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.

Obama to Iran: Wanna Hang?

When Lentulus was to be executed for attempting to overthrow the Roman Republic, Caesar debated Senators Cicero and Cato on the merits of capital punishment. During their Illinois Senate race, Stephen Douglas and an unknown Abraham Lincoln held seven debates on slavery and whether equal rights should be extended to the black populace. Moments of national urgency have routinely manifested moments of great debate, but no crisis could break October seventh's traditional recitation of talking points. Debates resolve problems in the status quo. Both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama managed to push their responses from unpredictable questions to cue card answers resolving nothing.  

          "Now, Senator Obama, without precondition, wants to sit down and negotiate with [Iran]—without preconditions. That's what he stated," commented Sen. McCain. Though primarily to portray Sen. Obama as soft on terror, Sen. McCains argument ultimately advocates force over talk.

          This argument has become indicative of both campaigns. Talking and not talking are mutually exclusive policies, but despite his obvious disagreement, Sen. Obama didn’t do anything. Tuesday's presidential debate was less a debate than a press conference—neither candidate resolving an issue, but instead using the time for publicity. 

When did speech become something to be afraid of? When did talk become a vice? When did real discussion become something to avoid? When did it become acceptable for Sen. Obama to tolerate Sen. McCain's unreason?

There are times when small threats achieve great things, but there are still others when they don't. These aren't military invitations, but opportunities. When Iran threatens Israel, Russia invades Georgia, we have the opportunity to say, "No, you can't do that."

Say that. Instead of telling people, who's right, who's wrong, make it obvious.
 
Say, "If you think not talking long enough will make people like you again, I've got news for you. It doesn't, and I know this because while we give them the silent treatment, Iran has built 4,000 nuclear centrifuges and my wife still wins our arguments. You can keep thinking that. That's fine, but remember, when the Soviets wanted to arm Cuba, it was talk that saved our lives."

          Day by day our economy sputters, starting only to stop again. Banks are closing. The middle class is disappearing. Inflation is rising. The dollar is falling.  We are hemorrhaging money and only given talking points as tourniquets. *O tempora. O mores.* Moments of national urgency merit moments of great debate and we've gotten neither greatness nor debate. We need resolution. If today we abide by cue cards in crisis, what will we be left with tomorrow but cue cards and crisis?

Healthcare Reform

Crisis has finally provoked government intervention into the financial industry. The phenomenon of crisis, like in the Great Depression, has traditionally been the rallying call for governmental social reform.

 

By raising profits for investors, free market healthcare routinely raises costs for already struggling families. Traditional methods of nationalizing health care like protests, letters, and bills, rely on the misguided assumption that government is concerned with other people who don't have golden toilets and flying cars. The current economic predicament illustrates that government attention is earned by crisis in the economic supports of the American structure. 

 

To accomplish their goals, health care advocates' methods must change. Rather than relying on reason and persuasion, they must create an unignorable crisis that rattles the foundations of society.  I recall films such as *28 Weeks Later* and *Night of the Living Dead,* in which a virus threatens to tear society limb from limb until the government intervenes.  Similar to these films, I propose a mass infection of the United States' citizenry, in order to nationalize the health care system.

 

The infection must be able to spread itself, thus a treatable quasi-zombie virus is ideal.  Initially, there would be a need to infect many people, but the virus would eventually become autonomous.

 

A mass infection would produce horrific images and an undeniable urgency to stop the epidemic. Images of people running through the street, brain lumps smattering their chins, gnawing on neighbors knuckles—pandemonium, whole subway cars leaking blood, and mountains of pustuous, fetid corpses cluttering up the streets.

 

The cure would be readily available at all hospitals, provided one can juke through the throngs of malodorous undead. Citizens would rush to their hospitals demanding the remedy. While still thoroughly brain damaged, the cured would no longer crave cranial lobes. They would then demand money for those services from insurance agencies. The volume of requests would force insurance barons to turn to their government for support whom would then buy them out.

 

I assure you that I have no ulterior motive but that of the common good. It is undeniable that nationalizing health care, unifying the country through crisis, rewarding the rich with our tax dollars for their inability to handle this catastrophe, and zombifying the general public,  is good for each and every one of us.

RNC Mixer

On September fourth the Log Cabin Republican political organization held a small gathering at the Four Points on West 25 Street to watch the finale of the Republican National Convention. The event also marked the LCR's endorsement of Senator McCain for President.

           The lights were dim and half the ceiling slanted into the floor, giving the whole place the feel of a chic shed. A large flat screen playing CNN’s coverage of the convention loomed as men in suits,

ties, and polo shirts exchanged pleasantries. Only in the Republican Party, even in a room of minorities, are white men still the majority

           The Log Cabin Republican organization started in the seventies as an enclave for gay and lesbian Republicans.  The name is an attempt to return to Republican roots, to President Lincoln, who had been born in a log cabin.  Despite many attempts by the party to suppress the gay community, the LCRs remain a vital component of the Republican base.

           “Each party has the same goal,” said David Verchere, software entrepreneur, “we just have different ways of getting there. That’s the wonderful tension to achieve the American project.” Mr. Verchere, a long time LCR, cites his conservative fiscal policies and inefficient government bureaucracies as determinants for his party affiliation. “Republicans believe that government isn’t best. We believe that people shouldn’t turn to government to solve our problems. We should turn to each other.”

           The LCR website describes their mission as, “derive[ed] from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.” It goes on to explain, “On the most important issue that LGBT Americans faced in the last decade—the federal marriage amendment—Sen. John McCain stood with us. Now we stand with him.”

     Having fervently endorsed then Gov. Bush in 2000 the LCR hope to continue on the road to equal treatment by endorsing yet another champion of gay rights who opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, civil unions, gay adoption, and refers to gays in the military as an “intolerable risk.”

     Mr. Verchere stood, smiled, and walked into a cluster of black suits. The only two women sat under the television, hunched, privately conferring. Lincoln’s Party milled on amidst an air of odd contradiction. Someone commented, “I thought this was an open bar,” to which a man in a shimmering blue tie and buzz cut replied, “We’re Republicans. We pay our own way.”