CubPub - get your fill

San Francisco Gay Pride Parade-- June 28, 2009

kahlua on the rocks — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:08:49 +0000

Yesterday morning, a friend and I made our long drive up US 101 to San Francisco to see the 2009 SF Pride Parade as part of my birthday celebration plans. We only stayed for two hours and to my great disappointment, I didn't get a chance to stay long enough to hear Lt. Dan Choi speak. But for two hours that we were there, the sidewalks were packed and no counter-protesters were in sight. GLBT supporters cheered for not just the floats but also the police officers escorting the floats. Many different GLBT interest and rights as well as healthcare organizations set up booths nearby the parade route on Market Street. We signed petitions supporting same-sex marriage, got a number of stickers showing our support for GLBT rights, got matching rainbow colored pukka shell necklaces and of course, cheered on the floats that showed strong disapproval of Prop 8.

CU's Free Speech Policies Under Fire

Magic Hat No. 9 — Mon, 11 May 2009 20:09:55 +0000

That's A Wrap

Baileys Original — Sun, 10 May 2009 15:20:46 +0000

Coulter Comes to Columbia

Captain Morgan — Thu, 07 May 2009 18:56:47 +0000

Politics on Auto-Tune

Magic Hat No. 9 — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:54:38 +0000

Event Review: Maggie Hickey from CBS News

Magic Hat No. 9 — Sat, 02 May 2009 19:18:30 +0000

Hickey got her start in journalism as an intern with a local TV station near Brown University. She noted for the undergrad listeners that interning has become an especially good way to learn about the media because recent pushes to downsize staff has left more responsibility to the interns. After college she continued reporting in Rhode Island with the hopes that she could work up to a spot with one of the New York stations. In Rhode Island, she made her news name with undercover stories about pockets of prostitution. Calling herself "Hickey the Hooker," she took to the Rhode Island street with a camera and taped herself getting solicited. Eventually, she landed a New York job by offering to work for a free week at Channel 5 news. She added that this experience could serve as a lesson for those trying to navigate a difficult job market right now - act with "thick skin" is her advice.

Hickey had an interesting take on the problem of reporting bias. For her, some bias is almost inevitable. It is written into the choice of the story, and, often, the assignments make for biased coverage. As an example, she recalled how frequently she was assigned to stories about Irish Catholics because of her Irish Catholic background. In larger terms, she seemed happy with recent shifts toward overt bias in TV media - MSNBC and Fox - because of its potential to provide viewers with clearer alternatives to biases that they don't accept.

She also addressed the problems for news media posed by 24-7 cable coverage. The most recent incarnation of this issue was the attacks by Jon Stewart against CNBC for its coverage of the financial crisis. In Stewart's view, the goal of winning advertisers while filling an entire day with news coverage is often incompatible with the ostensible need to provide accurate, skeptical, and useful reporting. Hickey agreed with much of this. She admitted that news is "also a business selling the commercials," that some stories can be "ridiculous," and that the coverage has gotten much more compressed over the years. One of her most interesting observations was that all reporters speak of a "golden age" where they could be more adventurous and substantive in their work. For her it was the difference between putting together 5 minute news segments in the 1980s and 90 second segments in 2009. Yet she defended the media from much of these critiques by pointing out that this type of superficial coverage is what people want. As evidence, she noted the relative unpopularity of "higher-minded" news networks like PBS. This, of course, raises the question of whether viewers only want this news because it is being marketed to them as something they should want and whether news should, like other commodities, be driven by the demands of consumers altogether.

In any case, Hickey provided a refreshingly direct and insightful look at the media from the inside. Given the importance of the questions that emerged from her comments and all the changes taking place in news media, the CPU benefited much from her appearance.

Daily Brew: Politics as Usual

White Russian — Sat, 02 May 2009 03:07:37 +0000

Guest Column: On Smoking

Lagavulin — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 18:01:30 +0000

In fact, nicotine can help combat some of the leading causes of death in the United States. The prevalence of obesity in the United States is around 33% (5)––there are more obese people than smokers. Perhaps they should smoke: one proven way to curb weight gain is smoking. Nicotine is an extremely effective appetite suppressant (6), and it helps to satisfy the cravings and oral fixations that chronic snackers are often unable to overcome. Frankly, I’d rather live in a nation of smokers than in a nation of fat people––smokers are much easier on the eyes than their obese counterparts. If people have to kill themselves, at least they should be attractive while doing it.

Not only can it help us lose weight, but also it can reduce stress; nicotine has a relaxing effect and improves the smoker’s mood (7)(8). We as a nation are incredibly stressed; here at Columbia it’s second nature to us. Stress leads to a variety of physical and psychological problems, including heart disease and depression (9). Although generally not fatal, it shortens our lifespan and lowers our quality of living. As we experience a recession, doubtless our national stress levels will continue to increase. One feasible way to lower them is smoking; with all of the other killers in our society, cigarettes begin to look less and less like the demons they’re made out to be––why not die a bit younger but live a bit happier?

But killers they are. Smoking is unhealthy and leads to lung cancer––the studies are conclusive. However, is it such a bad thing for our society to be younger on average? The government pays massive amounts in benefits to the elderly, and with their increasing longevity, these amounts are not going to go down anytime soon. Moreover––as is well known––the elderly exercise a disproportionate amount of political power in the American democracy. There’s something to be said for a younger society.

Any responsible scientist will admit it’s impossible to get numbers on exactly how unhealthy smoking is––environmental factors greatly affect the chances of getting lung cancer, and they aren’t factored into the mass polls or studies. However, since experts believe that 1 in 2 American men and 1 in 3 American women will get cancer during their lifetime (10), with all of the benefits that cigarettes offer, perhaps smokers aren’t as reckless as they’re made out to be. They’re taking a measure of control over their lives––and their deaths. Rather than try to convert or punish them––banning them from smoking indoors, imposing heavy taxes on them––we should just respect their choice and leave them alone.

I’m not advocating that anyone pick up smoking––I’m not even a smoker myself––but I want to question this received idea that smoking is bad. Because they know that voters have no problem making smokers pay more money for their habit, politicians are constantly proposing new taxes on tobacco in order to balance their budgets––look at Governor Paterson’s proposed budget, for example (11). But making the obese pay––say, charging fat people double if they take up more than a single seat on the subway, which I’ve seen on multiple occasions––is unthinkable. Isn’t this hypocrisy?

It’s not strictly apples to apples, since secondhand smoke can be harmful to others in a way that overeating isn’t. However, I do think that we as a society discriminate against smokers, based on this underlying assumption that it’s our responsibility to keep people from smoking. But if it’s our responsibility to keep people from smoking––as everyone seems to agree it is––why don’t we also keep them from eating excessively, or drinking excessively, or working too hard? Smoking is not any more harmful than these other activities, and it even presents benefits that they don’t––smoking can help us to have a happier, thinner, and younger society. McDonald’s can give us none of those.

Nor do I want to advocate discriminating against the overweight; genetics and environmental factors can contribute to obesity, and people have as much right to be fat as they do to light up a cigarette. But if the principle behind penalizing smokers is to protect them from themselves, it seems only right that we also penalize the overweight-by-choice to protect them from themselves. To do otherwise makes no sense.

Smoking is not the worst thing in the world. Discrimination and fascism are much worse.

(1) http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/adult_...
(2) Rusted JM, et al, "Facilitation of memory by post-trial administration of nicotine: evidence for attentional explanation," Psychopharmacology, 108(4):452-5, l992
(3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/77657.stm
(4) Warburton D M, "Nicotine as a cognitive enhancer," Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 16(2): 181-91, Mar l992
(5) http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/obesity/
(6) http://www.vanderbilt.edu/ans/psychology/health_psychology/nicotine.htm
(7) http://www.helpstartshere.org/Default.aspx?PageID=529
(8) http://www.nida.nih.gov/MOM/TG/momtg-nicotine.html
(9) http://www.lifespan.org/adam/healthillustratedencyclopedia/1/003211.html
(10) http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/intro.pdf
(11) http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2008/12/patersons-budget-...

Event Review: Current and future relations between Taipei, Beijing, and Washington

Strawberry Daiquiri — Thu, 30 Apr 2009 06:10:24 +0000

This issue that took place was mainland China’s relation with Taiwan. It was roughly tied with the stance that the United States took on this.

The current President of Taiwan is Ma Ying Jiu and he is a member of the Kuomintang (KMT- Blue Party). From Liu’s perspective, he says that we haven’t seen any major breakthrough or change in Taiwan since President Ma took office. Therefore, he will have to “arrange the succession team,” which will primarily be a younger generation of KMT. He has to do this because only until he wins a re-election will he start negotiating a peace agreement to come up with a medium or long term peace agreement with China. Although one may ask, why not try to construct one now? The key is for President Ma to act when a window of opportunity is recognized with the mainland.

The problems that Taiwan are currently facing are leadership problems, internal constraint, detrimental external relations, and the general controversial policies of former President Chen Shui Bien. However, the problem with the last factor is that, according to Liu, similarities are recognized between former President Chen and President Ma. Namely, both tried to play the ‘promise of peace with China’ role in the earlier terms, yet left Taiwan unfulfilled later in their terms. Chen changed his path two years later after he took office and now Ma is saying that although the KMT is really experienced, nothing can be done at the moment due to the economic crisis. Ma’s approval rating is only around 25% right now and it keeps dropping. Liu also recognizes that both Presidents depend on a very small and limited advisory which may narrow thinking. However, the one key detail that sets them apart is that President Ma gets a lot of external support from the U.S while former President Chen didn’t.

In terms of the relationship between the United States and Taiwan, it is quite difficult to analyze and form a clear statement on what is going on. Glaser said that “the Obama Administration believes that there can be good ties across the strait and that we can potentially have good ties with Taiwan.”

Overall, Glaser believes that “Ma had no intention of handing Taiwan over to the mainland. He wants to use the conciliation and the warming across the strait to get the benefits for Taiwan. If he can sustain Taiwan economy and make it more convenient for Taiwanese to go back and forth across the strait, then it might make unification more distant.”

Generally, America’s stance on this issue is very vague and they probably would like to keep it that way since they have no other choice. There are also many views on what the relationship between China and Taiwan is currently like, especially how the relationship should be. However, I will leave you with the words of President Ma to give you a perspective on what Taiwan is currently thinking: “I will see no reunification in my lifetime.”

Daily Brew: "A Pandemic is Imminent"

Strawberry Daiquiri — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:54:21 +0000

Pub Brawl: CU Libertarians

Lagavulin — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 22:33:12 +0000

“If Washington were serious about honest tax relief in this country, we'd see an effort to reduce our national debt by returning to responsible fiscal policies.”

That was Senator Barack Obama addressing the U.S. Senate in 2006. If only he could apply that advice to his existing actions as head honcho in Washington D.C. The fiscal irresponsibility with which Obama and the federal government are currently operating is beyond belief. Our present national debt is over $11 trillion--a staggering fiscal nightmare. That means every American, including every school child, has a share of approximately $37,000 of U.S. debt. We are running a bigger-than-gigantic-government budget at the same time as a large tax break, continuing the same behavior Bush was vilified for.

And where are tax dollars flowing to? They've become life support for bankrupt corporations, insolvent automobile companies, the pockets of crony CEOs and a volley of make-work programs to come. The Obama campaign ran on a platform that prided the now popular monikers of “yes we can”, “change” and “hope”. However, the first few months of Obama's administration seem to be no different from the previous one. Spending hasn't decreased from the reckless levels of the Bush administration; it has gone up, astronomically! Our military interventionism hasn't decreased; and by all signs it will continue to shoot upwards with a perpetual military presence overseas, with over 20,000 U.S. Marines shipped out to Afghanistan in the next six months, and military spending projected to increase. When bailout programs like TARP, miserably fail at their intended purpose, instead of getting abolished, they receive more funding. With political parties like ours, unabashed “liberalism” has been around way before 2009.

Obama appears to be neither pragmatic nor ideological, but an adept player in the traditional political game. There aren't substantial differences between elected Republicans and Democrats; besides a few singular exceptions, both agree on higher levels of government spending and foreign action abroad. Both reserve the right to seize assets and power away from citizens, and use it as they not the people see fit. Both break their own promises, and violate principles they claim to hold for the sake of winning elections and staying in office. Libertarianism is neither right nor left wing and so there isn't much of a distinction between policies pursued by "Republicrats”, “liberals” and Obama.

- J. David Fernández & Columbia University Libertarians

Air Force One Flies Through NYC

White Russian — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 01:24:26 +0000

Pub Brawl: CU College Democrats

Lagavulin — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 22:51:56 +0000

Though the Columbia University College Democrats have no official organizational evaluation of President Obama’s first few months in office, a wide array of opinions exist among our members. As a disclaimer, we should note that this response will not substantively touch on any of those positions. Rather, we seek to use this space to voice our objection to the notions that underlie the prompt that we have been asked to respond to. We have a lot to say about President Obama, but cannot do so in the analytical context established by the question that has been proposed.

As an organization, we do not accept the idealism and pragmatism dichotomy that this question presents. We believe an ideology (and especially a progressive Democratic ideology) is neither unabashed nor whimsical. President Obama has an ideology and President Obama is a pragmatist. The two concepts only act as forces in opposition to one another when people misinterpret pragmatism as a willingness to compromise ideological principles, or mistake an ideology for a stubbornness that will always reject bipartisanship.

Either understanding of pragmatism and ideology in American politics is foolish, and both do great injustice to the principles of the Democratic Party and the campaign run by Barack Obama (and frankly, the campaign run by John McCain as well). Both promised practical solutions to complex problems; both promised to adhere to a set of core values in shaping these solutions.

As President, Barack Obama has utilized a style that rejects the approach to policy that this question assumes. As he said in his inaugural address, “What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply.” Whether or not we believe that the ground has in fact shifted, whether or not we are taken in by the Obama-brand of politics, we cannot try to evaluate it using a tired dichotomy that sees principled leadership as a bridge breaker and pragmatic governance as philosophically neutral.

We promise to cheer President Obama when he exhibits the progressive leadership that we elected him to put in place. We will call him out if he fails to show that leadership. But we will not ever reduce him to an ideologue or an indifferent bureaucrat. To do so would be to revert to the same name-calling politics that we baby-killers, sodomites, and unpatriotic liberals have gotten far too used to in the last eight years. To quote President Obama quoting scripture, “The time has come to set aside childish things.”

Daily Brew: Switching Sides

Baileys Original — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 18:49:36 +0000

Obama Ends Bipartisanship

White Russian — Mon, 27 Apr 2009 17:48:10 +0000