Read more...
For Exonians to post their ideas on politics, current events, international relations, the arts, etc.
Sunday, April 3, 2011
The Conversation: Ignorant Americans, Education Reform, and Budget Changes
Read more...
The Conversation: Libya
Harry: After we remove Gaddafi, we will be able to scale down our military involvement in the situation. After Gaddafi, help must be provided to the Libyans to properly rebuild their nation. But, that will take less money. At that stage, the only military forces there would be involved in reconstruction and aid operations.
Kevin: Less money? Really? Each troop currently deployed in Afghanistan costs $1 million per year. Isn't nation-building usually the most expensive part about this? I thought it took more money and more time.
Read more...
Islam is Peaceful; Man is Violent
Read more...
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Nuclear Boy
Read more...
Friday, March 18, 2011
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
The Next Three Days: The End of the Libyan Rebellion
Read more...
Saturday, March 12, 2011
Tsunami in Japan
Over the next four years in California, there is a 94 percent chance that an earthquake magnitude 7 or higher will strike in the next thirty years. We know it's coming. The problem is can we do anything about it? There are massive earthquake drills in California that occur once an year. Only one in five Californians takes part in them. One appropriate course of action might be to engage in infrastructure projects to improve the stability of buildings.
How about putting more money in research and development for earthquake prediction? There would be countless lives saved if we somehow figure out when the next quake would hit. Thoughts?
Read more...
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
The Teetering Revolutions
The last few months have marked a change in the Arab world, as uprisings against oppressive dictatorships have spread across the land like wildfire. The one currently making the most headlines is the Libyan uprising. But how long will armed resistance continue without outside military support? President Obama and his staff have put out various statements which all follow the path of 'military intervention.' Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said, "Nothing is off the table so long as the Libyan Government continues to threaten and kill Libyans." But how long can these revolts survive without serious intervention? Sadly, not that long.
The Libyan military has been cut down greatly due to the recent uprising, but is still a formidable force for the rebels to take on. The main danger is the 32nd Brigade, and is well armed and trained by western military forces. They have various Soviet T-model tanks, ranging from the T-54 model to the T-72 model. They have various artillery pieces, and a wide range of Surface to Air Missiles. They have AK-47 variants, as well as medium and heavy machine guns. The Libyan Air force has, possibly, MiG-25 fighters and Tu-22 bombers. The Rebel forces, on the other hand, have whatever weapons could be obtained, which are at best AK variants and Heavy Machine Guns mounted on trucks, and at worst rocks and slingshots. The rebel forces are not unified completely. As the Libyan Governmental forces continue to go head to head with rebels, the Governmental forces WILL COME OUT ON TOP. The revolution will die, and Col. Gaddafi will remain in power. But what can be done? Intervention is the answer. And the United States is one of the only countries that can provide this intervention.
As of now, one of the ideas being debated is to establish a no-fly zone over Libya to prevent further civilian deaths at the hands of Gaddafi's soldiers. In a recent New York Times article by John Broder, a senior administration official has been quoted as saying “There hasn’t been discussion that I’m aware of related to military intervention beyond that, and a discussion of that nature would have to begin at the U.N.” But this will never be carried out. The Russian Federation and the PRC will not allow an effective policy to work.
Currently, there are several warships from various nations in the area around Libya for refugee rescue purposes. From the United States, the USS Kearsarge, a Wasp-Class amphibious assault ship which has various support helicopters, Harrier Jump-jets, and 1,893 marines, the USS Ponce, an Austin-Class amphibious transport dock carrying various amphibious vehicles, and the USS Barry, a missile destroyer have been sent to deal with the situation. Various other ships from different nations are approaching the area as well. But, the rebels will not be able to sustain their current efforts, for reasons already stated. So, what shall be done?
One option that has been gaining attention is the establishment of a No-Fly Zone over the area. This would be a step in the right direction, but it is truly not enough. The best move the United States can make, without actual military force, is supplying the rebels with weaponry. This will level the playing field for the Rebels, and maybe even give them an edge in this battle.
The Obama Administration has displayed the idea that this revolution be "organic." That foreign intervention will label the United States as Imperialist. But what if "organic" power is not enough? What kind of message will Gaddafi coming out on top send to all of the other Arab countries that are clamoring for democracy? What will the repercussions be? The risks of the defeat of the rebellion are too great to be passed over. These moments will decide if the Middle East will be free of dictatorship and democratic, or if various Dictators shall remain in power. Hopefully, the world will make the right decisions to make sure that the former occurs, not the latter.
Read more...
Monday, January 31, 2011
Oil for Food
Read more...
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Exonians React to the State of the Union (Courtesy of The Exonian)
Our Sputnik Moment
As Obama affirmed yesterday, "We do big things." Yes, indeed – we do big things. This country was the first nation to be founded on the idea of liberty, a republic that saved others from tyranny — and forty-one years after we won the Space Race, the President on Tuesday called on all of us to compete for the future of the 21st century together.
In Obama, Republicans See One of Their Own
Innovation can and will produce new jobs and industries both in America and overseas, making Obama’s attachment to exports disturbing. Are we somehow better off if the goods we produce and sell get shipped overseas, where they cannot be used by Americans? Or is it just because that the export industry is made up of large corporations with deeply-entrenched political influence? Does he intend to favor these companies—such as General Electric and JPMorgan, from which he’s recruited top advisers—at the expense of the domestic service industry, which is less politically organized?
While the President’s new stance represented some progress on our gaping fiscal deficit, his comments were hardly impressive in this regard. He did manage to throw cold water on those who had hoped the issue might disappear, saying that "we have to stop pretending." He said it was time to "confront the fact that our government spends more than it takes in. That is not sustainable." Yet when it came to the moment where he might propose the deep, painful cuts to entitlements needed to even out revenues and spending, this gravity vanished. He spoke vaguely about "reducing health care costs" for Medicare and Medicaid and a "bipartisan solution to strengthen Social Security," and there was a reason for this ambiguity. There is no such thing as a government policy that could provide us with health care that’s cheaper, better, and more accessible all at the same time. There are trade-offs, Mr. President, which you have failed to acknowledge.
But despite these objections, the President has swung with "the pendulum of public opinion, at least on economic issues," as Joss van Seventer ’10 predicted in The Exonian last year. Obama has accepted that "the world has changed" and that his capacity to change it is significantly limited. Like all those he follows, the presidency has humbled him. He’s relegated himself to the only power a president can honestly claim to have—the nation’s tone-setter, its cheerleader, its public face. He may "spur on" progress, but—as he put it himself—it’s the "free enterprise system [that] drives innovation."
Read more...
Monday, January 24, 2011
A Response to Health Care Post
I feel that it is necessary to begin with the title of this piece itself. Republicans, of course, are not proposing to repeal healthcare--that statement is inane--they are intent on repealing the regulatory legislation on health insurance and passed by the past Congress and signed by President Obama. This is a deliberate confusion that liberals make to refute libertarian ideas, one which dates back 150 years to the famous French economist Frederic Bastiat. Bastiat writes:
"Socialism, like the old policy from which it emanates, confounds Government and society. And so, every time we object to a thing being done by Government, it concludes that we object to its being done at all...They might as well accuse us of wishing men not to eat, because we object to the cultivation of corn by the State."
This is an important point in that your argument is built upon the notion that undoing health reforms would be tantamount to eliminating healthcare. It would not be so.
Second, you charge that the January 19 vote to repeal the legislation was "partisanship at its finest." The vote to repeal the legislation passed with a far larger majority (245 votes) than did the original bill (218), so would it not be fair to describe the legislation as "partisanship at its finest"? Additionally, 3 Democrats voted against their party in favor of repeal, whereas no Republicans voted against their party in its favor at the time it was originally passed. 38 Democrats even voted against the bill. Your charge of high partisanship is eminently a double standard.
When you venture in to deficit analysis, your reasoning is terribly misleading. First, you fail to note that the legislation has been gamed to produce a favorable outcome for Democrats at the Congressional Budget Office. For example, the bill pays for 6 years of subsidies with 10 years of taxes by delaying the start of subsidies by four years. Naturally, this budget trick will become obvious in a decade when it is discovered to be insolvent. The idea of any budgetary savings from this legislation is a statistical artifact and a convenient political myth for Democrats. Second, "fiscally responsible" is not increasing taxes more sharply than you increase spending -- the nature of the President's health policy -- it is reducing the size and scope of government through cuts to both spending and taxation.
While the definition of a right is a topic outside the scope of this reply, suffice it to say that the idea of healthcare as a right is utterly inconsistent with the rights of Americans at the federal level. Observe, for example, that the Bill of Rights as framed by our Founders safeguard negative liberty, as opposed to the notion of "positive liberty" espoused by those hungry for centralized authority. Rights "to" something, such as healthcare, are positive; rights "from" something, such as tyranny, are negative. Consider, additionally, the implications of your immediate moral assumption that "health care is a right for all human beings." If A is considered a universal right, than why not B, C, D, and so forth?
Your third assertion is that "there [sic] lack of choice has not lead [sic] them to miss out on anything." This is plainly untrue. The world operates on the idea of scarce resources -- this should be familiar to the reader -- and the efficiency of their allocation is the operative answer to whether the world is prosperous or poor. Fundamentally, there is an enormous opportunity cost to mandating that the government provide healthcare. The required levels of taxation alone are enough to crush an economy -- consider the slew of debt crises across Europe -- and the government is forcing a decision upon its constituents. They must trade the set of all possible outcomes (using that money to attend college, open a business, buy equipment, etc.) for a suboptimal one that operates in a zero-sum, not mutual-gain, economic paradigm.
As to your final point, I would remind you of the Democratic heroes who strove to achieve a goal that many naysayers deemed to be unattainable. Your dismissal of our own goals is unwarranted.
I write this in good faith that I have clarified the issues at stake for you and whoever else may happen to read this response.
Best,
Evan Soltas
Read more...
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Republicans attempt to Repeal Health Care
In a report, the Congressional Budget Office said that repealing the 2010 Health Care law would increase the federal budget deficit by a total of $145 billion from 2012 to 2019, and by $230 billion from 2012 to 2021. Republicans usually stand on the platform that laws and policies should be fiscally responsible. From these numbers, it seems that repealing health care would be quite the opposite.
Also, as I'm sure you all know, we have about 30 million uninsured people in the U.S. (I know not all of them want to be insured, but I think it's safe to say that a majority of them do). Repealing health care would keep these people from getting coverage.
Some Republicans argue that it is not the U.S.'s duty to pay for other people's health care, similar to the fact that the U.S. does not pay for housing or cars. I argue that health care is a basic right for all human beings, and therefore the U.S. government should pay for it. (Elective surgeries are a completely different topic.)
Republicans are also trying to repeal this bill because they believe that it is unconstitutional to require people to buy Health Care. The Supreme Court is bound to agree with them later this year. In countries throughout the European Union, people are required to buy health care. Obviously, their lack of choice has not lead them to miss out on anything.
It also does not make any sense to me as to why Republicans would repeal this bill when it is not going to pass through the Senate and would definitely be vetoed by the President. The more viable and less partisan course of action would be instead to pass amendments to the bill. The symbolic action that House Republicans have taken part in is completely unnecessary.
-Rohan
Read more...
Thursday, January 20, 2011
Blogroll
http://phillipsexeterrepublicanclub.blogspot.com/
(Link to EPU is below archive list)
Read more...
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Obama's Tuscon Speech
This speech was great because it really touched on the topic of strong rhetoric between both Democrats and Republicans. The question now is whether Republicans and Democrats will actually change their behavior. On "Meet the Press", Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said that he would sit alongside his Republican counter parts during this Wednesday's State of the Union Address. The State of the Union Address is one of the events where party politics is usually most decisive; the members of one party are often found giving a standing ovation, while the members of the other party stay seated and nod their heads in disapproval. The act of sitting together will be more symbolic than anything else. The real question is if Republicans will still try to completely repeal something like the recent Health Care Reform, when they know that any new Health Care bill in the house will not pass through the Senate and will be vetoed by the President. Thoughts?
Read more...
Exeter Political Union Blog
This blog is a means of communication for anybody who wants to post about a specific topic. Democrats, Socialists, Republicans, and Anarchists are all welcome. No matter your political leaning, feel free to contribute. Also, if you are part of a specific club that supports a certain cause, such as GSA, JHR, Amnesty International, INK, ESSO, EAC, Economics Club, Model U.N. etc, feel free to write about any relevant topic.
Regards,
Rohan, Stephen, and Dake
Read more...