. Those who are firm believers in individualism are the main opponents to the passage of a seat belt law. They claim that wearing a seat belt hasn’t been proven to save more lives than not wearing a seat belt. Opponents cling to the freedom to choose whether or not they wear a seat belt, claiming that this liberty is part of what gives New Hampshire its identity.

Those in favor of passing such a law argue that seat belts do save lives. According to the article, “in 2007, at least 70% of those who died in traffic accidents in the state weren't wearing seat belts.” They believe that any safety benefit that seat belts provide outweigh any financial cost to the state. Some seat belt law supporters say that the state motto doesn’t carry much weight anymore and that opponents should look at the facts and vote in favor of safety.

This law should end up passing, making New Hampshire the fiftieth and final state to have a seat belt law. The law has already passed once in the House. If it passes once more in the House, the bill will then be sent to the Senate to be voted upon. Voters should see that the benefits of a seat belt law outweigh any detriments. Though there is no statistical evidence that seat belts save lives, what if they do? By instituting a seat belt law, lives will be saved. If the state doesn’t pass the law, then the lives that could be saved by seat belts won’t be saved. Not passing a seat belt law risks lives, while passing one has the opportunity to save lives. Legislators should therefore pass this law, ignoring any protests of a loss of freedom. Safety is more important than freedom in this scenario.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123733649650564223.html

Should bailed out companies be able to pay bonuses?

This article, found in the New York Times, details a recent poll on whether or not the companies that received bailout money from the United States government should have the ability to pay bonuses. Most of the Americans polled say companies that receive federal bailout money should not be awarding bonuses to their employees. Furthermore, the American public reject the arguments that bonuses are necessary to attract and retain the best employees. This CBS News Poll showed that 65 % of those surveyed said that “federal bailout money should not be used for any bonuses.” This issue was sparked just over a week ago when it was announced that American International Group, the ailing insurance company that received upwards of $ 170 billion in loans from the federal government, paid $ 165 million in bonuses in employees. The main point of the article is that the public strongly disagrees with the contention that bonuses are required to draw and then hold on to the best employees. (Article site: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/poll-public-wants-government-to-recover-bonus-funds/)

The first thing that I want to mention about this article is the validity and accuracy of the poll. This CBS News Poll was “conducted…by telephone with 949 adults nationwide and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.” We discussed that the number of people used in the survey is an appropriate amount. However, the means in which the survey was conducted seemed to be a cause for concern for most of us. The main problem that can be attributed to telephone surveys is refusal, which can be the cause of this relatively small number of respondents.

Aside from the validity and accuracy of the poll, I agree with the majority of the public in their defense that bailed out companies should not pay bonuses. Finding out that American International Group paid $ 165 million in bonuses is a slap-in-the-face to the American public. Americans now know that our tax dollars are not all going towards helping the company, some of the money is going towards padding the wallets of executives and employees who were the ones who got AIG into this problem in the first place. Bonuses are supposed to be a reward for when the company is doing well, which means the employees are clearly doing their job correctly. However, by having a failing company paying bonuses – what are they rewarding exactly? Inefficiency and failure? What kind of message is going to ring out into corporate America as a result? That we are rewarding both successful and failing companies? Though this may seem like an extreme inference, there are several people that are enraged by the bonuses AIG paid out – evident in the survey conducted by CBS.

In a related article written on March 18, 2009 (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/18/obama-criticizes-aig-bonuses-calls-for-greater-regulation/), President Barack Obama criticized AIG for giving out bonuses, calling it an “inappropriate use of taxpayer funds.” This validates my opinion and the opinion of the public that AIG should not have paid out bonuses and, rather, should have reinvested the money back into the company. After we “cleaned up A.I.G’s mess,” we now have to see them misuse the money that most Americans worked hard to get, but they lost from taxes. It is a true slap-in-the-face to the American public and Obama has every right to be upset because of it. Wouldn’t you be upset if the money that you worked hard to earn was handed to executives and employees of a bailed out company as bonuses - which are supposed to be used reward profits?

"It was like Special Olympics or something"

"It was like Special Olympics or something" said Barrack Obama on The Tonight Show, making a reference to his unimpressive bowling abilities.
_____________________________________________________________

President Obama created quite a stir with these words in his recent interview with Jay Leno. His remarks were called "offensive" and many were "disappointed" for his insensitivity. Some were "infuriated that an organization dedicated to empowering millions of people with developmental disabilities would be reduced to a late-night punch line." http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obama-special-olympics21-2009mar21,0,7433169.story

This conflict is nothing more than extension of the political correct (PC) movement that has swept the nation in the last decade. Often it is segues into a political debate, so I deemed it worthy of exploring further.

Of course, Obama went onto apologize. His flocks of supporters rushed to his aid and assured the disabled community that he did not mean what he said. This resurgence of PC caused a presidential faux-pas to become a presidential blunder. A minor point on the political legitimacy of my argument- PC is often associated with the left. When Obama made his comment, liberals felt conflicted and in turn rationalized his argument. See the optimistic ending of the LA Times (a rather liberal publication) if you don't believe me.

Now I'm not saying that it is fair to make assertions about groups of people...actually that is what I am saying. Low bowling scores and disability kind of hand-and-hand don't they?. Ultimately, we know that stereotypes hurt people, but we can't condemn our president for trying to be funny, even if it was candidly at the expense of others. PC has become so invasive that everything becomes a question of whether or not one's feelings will be hurt. I don't think "diversity was sacrificed" because Obama was tongue-and-cheek. Differences can be celebrated in society without making them a big deal. The attention that Obama's comment was given by the media made it a big deal. By focusing so much on the differences in the disabled communities, we are surmising that they are different from us, and in turn, should be treated differently. If you asked a disabled person if they would like to be treated differently, I can assure you there answer would be “no”. Enforcing PC to the point that it gets front page headlines undermines the very fabric of self-expression. I don't support a self-expression that is hateful, but if it involves mindless pokes and casual faux-pas, I can live with it. For those of you that see no difference between this and a black joke, I’m sorry for you. A president shouldn't be done up and shouldn't be the product of its constituents. I want Obama to be human.

Before you jump on me, carefully consider my argument and see where I inserted my own PC preambles. Kind of ironic, don’t you think?

Some Rich Districts Get Richer as Aid Is Rushed to Schools

Recently, under President Obama's administration's education stimulus package, money has been allocated and dispersed to school districts throughout the country. While there have been no direct complaints regarding the amount of money each district/state is getting, there have been some disparities regarding the allocations. For instance, many districts that do not need additional economic aid for their school systems are getting more money than those districts that desperately need the aid. Part of the reason for these disparities is in regards to the formulas used in order to distribute the stimulus money. As reported by The New York Times, the Democrats in Congress decided to use already devised formulas, instead of devising new formulas, for fear that negotiations would take too long and some school districts need the money immediately.

While it is important to give the school districts in need money immediately, so they can stave off budget cuts and avoid laying off teachers, the Obama administration should have made sure that the school districts with economic deficits got what they needed, while those who are economically well off did not get an excess of money. While this is an extremely difficult task and I am sure that the Obama administration did all that they can to make sure that the school districts were allocated a sufficient amount of money, many individuals believe that the school districts where they do not have any economic deficits and students are getting Apple laptops should not be getting a bigger chunk of money than those who actually need the money.

Growing up in a community where the school district was always experiencing economic deficits, it pains me to see that the districts that need the money are not getting enough, while those that are economically stable are getting more than their fair share. Congress should take the time and devise new formulas in order to help those districts that truly need the aid, no matter how long it may take. In addition, if some school districts do not need the money, then they should decline the aid, allowing the government to reallocate that money to school districts experiencing deficits. It is evident that the Obama administration is doing what it can in order to help the economy as a whole, including the school districts, but in some circumstances, they could spend more time in order to help those who truly need the aid.

Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/22/education/22schools.html?_r=1&hp

Maps of school districts and disparities in aid: http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2009/03/22/education/22schools_graphic.ready.html

Follow-up to Harder and Harder to enter US

Follow-up:

I found another interesing article on NYT about foreign workers statistics. Consider that immigrants have about the same perecnet of college degrees as do US born citizens (27 and 28%). Consider also that the median income of an immigrant from India, Australia, the Phillippines, and South Africa had a median income of $91,195, almost 100% more than the national (55,000). This shows that foreign-born US citizens are extremely valuable to the US economy, and we need to keep bringing smart, creative workers here.

This topic is taking the backburner becasue of the bad economy, and that is just not good. Bringing more intelligent people to this country will provide more consumer spending (especially on services), given that they come here with a job.

I was not argueing that these foreign workers would take the jobs of Americans. Consider that TI, Microsoft, Cisco, and other tech giants have R&D offices overseas. Why? Because there are smart people there. It only makes sense to want as many as possible of those smart people to some here.

Also, the article did not say that there was an immediate ban on foreign students, as Emily suggests. It just said that a visa is becoming harder and harder to get. Consider that a majority of the foreign students here are from Latin America, not India, China and Eastern Europe. Check out The World Is Flat by Thomas Friedman for more information if you still disagree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/us/21census.html

Speaking of a Bipartisan Effort (Followup)

Despite popular optimism and hip slogans one truth is becoming more apparent with every move the Obama Administration makes, Politics don't change. Behind the cool banter and the intelligent charisma of the new administration, the political wheels are spinning in the same way they always have. There is tyranny in the majority and the party in power has the luxury to ignore the political aspirations of the minority. This is not a debate about the virtue of the Democratic Party, This happened the last 8 years under Republican rule. I am simply pointing out that the dirty inner working of politics have not changed as promised.

While we are still in the first 100 days of the new Presidency, I will admit that they have had little time to focus on ideological goodness and proper politics. We are at a crossroads with our economy, with our foreign policy, and with our health care system. There are more important things to focus on that the nice way to affect change. People are suffering and the economy is failing, I would rather the new administration focus on that.

However, the first few weeks of the Obama administration has effectively contradicted the popular promise of clean politics and change in Washington that was so eloquently promised to us months ago. Change cannot be affected when it needs to be if everyone is to collectively bargain in order to reach a consensus. If more time is spent giving up ground to reach a feel good move to please all sides, then the move itself will be made too late.

The Administration has made massive changes already in its infancy and looks as if it will continue to do so. I just must point out that the manner in which it is doing so does not even pretend to be bipartisan in any way and is totally without any deviation from typical American political practice. The examples of this forceful political practice made infamous during the Bush administration's years range from Obama's stimulus package, to the Iraq timeline, to the stem cell reform.

This political tactic will not go quietly into the night and President Obama cannot affect the change that he wants while adhering to the practices that he promised during his campaign. Ideally everyone should get a fair shake when it comes to politics and all parties should seek some semblence of common ground. However, the President has discovered that when words fail and the real world impracticalilites of his banter become apparent, the change that he has promised, may not be all that possible to achieve.

Harder and Harder to Enter America

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/science/03visa.html?ref=education

America’s economy depends on the creative industries. Automobiles are failing. We have outsourced a large portion of our manufacturing. We just do not have the cheap labor that other nations have to succeed in a low skill industries. Nor should we want to regress. The creative jobs are those that are high in earnings. They support the enlarging service class and provide the cushiest jobs. Yet our nation seems to be impeding the development of these jobs by limiting the ability of foreign students to study in America.

While this may not seem important, consider that many foreign students are needed to “fill slots in graduate and postdoctoral science and engineering programs.” Students who come out of these programs are going to fill those jobs needed in Silicon Valley. They are the creative minds that fuel the technological revolution. We need to keep these people here because, as of now, America is where the most opportunity is. We have the ease of capital movement needed to finance these great ventures like Google.

What is more important, however, is that companies move to where the best workers are (according to The Rise of the Creative Class, by Richard Florida). If some intelligent students are discouraged by tough standards for visas, they may stay put. If that happens, coupled with the rise of internet and greater connectivity, the companies with those high paying jobs will relocate abroad. That, simply put, means more white collar jobs will be leaving the US. This is certainly undesirable, because foreigners have played such a huge role in American history. Einstein, Oppenheimer, Brin (Google founder), and Du Pont were all born in different countries and came to America, increasing our worldwide economic dominance.

What is also important is the need for national security. The nationalities that are having a hard time getting into the US are those from risky regions. These include the former Soviet Union and Middle East. The two are not mutually exclusive. US can have both if properly run. This means eliminating bureaucracy and increasing efficiency. How that can be done, we do not know. But it is certainly an issue that the US must face if maintaining economic dominance is a priority.

Behind the Open Door, an Exercise in Politics

The White House has always been a strong symbol for the country that is the United States of America, but what kind of significance does it hold for the American citizen? For the average American, the White House is where the President and his (or perhaps in the future, her) family lives, as well as the office and home of government operations, but that’s all. A connection between the White House and American citizen is lacking. During his time in office, however, President Barack Obama plans on changing the image of what the White House and the President represent for the American people.

With a concert performed by Stevie Wonder, and another performance by the band Earth, Wind, and Fire, the past six weeks at the White House sound like anything but ordinary. The livelier feel to the White House is not for the simple purpose of fun and games; President Obama, along with his wife Michelle, is being careful to craft an identity for his family that will both fit his political agenda and connect his family with the rest of America. Everyone knows the history that was made with the election of Obama as president, and the Obama family is working hard to represent the racial history, youth, and shift in leadership that came with the most recent election. The open-door policy is a great start for Obama. Throughout his campaign, Obama pushed for connectivity with the younger generation of this country. Now, in the White House, President Obama is not willing to take his foot off the pedal.

A figure like the White House or the President of the United States should play an important role in the everyday lives of the American people. However, in recent years, this has not been the case. People were not able to connect with George Bush or the government under his presidency, and many people found themselves not trusting the government or, even worse, not caring. President Obama understands the impact that the White House can have; there are no boundaries if used correctly. That is why he has invited everyone from mayors and governors, to sports celebrities and musical icons, to the president of the New Orleans Center for Creative Arts and a young 16 year old aspiring pianist with dreadlocks, to the White House. That is why Michelle Obama has put the residence staff on full display instead of hiding them in the back, invited culinary students to tour the White House kitchen and meet with the president, and asked Stephen Rochon, the first African-American to hold the position of Chief White House usher, to speak on Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The White House has a more “personable” feel to it now. Gone are the days of the White House being an off-limits, government-only political landmark. The Obamas are creating a new image for the White House and the position of President, which is extremely important in our society that, right now, is stressing both racial and generational changes. With these changes, Obama will be able to connect with the public on a completely other level than his predecessors did. The only problem is the worry that Obama could become more of a celebrity and less of a President in the eyes of the public. While a connection is nice, it would not be smart for Obama to exchange his title of “President Obama” for one of “Celebrity Obama.” He must be careful to keep this distinction intact.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/02/us/politics/02outreach.html

U.S. Is Said to Offer Another $30 Billion in Funds to A.I.G.

This article deals with the new decision by the federal government to provide AIG with an additional $30 billion, and this would be the fourth time that the United States has had to bail out AIG so that the giant company avoids bankruptcy. “The government already owns nearly 80 percent of the insurer’s holding company as a result of the earlier interventions, which included a $60 billion loan, a $40 billion purchase of preferred shares and $50 billion to soak up the company’s toxic assets.” In my opinion, the government owes a full explanation of where this money is going to the taxpayers that are paying for this. The number of money given to AIG has become too large, and complete and accurate information is owed to the people; in addition, a plan on the foreseeable payback (if there is one) should be given to the people, as well.
What first needs to be evaluated is what happened to the money that was allocated in the first place? AIG has received about $152.2 million previously from the government, and where has that gone? The taxpayers are beginning to question why AIG was bailed out in the first place, and why they should continue to pay for the “bailout” of an insurance giant that has failed to work the past three times.

The shareholders are virtually nonexistent – and the bailout plan is so open-ended. The government is essentially throwing their money into a black hole, where they continue to pour in capital, and nothing comes out the other end. Repair seems to be out of sight for AIG, and for the taxpayers, as well. In my opinion, they should have targeted where they money was going; AIG is a global insurance company, so, obviously, there are both bad and good assets within the company. If they could have found a way to contain the bad assets into a separate company, the government could have then, written that off. If they separated the good from the bad within the corporation, the government could have then directed the money into the sections that needed aid. This way of handling the losses could have eventually incentivized the public to buy shares, and maybe by this time, AIG would be on the road to recovery.

Sports vs. Education: Should College Coaches Reduce Their Own Salaries?

As the economy continues to head deep into a recession, most industries are hurting for business and losing potential job candidates because they can not afford to hire them. Sports is one of the few forms of entertainment which is not as affected as most other sectors of the economy, and people continue to pay money to see sports games while avoiding other superfluous entertainment options such going to the movies or eating out at a restaurant. As professional sports becomes almost too expensive for the average person to afford, the demand for college athletics has risen dramatically in the last decade, especially in the sports of men's basketball and football. The amount of money spent on these programs is tremendously large because of the amount of revenue they bring in and the publicity brought to the schools due to the success of their athletic programs. Now, some of these universities that lavishly spend on their athletic programs are private colleges and in no way affect the taxpayers of their respective states. According to Bob Hohler, "39 private institutions paid their men's basketball coach, football coach, or athletic director higher than any other employee," including such coveted positions as president or dean.
This appropriation of funds is easily justified for private colleges, but recently there has been controversy surrounding the high salaries for coaches at public universities, particularly Uconn men's basketball coach Jim Calhoun, who is Connecticut's highest paid state employee. At a recent post-game press conference, Calhoun was asked if he would give back a significant portion of his $1.6 million salary to help Connecticut with its financial woes during the recession. Calhoun vehemently denied the request and was thus subject to intense criticism from journalists. Although arguments can be made that Calhoun does not need the money(he makes significantly more than $1.6 million from endorsement deals) and that Connecticut could use the money on more important things, Calhoun needs to stand strong to keep his money for several reasons. First of all, the men's basketball program made $7.3 million in revenue last year, significantly higher than Calhoun's salary and definitely enough to keep him as their coach. Next, Calhoun's success as the men's basketball coach has improved the national reputation of the school and has increased the number of applications to the school, which has also raised the amount of money Uconn can spend on its students. Finally, if public universities decrease their coaches' salaries every time they are short on money, the best coaches will eventually transfer their allegiances to private universities who do not face criticism from taxpayers for giving out large contracts to coaches. Although taxpayers may complain now about paying a few extra dollars to finance their unioversity's sports teams instead of other government officials, the amount of revenue and publicity generated for the state more than make up for the large salaries commanded by the best coaches available.

http://www.boston.com/sports/colleges/articles/2009/02/23/private_schools_pay_up/?p1=Well_MostPop_Emailed7