The Morning After

Time to quit cold turkey

2009-06-12T17:52:54Z

President Obama has promised to sign into law a bill that grants the FDA power to hit the tobacco industry with sweeping regulations related to its production and marketing. The Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act drew vast support from Congress, winning large majorities in both houses. (Sens. Arlen Specter and Bob Casey, Jr. as well as Rep. Todd Platts all supported the act).

Unfortunately H.R. 1256--hailed by the president as "a bill that truly defines changes in Washington"--undermines America's promise of freedom.

Never mind that the mandatory warning labels depicting smoking's negative effects will have virtually zero consequence for a public that already knows that smoking kills--about 400,000 each year according to the CDC.

Never mind that those who propose limitations to the amount of nicotine per cigarette ignore the painstakingly obvious fact that smokers are addicted particularly to nicotine, not cigarettes, that for example a pack-a-day smoker craves a pack's worth of nicotine rather than a pack's worth of white paper cylinders.

Never mind that an ordered ban of all tobacco advertisements within 1,000 feet of schools and playgrounds, to take effect by 2012, blatantly violates First Amendment rights.

Never mind all of that.

Whatever happened to liberty's most essential ally, personal responsibility?

The idea behind the legislation is this: Because tobacco products are unhealthy and potentially fatal, the federal government must step in and save the people from themselves.

Or more accurately: Because the people are too stupid to make their own decisions about their personal health, the federal government then has a right to make those decisions for them.

How about this zany idea (I know it's radical, but bear with me):

What if each individual makes his or her own decisions on nonviolent matters that affect no others directly? And what if each individual suffers the bad consequences and benefits from the good?

For decades, the word has been out on the dangers of smoking. More and more, we're learning what has been swept under the rugs of Big Tobacco. The knowledge required to make an educated decision is out there.

The more responsibility for ourselves that we cede to the government (or anyone, for that matter), the less free we are. The hole we have dug is already a deep one. Some of us no longer expect to be held accountable for educating our children, paying our mortgages or
generating income while unemployed.

It's time to break the chain. It's time to quit--cold turkey.

Free markets from blame

2009-01-27T19:13:21Z

As more jobs are cut, more companies' profits decrease and more dreams are delayed, the American people demand to know: Why is all of this happening? What piece of the economy broke and has lightened our wallets and weighted our shoulders?

Too often, free-market capitalism has been the scapegoat of choice. President Barack Obama espoused this view in his inaugural address: "This crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control." Blogger Arianna Huffington declares it "time to drive the final nail into the coffin of laissez-faire capitalism."

But if we put hammer to nail as Huffington and surely others would like, if we let history show that capitalism was incurably ill and needed to die, we risk repeating history yet again as the real culprit -- government intervention in the economy -- skates by.

You see, all this has happened before. There was a time in this nation's past when the going got really tough. Jobs weren't cut, they were slashed. Profits didn't decrease, they plunged. Dreams weren't delayed, they were crushed. Nothing in peace time has ever afflicted as many Americans as much as the Great Depression. Who was to blame then?

President Herbert Hoover and his laissez-faire policies were at fault. Hoover's failure ran so deep that it took his successor nearly a decade to sort it all out. Or so goes the story, as told by historians who surely were influenced by the Huffingtons of the time.

But Hoover was lucky if he knew how to pronounce "laissez-faire." Unemployment in 1930 was 8.9 percent. It skyrocketed from there to 25 percent by 1933, the year of President Franklin D. Roosevelt's inauguration. And what did Hoover do in that time? He certainly didn't keep his hands off the economy.

First and most notoriously, there was the Smoot-Hawley tariff in June 1930, a piece of legislation referred to by some as the most protectionist in national history. The act strangled international trade and was so vast in scope that even clocks and sauerkraut were not safe from the government's outstretched fist. This incited a tariff war with America's trading partners. Then with the Revenue Act of 1932, Hoover jacked taxes up through the roof for the top bracket from 24 percent to 63 percent (a number FDR would raise at one point to 95 percent).

Hoover's interventionist policies didn't expire with his presidency. FDR, although initially accusing his predecessor of steering the U.S. toward socialism, continued his policies and thus the Depression until the next decade. "We didn't admit it at the time," confessed FDR advisor Rexford Guy Tugwell decades later, "but practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started."

Now historians are poised to credit former president George W. Bush too with the legacy of a staunch free market proponent, despite his astronomical spending on the economic stimulus plan, the bailout of the financial industry and more.

But from Toledo, Ohio's 1933 unemployment rate of 80 percent to the 425-person layoff at the Springettsbury Twp. Harley-Davidson plant last week, it's not too little government interference that has, does and will hurt the economy -- it's too much.

Don't let Obama outshine King

2009-01-14T02:28:48Z

It may seem fitting that the inauguration of the nation's first African American president will follow the observation of the nation's most revered African American icon, Martin Luther King, Jr. Their connection, we are told, runs deep.

Ekaterina Haskins, a professor of rhetoric at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, N.Y., said President-elect Barack Obama "clearly sees himself as a descendant of...Martin Luther King," according to BBC News.

Some have gone as far as linking their historical significance, summed up in a catchphrase featured in an op-ed piece by the Democratic Party chairman of Pittsburgh's 22nd Ward, Khari Mosley:

"Rosa sat so Martin could walk; Martin walked so Obama could run; Obama is running so our children can fly!"

But it disservices King's legacy to elevate the former senator to the same status. In the way each has contributed to American culture and politics, the two could not be more different.

King earned his fame by organizing wide-scale non-violent protests: the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, which curbed discrimination in the city's public transportation system, and the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, which culminated in King's "I Have a Dream" speech and contributed to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the National Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Obama ascended to fame by climbing the political ladder from state senator to U.S. Senate and eventually to president. Along the way, he impressed millions with his speeches and wrote two autobiographical books that made him a Grammy winner. But in his decade-plus as a politician, he failed to pen legislation that would have brought about significant change.

Risks didn't deter King. He often put his own freedom on the line, gritting his teeth through multiple arrests, while defending the freedom of others. His became the face of what began as a widely unpopular movement, and King didn't shy from the limelight. In his last few years, he also protested the Vietnam War, alienating his allies in the media including Life magazine and the Washington Post. He risked his own reputation and support in order to fight for his principles.

Obama hasn't taken a significant public risk to date. His VP pick in Joe Biden was safe, as were most of his cabinet appointments. Even his entire record in the U.S. Senate has been safe, with some media outlets reporting that he voted with his party as much as 97% of the time. The president-elect rarely appears to have principles at all, having voted for the renewal of the USA PATRIOT Act that he vowed to repeal in a 2003 questionnaire. And he backed out of his promises to vote against the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 and to run a publicly funded presidential campaign.

King led a revolution. Through peaceful means, he nobly brought about real change, regardless of what it cost him, and fundamentally altered the fabric of the nation. Obama talked about a revolution but has refused to stray off the path worn by thousands of politicians before him, with his skin color as his most noteworthy characteristic.

Historians will mark Jan. 20, 2009 as a great day for equality in this country. But we need not let the glow of the flashlight that is Barack Obama eclipse the shine of the star that was, is and will be Martin Luther King, Jr.

Airline's actions amount to discrimination

2009-01-02T16:56:03Z

On September 12, 2001, I remember speaking with a few of my neighbors about the previous day's tragedies. Some of us were sad, some of us were angry, all of us were appalled. "I know it's not their fault," a middle-aged woman named Liz said, "but if one of those Muslims wants to move here, don't expect me to welcome them."

We were all still in the heat of the moment. In our New York City suburb, many of us had lost a friend or a family member. People act irrationally when they're experiencing that level of emotional trauma. It's common, it's expected and it's forgiven.

But now it's 2009. All rashness should have faded away over the seven years and change that have passed. Why, then, was a Muslim family kicked off an airplane in a situation where no white family would?

Atif Irfan and seven of his extended family members were booted from an AirTran Airlines flight on New Year's Day because passengers reported overhearing a conversation that raised security concerns. But the family didn't use any words that would raise a red flag (like bomb, explosion or terror). No, they just discussed which seats would be safest.

It was just a general safety discussion, Irfan told CNN's Mike M. Ahlers.

The FBI cleared the family of all wrongdoing, but it shouldn't take a national intelligence organization to realize that. "Do you think it would be safest to sit by the wing?" isn't code for "Which seat gives us the best chance of survival if we blow this thing up?"

And when the FBI told the airline that the safety concerns lacked merit, the airline refused to rebook the family for another flight. "They told us that we can't fly their airline," Irfan told CNN.

Here comes the truly revolting part: Although 75% of respondents in an AOL webpoll agree that the family was treated differently because of their religion, 55% still say that AirTran acted appropriately. Essentially, respondents said, "This was an act of bigotry, and we applaud that."

Where does our nation stand when we accept this type of discrimination based on religion and ethnicity? Even the election of the first minority president doesn't cancel out the hatred that continues to flow through the veins of so many Americans.

"We are proud Americans," one of the family members said. "We decided to have our children and raise them here. We can very easily go anywhere we want in the world, but we love it here and we're not going to go away, no matter what."

Good. You shouldn't have to.

Police officer safety

2008-12-15T21:20:14Z

I am writing this letter to express my concern for police officer safety within the York County region. It is unnerving to witness how these officers conduct themselves while monitoring an individual that has been placed under arrest.

Police officers will allow these individuals to be taken out of their handcuffs and will expose their "gun side" to them while remaining oblivious to the fact that a volatile individual is now unrestrained, it is astonishing how these officers turn their backs on these individuals while they are unrestrained when at anytime these individuals can attempt to flee or attack the officer. I believe that officer safety is extremely important and it has been my experience that many officers seem to lack this training or feel that they are invincible. If a dangerous individual that they have capture is able to escape and further elude police they pose a threat to the safety of citizens.

Another aspect regarding the law enforcement agencies in this area is practices of traffic enforcement. There are many areas throughout York County, Pennsylvania that are notorious for winding roads and poor road construction. All of these factors contribute to the unsafe situations that law enforcement officers place themselves and other motorists in while performing the functions of their jobs. A traffic stop is one of the most dangerous duties that law enforcement officers will encounter during their careers. The risk level is compounded when these officers make traffic stops on poorly lit and marked roads. I am not saying that these officers should not conduct traffic stops at night; however they should not stop a vehicle in the middle of the lane of travel around a bend or over the crest of a hill.

Matthew Zaryk
York College of Pennsylvania

Obama's gun control plan

2008-12-15T21:16:45Z

I am a Junior at York College concerned about Barack Obama's stance on gun control. With the nomination of president elect Barack Obama, many Americans including my self, are experiencing a growing concern for their right to bear arms. Since the conclusion of this year's election firearm and ammunitions sales have dramatically increased. The underlying factor for such an increase is notion that Obama will implement a 500% tax on ammunition and a ban on all semi automatic weapons.

Banning semi automatic weapons will bring an end to the recreational activates thousands enjoy such as hunting and target shooting. Obama's gun control plan strives to achieve a safer America by taking firearms out of the hands of criminals. However, such a plan punishes law abiding citizens in that it essentially strips one of their second amendment right to bear arms. To take away or obstruct a person's rights because of the criminal acts of others in the past is simply unjust.

Derek Bernard
York College of Pennsylvania

Another bailout?

2008-12-15T21:13:55Z

The issue of bailing out General Motors, Chrysler and Ford with a 15 million dollars bailout is not going to settle anything. These companies need to define what the problem is and the people in charge should be responsible for this. While these car companies are constantly laying people off, the heads of each are comfortably sitting on their thick wallets. If this bailout passes then who's to say that it will even solve anything. This is not new news that these companies are doing poorly. They should have fixed the problem a long time ago. It should not be our job to bail them out and put our nation in more debt than it is currently.

The one problem that many are worried about, and I believe is why this bill is not being laughed at, is the loss of jobs. These companies should be given some relief so that millions don't lose their job, but I feel that they should be carefully observed. I do not feel that they should just be given a handout and set on their way without any future plans to fix the problem. They should be given money every so often and then checked up on to make sure that changes are being made. If no substantial changes are made then each year the government will have to keep giving them money. Which leaves me to wonder, when will it stop? I feel for the families that are scared of losing their jobs and that is the only reason I feel these companies should be helped at all.

Alex Trostle
York College of Pennsylvania

Tuition increases limit students

2008-12-15T21:07:45Z

The current crisis in our country involving the economic decline is a very serious issue concerning not only businesses and the stock market, but college students as well. Every year, college tuition increases, and schools which were once considered "affordable" are now becoming heavier on the change purse. Although the economic crisis has not yet affected colleges and universities on a financial level, it is expected to apply some pressure to these institutions in the following years. It seems very predictable that with the issues in the economy and the higher rate of inflation, future tuition rates could soar. This may threaten to put higher education out of reach for many Americans, and now not only low SAT scores are keeping students from going to college.

]]> The increases in tuition and fees come at a time when many American families face layoffs and shrinking investments. While there is no shortage of federal education loans yet, the economic crises has prevented many families from receiving private loans for tuition. The lack of private loans and their mounting costs have restricted students fortunate enough to attend college from pursuing a higher education.

It serves no good purpose to take tuition to an unaffordable level; little gain, and many lose. If colleges raise tuition and loans are made less available and harder to receive, higher education institutions will see a decrease in their student population and as a result, a decrease in their credibility. It leaves too much of America's youth limited in their options for further education after high school and could leave our nation in even more economic turmoil. With less students attending college after graduation, the number of jobs needed will increase during a time where job availability is unfortunately declining. What is America's youth supposed to do then?

Melissa Olsen
York College of P

Nuclear sustainability

2008-12-15T21:03:57Z

Nuclear sustainability is one of the many topics of environmental protection that is being discussed today. One might ask what nuclear sustainability is exactly. Sustainability is the goal of a practice or method that provides some sort of service without causing harm to the environment in the long run.

There is enough nuclear fuel dispersed, whether it's the 3.851 million metric tons that we know of or the 11 million metric tons still out there, around the world at this time to last 200 years. 40 times that if the plans and production of breeder reactors are completed and switched on. The breeder reactors convert used fuels from nuclear reactors and convert them into reusable fuels.

There are few minor environmental problems with nuclear power. There are very low particle emissions from reactors and the only major threat are thermal emissions. These can be easily avoided with the addition of a closed loop cooling system. Nuclear is one of the choices that we can make to keep this planet going, even if for just a little longer.

Chris Grothe
York College of Pennsylvania

Blagojevich's real victim: The press

2008-12-12T01:15:39Z

While the news media fixates on the corruption charges against the man in charge of selecting the President-elect's replacement in the U.S. Senate, the crucial story slinks through the shadows unnoticed.

At stake if Gov. Rod Blagojevich, D-Ill., is guilty of selling Barack Obama's old post is one vote in the senate, one vote that almost certainly will contribute to the Democratic majority. At stake if Blagojevich is guilty of dangling a large sum of money over the head of a major news organization, available only if they fire those who have written against the governor, at stake is the integrity of the press nationwide.

Blagojevich threatened to withhold at least $100 million of state funds from the Tribune company to be granted only if it would fire editors "responsible for editorials critical of Blagojevich," according to the official criminal complaint filed by FBI Special Agent Daniel Cain.

Some say journalism is dead. Others say it's just in a coma. If at least the latter is true, the murderer of journalism won't only be uninhibited bias but also censorship of dissent. Nonviolent dissent is the principle reason that newspapers and other news media exist. Sure, media outlets also serve to inform and entertain. But their most important duty -- indeed their highest moral calling -- is to serve as government watchdog, to exercise the freedom to publish the truth regardless of whether it offends the powers that be.

And Blagojevich is just one man. One governor of 50 and one statesman of many more. If this one man, governor and statesman allegedly committed this act and got caught, how many more are manipulating the press and getting away with it?

Auctioning off a senate seat to the highest bidder: Despicable? Yes. Damaging to the integrity of the Illinois government? Absolutely. Significant in the long run? Not so much. Most of the time, a Democrat vote will be a Democrat vote. Surprising? Not at all. These are politicians we're talking about here.

Attempting to bribe the second largest newspaper publisher in the country in order to censor critical speech: Shameful? Yes. Threatening to the entire field of journalism? Absolutely. An affront on the freedom and values of every American? Without a doubt, 100 percent, yes.

Nuclear energy, no safe waste storage

2008-12-11T16:28:34Z

When nuclei split, this is called fission and this is how nuclear energy is derived - from the splitting of Uranium-235. The waste product of Uranium splitting is Plutonium-239; which is a hazardous waste. Let's make a comparison. When at home, trash gets thrown away in the trash can; well, in this case Plutonium is a radioactive waste product whose decay is measured by its half-life. The half-life of plutonium is 24,000 years. However, after 24,000 years Plutonium is still hazardous. Plutonium becomes safe to handle after 240,000 years.

It should also be mentioned that there were 441 nuclear reactors in the world as of February 2002 and just one reactor - yes, one reactor - produces 20 to 30 tons of waste in one year. Just since 2002, that is roughly 66,150 tons of nuclear waste. I do not know about you readers out there but that means that we have to store 66 thousand tons of waste for 240 thousand years and each year that amount of storage increases. However, unlike with trash where it goes to trash dumps, there is no safe way to store nuclear waste. Each nuclear facility stores their waste on site. So, what happens in 100 years? Where will that waste be stored?

While there are no air pollutants and very little CO2 emissions, there are other renewable energy sources that do not have waste products that can be used. For example - wind, solar and water. While each of these energy sources require that the wind be blowing, the sun be shining and water to be flowing, at any given point anywhere around the world, at least one of these energy sources is occurring and can be harnessed. There needs to be a truly safe storage system implemented in order to safely store the waste.

Jason Burns
York College of Pennsylvania

Drink responsibly

2008-12-11T16:23:24Z

I wanted to write about the reasons why the drinking age should be sustained at twenty-one. In college, we work to build a strong future for ourselves, but our focus has seemed to drift off into making drinking a priority. Lowering the drinking age would undo years of hard work in stopping the underage, and go against everything Mothers Against Drunk Driving continue to fight for. In regards to the Amethyst Initiative for Choosing Responsibilitiy, it sounds good, but there are holes in its theory. By allowing an eighteen year old to drink, the first thought on the mind will not be "drink responsibly." We cannot accept a proposal for a law promoting the acceptance of an eighteen year old driving drunk. We need to stop putting down our country and hold pride in ourselves. The United States has the highest drinking age due to awareness of the addictiveness of alcohol. Statistics show the younger a person starts drinking increases chances of developing alcohol dependence or abuse some time in their life. We need to believe in ourselves and the sanctity of the law.

Michelle Mangaro
York College of Pennsylvania

Stay positive

2008-12-11T16:00:15Z

The article written by Cal Thomas titled, "Annie-one for a little optimism" caught my eye recently. He talks about our country being more positive about the economic crisis. How are we supposed to be more positive about loosing money and businesses going down? Yes we are the world's most powerful country but even if we're more positive we're not going to come out of the crisis by putting a smile on our faces. We will have to work hard to get back to where we were and then we can be positive.

Money doesn't buy happiness and people should be happy with the things they have, like their lives and their families, but it's going to be difficult until we as a nation are back on our feet.

What I got from the article is that he feels that if we sing, "The sun will come out tomorrow" that everything will magically be ok. The fact is that we're having a financial crisis and people don't typically like to lose their hard earned money or their jobs as some businesses start to close so they may be angry about it, and singing happy songs and pretending everything is ok isn't going to make it better. We do need to pull together as a nation to help ourselves out but being fake about it and putting on a good show isn't the way to do it.

Amanda Rosengrant
York College of Pennsylvania

Abortion

2008-12-11T15:56:39Z

Abortion is a huge issue today especially now with a new President-Elect that is so Pro-choice. Obama's views on abortion have stirred up some controversy especially among the Christian groups. Those groups such as the Evangelical Christians believe he is not a true Christian because of his stance on this big issue. I believe that he is trying to do the best for the country.

In my opinion abortion should be legal in the United States but should be restricted, also because of the court decision Roe v. Wade stated it would violate the privacy clause of the 14th amendment. Late term abortions should be restricted and should not be used unless for dire need.

Being a Catholic I can see both of the sides of the controversy, but with restrictions on abortion I believe we can find middle ground. Abortions are able to help those who are not able to carry a baby full term without the mother themselves dying or being injured for life, it will help rape victims and also those who cannot support a baby themselves whether they have a disability or horrible living conditions.

I do trust that adoption should also be more advertized because the rate of abortions may drop. Adoption is one step in finding the middle ground between the Pro-choice and Pro-life groups which should be found in the country that in the past has used compromises to make the United States as strong and free as it is today.

Sarah Spanarkel
York College of Pennsylvania

Bailout a slippery slope

2008-12-11T15:54:49Z

Congress will be voting shortly on a proposed $15 billion bailout for the Big 3 automakers. The result ought to be a resounding no. If the government saves the heavyweights of the auto industry, how can they say no to industry leaders that get in trouble in other markets?

The scope of the failure of the auto industry clearly extends beyond that of the Big 3, affecting over 3 million workers in various industries. The void created will have a negative effect on a lot of Americans. Unemployment will rise. People will struggle to cope.

Yet, such is the American way. Our risk/reward capitalist system holds a caveat. Risk. Everybody doesn't win in America. Companies have to innovate to stay ahead. It's why we have HD-TVs. Viagra. Laptops. It's why encyclopedias and VHS tapes are nearing extinction. Likewise, the downfall of domestic car companies allows for emerging domestic auto manufacturers to rise from the ashes with a fresh perspective and better products. These new companies will also create jobs as they expand; employing those who would have been laid off.

Capitalism is a primary reason why we defeated the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. Why should the government start adapting Soviet-esque socialist practices? Why should the taxpayers give the automakers more money to mismanage and keep the auto industry stale? Instead, we should be patient. Yes, the short-term outlook appears bleak. However, we should not be as shortsighted as the executives at Ford, GM, and Chrysler and realize that failure now is the better long-term solution.

Tom Werner
York College of Pennsylvania