Advice for the Defeated

As a Democrat, I am well acquainted with the profound emptiness that loss brings. Political impotence is never a comfortable state to endure, so I have taken a moment to compile some advice to help guide you through that expanse of doubt before you. 

While it might seem sensible to change nothing and continue on the same course, it is not. Apparently, when “the people” request “change,” they mean it. With dullard Gore almost winning in 2000, it seemed only logical to later nominate duller Kerry. Ah, but no. You might find that Joe the Advisor (fmr. Plumber) and your pleisticine tax-cut-based economic growth model that failed over the past eight years will fail now, too. 

It also seems equally logical to imitate the victors, but strangely enough, “change” isn’t skin deep. Owing to their propensity to investigate rationale, the public discovers and is thusly infuriated by political figures who do not “walk the walk” but simply “talk the talk.” On such occasion, you will note that “change” is more than mere breasts or melanin. This is an understandable mistake and realizing it is a key step toward betterment. 

While many of you flaccidly trawl the halls of government, others have found yourselves of the more unemployed persuasion. It is certainly regrettable that you have no job and that none are available now because of you, but you should resist the temptation to view this predicament as negative. Joblessness provides the opportunity to pursue passions which have been heretofore unexplored. Mr. Stevens, you may, while imprisoned, finally get a chance to experience the virtues of Mohammed. Mr. Coleman, you may again grow out your "freak flag", slap on some Jefferson Airplane, and (allegedly) smoke some purple. But, if like Mr. Cheney, retirement doesn't suit you, I have an aunt who runs an employment agency down in Houston who can set you up with a temp position. Holly (that's my aunt) has found that former legislators are well equipped for hours of filing. 

You needn't worry forever. You will have your day again. After all, we're democrats. We're bound to fail again some time. It's kind of what we excel at. Until then, remember: you fucked it all up, and we beat you. 

Show Me the Money: the Success of the New School Occupation

For 13 hours, from 11 a.m. until midnight, I reported from within The New School occupation and outside until its conclusion in the early hours of the morning. In retrospect, many have deemed the December occupation of 65 Fifth Avenue a failure. But the problem with the critics’ arguments is that they are using the wrong criteria to evaluate the protest. 

If one judges the protest on whether or not President Bob Kerrey and Executive Vice President Jim Murtha were ousted, then sure, it was a failure since they are still here. If, however, one judges it on whether or not the financial behavior of The New School has been reformed then the occupation is only successful.

The media coverage has misled many to believe that the full fury of the protests was directed at President Kerrey. In a December 18 article titled “Protest at the New School Seeks Kerrey’s Ouster” the New York Times reported that the occupation was “to protest the leadership of the institution’s embattled president, Bob Kerrey.” In another City Room blog post, the Times’ Colin Moyniham and Trymaine Lee share a harrowing account of the protesters chasing President Kerrey down Fifth Avenue. While true to a certain extent, the *Times* only tells part of the story and leads readers to the conclusion that the protesters only wanted to oust the top administrators. Yes, protesters did object to President Kerrey’s leadership and yes, they did chase him (much to the embarrassment of many others in The New School community) but when the negotiations began, the protesters barely pushed for the resignation of President Kerrey and Murtha.

As the protesters formulated the final list of demands to the administration, many regarded the resignations as “best case scenario,” but probably impossible. The resignations were kept on the list largely for symbolic reasons in order to demonstrate that they still disagreed with the management policies of the administration. 

Many of the same actors who participated in the occupation were also a part of the demonstration on December 10, protesting the Board of Trustees' lack of investment transparency. The goals there (despite what the Times reports) were the resignation of Robert Millard, Treasurer of The New School Board of Trustees, and the establishment of a socially responsible investment committee—goals more consistent with the results of the occupation than the demands at the outset.

While the occupiers did disagree with the policies of President Kerrey, he was not their primary target. The consistency between the first protest and the conclusion of the second demonstrates that the efforts of the protesters were actually directed toward creating accountability for New School financing. With that criteria the protest is a success (despite how embarrassing it became) and has created a space for students in the administration of their university. Whether or not the occupation could have been even more effective, whether it was right, justified, or even worth our time in the first place, are different debates entirely, but do deserve to be discussed at length. 

Intifada? I'm Into Peace!

Rushing down Market Street toward the bay, two cars honked, brandishing Palestinian flags out their windows. A persistent *wump* of helicopters fell down from the San Francisco sky. As protesters gathered around the Israeli consulate, one could hear what would become the first of many anti-Israel demonstrations. They touted signs like “Jews are terroist” [sic] and “Gaza 2008 = Warsaw 1938,” and it was clear what a cavalcade of idiocy this conflict had already become. Each party perpetuates the behavior of their enemy that they originally sought to stop, thereby re-entrenching everyone in a cycle of violence.

On June 27 2008, Hamas and Israel mutually agreed to a six-month ceasefire. 11 Hamas militants died when Israel destroyed smuggling tunnels from Gaza prompting Hamas to launch rockets into Israel on November 3rd. While Hamas argued the killings violated the agreement, Israel maintained the deaths were accidental collateral damage from a non-combat operation. The fragile agreement still stood, but on December 19, Hamas ended the ceasefire and started firing more rockets into Israel. On the 27th, Israel began airstrikes on Gaza. By the 29th, San Francisco erupted in a flurry of kaffiyehs, Palestinian flags, and shouting. In early January, Joe the Plumber began his journalism career, reporting from Sderot. On January 18, a new ceasefire was agreed upon and by the 21st, Israel withdrew all ground forces from Gaza. 

Israel’s use of excessive force has undercut continued efforts to establish lasting peace and ultimately provokes Hamas to act in such a way that prompts further Israeli force. The horrible effects of Israeli military force are innumerable. They have ghettoized Palestinians, destroyed schools, hospitals, killed children, all of which reverse progress towards lasting peace. It’s conditions like these that lead people to elect radical governments like Hamas. Israel can’t hope to solve anything when they help create the situation in which young Palestinians grow up wanting to be militants rather than doctors.

Many argue that Israel’s goal is not peace, but rather the eradication of Hamas. Hamas, a militant Islamic institution and an ever-present thorn in Israel’s side, has given their neighbors reason to want to wipe them out. But the manner by which the Israeli government is going about doing this further radicalizes Palestinians and leaves a vacuum for yet another Hamas to spring up in its place.

The problem with only blaming Israel is that one ignores the role Hamas plays in the subjugation of Palestinians. The idiocy of Hamas is that they either didn’t anticipate the retaliation by Israel or did and actively provoked them. One would expect a government to attempt to achieve peace and prosperity for its people, but Hamas has routinely pursued a policy of militancy at the expense of both peace and prosperity. When the ceasefire ended, they didn’t need to start shooting, but they did. What did they expect to happen? Hamas’ use of force undercuts continued efforts to establish a lasting peace and ultimately provokes Israel to act in such a way that prompts further Hamas force. 

       Insistence on blaming one party over the other perpetuates a cycle of violence that everyone hopes to end. Both are right, and both are guilty. Allowing one to bear blame allows the other to bear arms and only upon the recognition of mutual fault can all truly share the common purpose of peace. This is not to say that when confronted by force, Israel or Hamas should respond with nothing. This is to say, rather than being idiots, they should respond with intelligence. 

   In her testimony to the United States' Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Hillary Clinton said, "We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or tools, for each situation." Mrs. Clinton referred specifically to the United States, but I believe that Israel and Hamas should utilize this same style of foreign policy. If the only response to problems is to brandish arms and hurt people, those problems will never be solved. Israel needs to start rebuilding Palestinian infrastructure. Hamas needs to realize its radical tendencies undercut ultimate goals. And both need to just stop shooting each other. 

 

Fighting For New York's Future

Judith Perez has a round face, a skinny smile, and black hair that falls just above her eyes. A Mexican immigrant, she now works the 7 a.m. shift as a waitress at the New York Luncheonette on East 50th Street. The morning of November 7, 2007 gave her an empty restaurant, except for two men sitting by the window. She slid them eggs over easy. The gaunt black man rested his head on his chin pressing his finger to his temple and listening to the man across him speak over the clap of shutters outside the window. Aides would later say the two men discussed the economy, education, and national security and while then this seemed like a VP offer, this meeting between then-Senator Barack Obama and Mayor Michael Bloomberg demonstrates a relationship. With the election of Barack Obama and the potential third term for Mayor Michael Bloomberg, it is likely that these two men will shape the future of New York City. At this point, it is uncertain what that will look like since the two have such differing approaches to urban policy.

A long-time haven for auto-repair shops, Willets Point has recently been approved for a massive redevelopment project by the New York City Council. Referring to Willets Points' wide potholes and collage of discarded car parts smattering the streets, Mayor Bloomberg called it "a euphemism for urban blight." In 2007, he and his administration announced a plan which would include "exciting new retail and entertainment amenities...a new, high-quality hotel...[and] New York City’s first non-Manhattan convention center," among other upscale facilities. The controversy, however, arises from the intended use of eminent domain which would evict businesses from their property and replace it with facilities which have no immediate relevance to their lives. Some have agreed to sell their land to the city while others resist. Either way, the city's plan gives them only the daunting prospect of restarting businesses in this turbulent economic environment.

Mayor Bloomberg approaches urban problems from the free market perspective. Since the 1970s, federal involvement at the municipal level has gradually decreased. Funding and programs that once aided cities during the New Deal and the Great Society have slowly diminished, forcing cities to come up with creative ways to stay viable. Governmental aid in municipal budgets fell from 26 percent to roughly seven percent. Cities developed a free market approach that teamed public capital with private investment, meaning private enterprise would attract business to feed revenue back into the city. Both Mayor Bloomberg's Willets Point project and previous Columbia University expansion in Harlem transfer land from urban poor to wealthier private investors for redevelopment. Although such projects often claim to benefit everyone, they end up displacing poorer populations with wealthier groups, thereby benefiting the latter at the expense of the former. Willets Point's new retail amenities will serve those corporate employees visiting for an expo at the convention center, leaving the roughly 1,700 people who once depended on the land to find a new locale. 

While Mayor Bloomberg's approach attempts to cover up the problem, President-Elect Obama plans to renew the federal government's commitment to cities, a move which could make free market approaches irrelevant in the coming decade. On the official transition period website, change.gov, Obama outlines a comprehensive urban policy that uses federal power to provide a leg up to cities and their residents. The first and second points on the list are, "Create a White House Office on Urban Policy" and "Fully Fund the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)." Previous administrations tried to aid cities and non-cities using the same policies, but it has become painfully obvious that solutions for suburbs aren't necessarily solutions for cities. President Obama will be able to help cities and non-cities with policies tailored to their specific needs. The CDBG, as the website points out, "is an important program that provides housing and creates jobs primarily for low- and moderate-income people and places." 

The meeting on November 7 between Mayor Bloomberg and Sen. Obama indicates no alliance. There will be, however,  a new commitment from the Obama administration to American cities. His policies differ from Mayor Bloomberg's, offering government assistance rather than relying solely on private enterprise. Since Pres. Obama will give money and Mayor Bloomberg is willing to take it, it is far more likely that the former's urban agenda will prevail, ushering an era of federal commitment to the welfare of New York City.

The Election's Over! What Now?

Max Quinn & Aidan Gardiner

Americans erupted onto the streets to celebrate the victory of President-elect Barack Obama. For many, the President-elect embodies the realization of Hope, which has suffered under President Bush's administration. The economy has realigned itself to exploit the discontentment we all felt for the past eight years. We could buy a witty t-shirt, watch The Daily Show, and feel that if not Congress, at least someone was opposing the president. Although multi-faceted, the Obama campaign was in large part supported by this same sentiment. Both Bush discontentment and Obamarama grew to the point where the economy couldn't ignore them and even our personal lives couldn't help but center around them. The conclusion of the President's improprieties and of the 2008 campaign has left millions to ask, "What now?" Did we stop to consider the repercussions of voting for change? Of electing a half-decent president? There comes a new dawn to America, but what does that dawn look like?

Under President Bush, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, AIG, Lehman Brothers, and other financial giants fell due to poor management and a lack of governmental regulation. Contrary to popular expectations, however, the era of President Obama will undoubtedly damage a number of other industries essential to our economy.

With the fulfillment of Obamarama, Union Square's vastly profitable prObama T-shirt Industrial Complex will endure heavy losses in the weeks and months to come. Now that Obama has been elected, the activist punch of "Yes, We Can" t-shirts has since diminished. It is unlikely that even the slightly modified “Yes We Did” t-shirts can fill the gap. Continuing to wear these is the kind of faux-pas equivalent to wearing pro-suffrage or "Repeal the 18th Amendment" shirts. Wearing a prObama t-shirt is like wearing your complete Megadeth wardrobe to every stop on the Megadeth Gigantour '93. Don't be that guy.

Pins, posters, beach towels, and countless other novelty apparel slandering President Bush will lose its relevance. By January 20, the popular "Not My President" t-shirts bearing President Bush's image will no longer be an indication of resistance, but merely a statement of fact. Across the nation, hippies and limousine liberals alike will mournfully peel "Bush's Last Day In Office" bumper stickers off their Priuses, overflowing our landfills to the point of ecological catastrophe. The departure of President Bush and the subsequent President Obama jubilee will sink profits for anti-depressants, anti-anxiety medications, and other de-stressing commodities like yoga and Whole Foods.

Despite the precarious position in which this post-election market puts us, there are options for President Obama. It's unlikely Congress would be willing to organize a bailout plan for Union Square's political paraphernalia vendors. One potential course of action, however, would be to require the purchase of these items regardless of their lack of temporal relevance. President Obama can mandate every citizen to annually purchase at least one item featuring his shimmering image, until Union Square vendors recover by selling substitute goods like Che Guevara and "Homeland Security" Indian shirts.

While the economy was a central issue during the campaign, many Americans feel that more personal aspects of life are now being threatened as well. The eight years of the Bush Presidency and the two of the Obama campaign have been the glue of many relationships throughout the country. Each respectively brought people together by their mutual resistance of one man and/or hope for the other. While once being able to rely on the conflicts of the world, now couples and friends will be left to discuss their mutual contentment. For the first time since its construction, Lang revolutionaries will sit around the courtyard agreeing with each other. "Remember that time we got what we wanted?"

Having found that most of the nation is in fact on their side, the rebellious image of countless students is crippled. Popular cynic blogger, Blognigger recognized his own obsolescence declaring, "Obama victory renders hipster 'movement' obsolete." Contrarians are left with nothing else but to approve of the status-quo, stripping them of their ever-so-hip-dissidence. That guy who would always whip out the Bush witticisms will be left humorless. While during the election, he could at least rely on Palin quips and Clinton barbs, the token "political joke guy" will have little option else mock his idol or "shut the fuck up."

Professionals in the media too will face a major personal conflict. Whereas before, progressive political pundits such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher could rely on the absurdities of the Bush agenda to make a profit, they will now be forced to choose between "making bank" by betraying their beloved President, or supporting the status-quo with decidedly less funny jokes. Perhaps the esteemed Dennis Miller will re-emerge as the king of political comedy.

Even more legitimate news sources will experience a vacuum of reportable news. Without Bush's presidential ineptitude, media outlets will have to dig to unexplored depths in search of fresh dirt. Once Obama succeeds in fixing everything (poverty, healthcare, international relations, global warming, etc.), what will remain? Even we at the New School Free Press are beginning to experience a drought of article ideas. The end of all conflicts will inevitably lead to the end of history itself.

In order to revive the already struggling news industry, President Obama will have to act radically. Iran, North Korea, and Russia will become new frontiers of United States police actions that will once again give Americans something about which to constantly bitch. Perhaps it's time to relieve Canada of its vastly profitable oil fields with a mild military occupation. Such a war would re-employ soldiers who'd been out of a job in peace time, re-employ Union Square vendors by allowing them to sell protest shirts again, and give news media something to follow.

What now? America is fueled by discontentment. The possibility of a relatively stable America may in fact be detrimental to our way of life in ways we never could have fathomed. The fabric of both our t-shirts and our society will be torn asunder by the catastrophic hope and joy that we are about to endure. The capacity of this man we have elected to solve our problems is small. The disaster of an Obama presidency will be caused by those who maintain wearing a t-shirt is the same as doing something. What now? Now, we work.

My NS Free Press Illustration for a Che OpEd

Differing Education Policies Between Senators McCain and Obama

Each candidate is quick to remind us that education is key to our future prosperity, but they offer differing fundamental ideologies on the issue. Senator McCain's education plan incorporates free market principals to foster competition between schools, to reward the best and eliminate the worst. Senator Obama's plan would use the federal government to expand educational opportunities and raise every school to a higher standard. Where Senator McCain brings choice, Senator Obama brings right.

"School choice stimulates improvement and creates expanded opportunities for our children to get a quality education," said Senator McCain at the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Later, defending vouchers, he argued, "Exciting things are happening in Milwaukee and Cleveland, where school voucher programs have been put in place. There, minority schoolchildren are being given a chance to succeed. The early signs are good: test scores and performance are up." Senator McCain supports the voucher program because it lets parents determine their child's education rather than relying on public schools. Vouchers are given out by school districts to allow families the option to spend their tax money that would've been spent on public school to pay for private school tuition instead. This would create a competitive environment between schools, giving each the incentive to be the best.

From the public education's perspective, Senator McCain's support of NCLB, Centers for Excellence, and vouchers would create "sink or swim" education. This ideology, however great for business, is disastrous for schools. Good schools will prosper and attract students, poorer schools won't turn students away. Because of employment opportunities, many low income families have limited mobility. The students who will be left are those who have nowhere else to go, stuck to flounder in terrible schools. These children's families can't move to other school districts, even if their local school is incompetent. If they did get a voucher, there would be nowhere to redeem it. Senator McCain would force families to choose between their child's education and putting bread on the table—no family should have to make that choice. Every school needs to swim because those that sink won't just sink into obscurity, but will perpetuate bad education. Public schools were originally intended to create informed citizens of the republic, which is essential to democracy. The voucher system and increased competition that Senator McCain proposes would leave many students behind and create an even more uninformed public.

Senator McCain's program proposals for compulsory education are sparse, but his plans for higher education are nearly non-existent. For the most part, higher education in the United States is a private endeavor. Senator McCain's earlier education proposals limit government involvement to promote business. In the same vein, he proposes to simplify tax benefits, simplify federal financial aid, make more information available, fix student lending programs, and of course, cut earmarks. Each of these proposals may streamline the process, but in reality, they do little to help struggling families send their children to college.

In stark contrast, Senator Obama wants an overall increase in federal involvement. "No Child Left Behind left the money behind!" has become a slogan on the campaign trail. While Senator McCain would create one Early Head Start Center for Excellence per state, Senator Obama would quadruple the budget for the program across the board. His massive increases in funding and the creation of many programs demonstrates his belief that education is a right and no one should be deprived of it. His website reads, "Quality public education is the heart of the American promise."

The arguments against Senator Obama's plan fall into three main categories, but can be easily summed up in one conservative slogan, "Big Government Bad." Opponents often argue that first, bureaucracy is ineffective. Second, government doesn't work. And third, free market is better.

Senator Obama plans to create at least six new programs, not to mention expanding some that already exist. This would establish an even more massive bureaucracy than exists today. Bureaucracies are slow, ineffective, and waste taxpayers' money. In a time when our economy is so damaged, we can't afford more wanton spending.

Even if the bureaucracy succeeded, it would still be centered at the federal level and completely detached from the realities on the ground. Education is a highly localized practice because the knowledge students garner needs to reflect the values, needs, and practices of their locality. You don't need to learn Eskimo poetry in Flint, Michigan. You need trades.

Any resolution of these problems would be temporary. Big government is slow to react to sudden needs. Free market is better equipped to regulate education. It can penalize poorly performing schools and teachers, and reward high performance. In a "sink or swim" system, there is more incentive than exists in a welfare state.

Countering Senator McCain's higher education plan, Senator Obama would offer a $4,000 dollar tax credit, a welcome relief for struggling families, but possibly ineffective in the long term. Given the state of the economy, universities are cutting costs and relying more on revenue from tuition. It's not a stretch to imagine tuition rising to a cost that dwarfs the small $4,000 aid.

At times, this election has seemed like a contest of impacts—what will lead us to our ruin first—without any resolution. Education, as any other issue, has a profound effect on the future of our society. Both candidates present their beliefs on how best to solve the problem, but each plan, depending on how you argue, has flaws. It's entirely possible that they're both right, and November 4 will usher in a new dawn of humanity. But it's equally possible that neither can wholly fix our education system, regardless of who wins.