Read fine print on political ads

Posted by Tyler Reny

It's election season again. The media finally has something more pertinent to talk about than Lindsay Lohan's release from prison or Lady Gaga's meat dress. Now ideologically conflicting pundit's can yell at each other as they try and predict the outcome of November's elections. But who's really going to win? Who knows! We can only be sure that Christine O'Donnell dabbled in witchcraft as a teen.

With election season, however, comes a far more annoying phenomenon: political advertisements. They are omnipresent and obnoxious as hell. Some try to scare the elderly by exposing Obamacare as a Medicare killing behemoth. Others warn of the job slaying effects of any bills that would help wean us off of fossil fuels.

What is more important than the often-misleading messages of these advertisements is the nearly illegible funding groups that pop up at the bottom of the screen during the last few seconds of the ad.

The group often has a pleasant grass-rootsy-sounding name like Americans for Job Security but, too often, turns out to be a front group for wealthy donors or corporations who want to quietly and anonymously funnel large amounts of money toward influencing legislation or political campaigns.

The ads raise the important issue of disclosure. Who is funding these ads? What do they stand to win or lose? Due to loopholes in current campaign finance law, we often don't know.

Americans for Job Security, for example, was founded by Republican business interests in 1997 and because of its non-profit status can raise unlimited funds and is exempt from having to disclose its donors. The group, which sounds like a grassroots job security advocacy organization, is actually a single employee front for conservative interests that funnels money ($6.1 million last year) into politically charged issue advocacy.

Perhaps the most influential and least known corporation, famous for quietly donating astonishing amounts of money to deceivingly titled front groups, is Koch Industries, the $100 billion dollar conglomerate from Kansas.

Koch Industries owns a variety of different companies, from Brawny towels to Dixie cups, but collects the majority of its profits from oil and gas pipelines and refineries around the country. It is the second largest private corporation in the U.S. and has made its owners, the Koch brothers, Charles and David, some of the richest men in America, with a combined wealth of about $35 billion.

The brothers, who have spent an estimated $100 million on issue advocacy, have recently been credited with funding the climate change denial machine. Greenpeace has reported that between 2005 and 2008 the corporation funneled $24.8 million to about 35 distinct groups that have fought to discredit the science behind global climate change.Their political action committee has given about $5.7 million to conservative Congressmen and spent $37.9 million on direct lobbying.

As the Greenpeace report puts it, Koch Industries' "tight knit network of lobbyists, former executives and organizations has created a forceful stream of misinformation that Koch-funded entities produce and disseminate. This campaign propaganda is then replicated, repackaged and echoed many times throughout the Koch-funded web of political front groups and think tanks."

When you see those ads lambasting the "questionable science" behind global climate change or "job killing" government initiatives funded by organizations with names like The Institute for Energy Research, just be aware that much of their funding often comes from greedy billion-dollar corporations who fear a potential threat to their bottom lines.

A functioning democracy requires the transparency that comes from better disclosure laws. Citizens must know just who stands to win or lose on a given issue. Last week Senate Democrats tried to push a bill through Congress that would require corporations and unions to disclose how they spent their money in political campaigns. The bill quietly died when the GOP blocked the bill from coming to a vote and accused the Democrats of ignoring the larger issues. Republicans clearly don't want us to know who pays their bills.

Tyler Reny is a senior government major who enjoys good food, politics and jazz.

EDITORIAL: Have faith in education

Posted by the Editorial Board

On Sept. 11, 2010, a few members of the college's community came together. Amidst the turmoil sparked by the "Ground Zero Mosque" and "International Burn a Koran Day," faculty and students quietly answered questions related to their own personal and intellectual connection to Islam. In contrast to the rampantly combative arguments occurring across the country, everyone involved spoke civilly and with respect.

This kind of dialogue is rare in a country that sometimes seems fueled by hysteria and half-truths. But the Sept. 11 event, called "Unburnable Qurans," holds a different kind of value in a college community that too-frequently falls uneasily silent when discussing faith.

On a campus that comfortably embraces identities related to ethnic background, sexual orientation and economic status, religious belief falls to the margins of the community discourse. With the predominant voice on campus being the indifferently agnostic, students of faith can feel uncomfortable bringing up their religious beliefs among friends or in class discussions. But by relegating religion to the margins of the campus dialogue, students can graduate with only a narrow engagement with different faiths.

When the college talks about diversity and intercultural dialogue, it's easy to just picture the changes to the student body that can be spotted on a promotional brochure. But a college community representing varied religious backgrounds can play an important role in breathing life into campus discourse that, when it comes to topics related to faith, can feel stagnant.

As a college that seeks to make educated and contributing citizens of its students, this is the place for students to engage with other cultures and beliefs through intellectual dialogue. If students graduate without an understanding of other faiths, we just contribute to the rampant ignorance in today's discourse. This is the time to start our journey toward becoming educated members of society, and an understanding of religion is essential to that education.

Events like "Unburnable Qurans" give students the opportunity to learn about religious beliefs as they relate to worldly matters. The newly revitalized Office of Religious and Spiritual Life, which had formerly been associated with only the resources it provides to students of faith, has engaged students in a new way. In events like the one on Sept. 11, the college provided programming that is applicable to the entire campus, both spiritually and intellectually.

The college can only go so far. As students, it's our responsibility to go to events, sign up for classes and engage ourselves in discussions that improve our understanding of the world around us – which includes educating ourselves about other faiths. Let's count ourselves among our country's voices of reason, rather than the deafening fomenters of ignorance.

A dormroom with a view

Posted by Rick Chrisman

Where the hell am I?" Have you awakened in the middle of your room in the middle of the night silently screaming that question in your dreams yet? I hope not. Because the answer to this question will probably not materialize until you've left Skidmore. It can take that long to figure out what a wonderful, crazy and unreal place college is.

You certainly realize you are not in Kansas anymore, Toto. Noise till midnight, mind-bending concepts, people you can't avoid, awkward silences in the classroom, academic standards too high for you (or too low), dark thoughts that can't be shared, no pets, no dog, no cat, no siblings, pressure, pressure, pressure, hang-overs due to medicine for pressure — plus all the hazards of working and living in the same place. When will this unnatural state be over?

Well, at least it's an improvement over high school, right? I mean, the manic hallways, the rumor mill, the bullies, classes at virtual DAWN! Get me outta there! What's not to like in college, compared to that? Besides, no parents, and it's all in a good cause, right?

You think, "M-m-m-m, what was that again? A bachelor's degree — four more years of school on top of the last 12 for a ticket to security, may be worth it. Don't see many jobs out there right now, do you suppose I can stretch this out a little longer… ?"

All that uncertainty can make college seem a little like hell. If it weren't for that, a person could really enjoy this excursion through beauty and knowledge. So it's best not to dwell on the uncertainties right now. You think, more medication. But the walls close in anyway, and things just feel worse.

I blame it all on the view. On a lovely campus like ours, the view is surely lovely enough but I believe that the view is just not l-a-r-g-e enough. You can't see very much from where you sit at any one time. You can't see, for instance, all your peers in other colleges across the country, in urban universities, in art schools, in community colleges, in church schools and military schools, in beauty courses and computer classes, all leaning over their books and into their futures, too, wondering what will evolve for them.

You can't see them and how much they are like you. And you can't see the others who didn't opt for college, who are hammering out their destinies on a day-to-day basis, too, some in entrylevel jobs, some picking up from summer jobs they had, others in the military (we are a nation at war, don't forget). The view is too limited to see them either and how much they are like you.

I think I should lobby President Glotzbach to raze the Wilson Chapel (you knew we have a chapel on campus, right?) and build in its place a sort of Eiffel Tower that we can climb up in whenever we want and get a view of the world around us, to remind us where we really are. You could go up to a first mezzanine (climbing stairs, never elevators) and see Saratoga and, with the binoculars installed on the railings (free for once), you could see all the families (like yours) raising children who will follow you and your peers into the seats you leave behind one day when you go on your way.

On a platform a little higher you could view the great natural valley we live in, the Hudson River coming down from the Adirondacks and flowing toward Albany (you can just see it) while it waters the crops and the souls who live nearby. Another couple platforms up and you could see the extensions of this country around the world, the perfervid commerce, the syndicated TV shows, the charitable enterprises, the overcommitted military (we are a nation at war, don't forget). And what you would see from the top! You would really see that you are not alone in your tasks and that exciting responsibilities ahead await you.

I wish people could always see where we really are. And really enjoy college. It isn't hell at all, far from it.

Rick Christman is director of Religious and Spiritual Life, teaches occasionally in the Religion and Philosophy departments and suspects art is the one true religion.

Fun-size facts are unhealthy food for thought: Jack Sounds Off

Posted by Jack Ferguson

I will wager that each of us has heard some version of this common, modern aphorism: the Internet is making your generation stupider. Occasionally, the adults wagging their fingers entertain a fair portion of humility, and includes themselves, or at least those of their age, in this blanket statement.

Unfortunately, the practice of blanketing the campus with posters that pronounce un-cited abbreviated factoids proves that the Internet, with its wealth of fun-size knowledge morsels, has spawned a culture of communication that makes us stupider.

Many of our leading intellectuals (most eloquently Steven Pinker in the New York Times) have very ably countered this claim. Many remain glumly unconvinced. Perhaps both camps have some credit to their argument.

Most of us students understand that computers are tools and, when used correctly, greatly expand our learning horizons; they increase our ability to interact with and grow in our knowledge.

Yet the laments of the pessimists – howling steadily, Viking-like from the depths of their armchairs – are not totally off base. Such irrational fear springs from real danger.

At root, the danger is this: a new trend in learning will arise, in which a multitude of sound bites accumulate in an individual's mind, and though many, all lack nuance and substance – and we will call this knowledge. Our culture risks substituting depth and comprehension for speed, ease and clarity.

Interestingly, we of the university system are perhaps the realest staging ground for the battle over the emerging direction of knowledge. We take part in proving ourselves every day. Too often, however, and with the most important issues, we take the easy, simple route of conveying information.

We live in an era of Twitter and pundits' chalkboards. Loud declamations of statistics are too, too familiar – in the way that the act of breathing is familiar, yet forgettable.

For the last four years, I have seen various bits of information, on posters and in chalk, that seem willfully intended to exist solely in themselves, outside or above conversation. Scrawled or typed snippets from un-cited studies dot our place of learning.

Such mass distribution of simple sentence facts – hate-crime statistics, trends of sexual assault on campuses, STI distribution – no doubt intends to educate, and perhaps give voice to, subjects often stifled in public discourse. Yet the effect is to usher information on important issues into our library of sound bites, of factoids. This is unipolar discussion; this is hardly information at all.

If one person stands up in a room and shouts into a megaphone, we will no doubt listen and incorporate the topic of his or her shouting into our separate conversations. If over a dozen people stand up throughout the year and shout into a megaphone, we will end up aggravated and rolling our eyes. This cannot happen to our gravest and most urgent issues.

For now, let us assume that the recipients of such campus-wide campaigning want very much to know and grow in knowledge (this seems fair given the price of tuition). Further, let us imagine that students care dearly about the community in which they daily exist, and want nothing more than to see it flourish.

Wouldn't such an environment, with such exciting people, be all but perfect for comprehensive publications with cited sources and suggestions for further reading?

 We live in an era of Twitter and pundits' chalkboards. Loud declamations of statistics are too, too familiar – in the way that the act of breathing is familiar, yet forgettable.

Perhaps we ought to consider that distribution of disparate facts does not contribute to our education or a sense of support for urgent causes. Perhaps it is causing detriment.

I know that when I see a poster telling me about my community as a result of a survey conducted of Skidmore students, I want to know how many people responded, what that percentage means. I am uneasy being told a statistic about my living environment for which the background specifics are obscure.

If I am learning about hate crimes, I want to know where they most frequently occur, among what groups of people, whether they have been on the decline the past decade or on the rise.

We are the new generation of highly educated citizens, and we have a new, revolutionary tool. Right now, it is under-utilized as a resource and an adjunct to how we pursue our educations. Conversely, it can too easily be accessed to call up easy, micro-bits of information.

We are called to demonstrate just how much we are capable of, how much we understand, how hungrily we perceive.

We are expected to adhere to the highest standards of academic integrity; we ought to be able to ask that of those above us, advising us. Because making propaganda of very complicated urgent issues – that will certainly make us stupider.

Don't watch mosque madness

Posted by Tyler Reny

If you have been paying attention to the conservative echo chamber of talk radio and Fox News, and I certainly hope everyone does once in a while (it is good for a laugh, scream or an occasional cry), you should be aware that the so-called "Ground Zero Mosque" is a serious issue (it isn't).  

According to our fearless leaders, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, we have been informed that the mosque is being built by the shifty radical "Muslim Brotherhood operative" Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, who harbors a nefarious "secret agenda."  The mosque, we are told, is a victory for radical Islam and a slap in the face to the victims of the September 11th attacks.  

Or, if you decide to use your brain, probe a little bit and examine the man for yourself, you will learn that Feisal Abdul Rauf has devoted much of his life to fostering better Islamic-U.S. relations.  He authored the book, "What's Right With Islam Is What's Right With America," and is the vice-chair of the Interfaith Center of New York.  According to Hendrik Hertzberg, who wrote a New Yorker piece on the mosque debate, Rauf has consistently denounced terrorism and the September 11th attacks and has been hired various times by the FBI to conduct sensitivity training for its agents.    

Hertzberg also points out that Daisy Khan, Rauf's wife, runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which, according to the organization's Web site, "promotes cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth and women's empowerment and arts and cultural exchange."  

The center itself, Cordoba House, will also not be located at ground zero, as the media's name suggests, but two blocks north, and will be far more than a mosque.  Hungry? Grab a bite to eat there, it will have a restaurant.  Wandering around lower Manhattan enjoying the hundred-degree weather and the smell your shoes produce as the rubber melts into the pavement?  Go for a swim, there will be a pool! The plans also include a gallery and a memorial to the victims of the 9/11 attacks, and it will be open to all.  

But with the November elections looming and an energized base of tea-partiers, the GOP has turned this non-issue into a serious issue.  Armed with an extremely influential media arm and GOP wordsmith Frank Luntz, who conducts focus groups to see what the most effective language will be for framing the issue, the "Ground Zero Mosque" has become a hot topic of debate, a mobilization tactic and vote producer.  

The jowly Conservative history professor and architect of the 1994 House Takeover, Newt Gingrich, has perhaps been the most vocal opponent of the center.  According to Gingrich, the construction is part of an "Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization" by "replacing it with a radical imposition of Sharia."  He refers to the construction as part of a larger "stealth jihad," harking back to memories of Sen. Joseph McCarthy's "fifth-column" scares of communists lurking around every corner during the Cold War.  

While there is no factual evidence for any of Newt's rants, though plenty of speculation, it does scare people.  And when people are scared, they tend to support the national security measures offered up by our Republican brethren.  As Lisa Miller pointed out recently in her Newsweek column, terms like Jihad and Sharia freak people out and cause a general distrust of all Muslims.  A few weeks ago, a New York City cab driver was stabbed when his passenger found out that he was a Muslim.  The hysteria and paranoia clouding this event resemble the political climate that lead to past injustices and atrocities like the mass internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II.    

Words do matter and new media, especially conservative talk radio and news sources, have a huge amount of influence in this country.  All of the sudden the percentage of Americans who believe President Barack Obama is a Muslim has risen from 11 percent in March to 18 percent in August.  Public opposition to Cordoba House is booming and anti-mosque rallies have popped up in New York City to protest the project.  While there is no way to accurately measure prejudice against Muslims, all indicators show that it is growing, and is being fueled by people like Limbaugh, Beck and Gingrich.

The real issue isn't a mosque, or the placement of a mosque or even Islam.  The issue is that Republicans are telling blatant lies and using shameless fear tactics to trigger voter anxiety, gain political support and fuel prejudice.  So next time you find your remote under a pile of dirty beer stained clothing and switch on that TV, put on Fox, see what they are saying about the mosque, scream at the TV and change the channel.  

Tyler Reny is a senior government major who enjoys good food, politics, and jazz.

EDITORIAL: Make taxi debate a two-way street

Opponents of the new taxi program have an anthem, and it goes like this: it only takes one. A driver decides to save the $6 taxi fare by careening his way back from drinking at an off-campus party. A pedestrian impatient with an unfamiliar bus schedule decides to walk down the shoulder of a dark 3 a.m. road. It only takes one and, after that, the anthem goes, the money saved by the new taxi program would not have been enough.

The first weeks of this semester, these dangers seem more possible than ever before. Confused by a new program, frustrated by a decision made without substantive student input, unwilling to shell out the extra cash to call Saratoga Taxi, stranded students might make dangerous choices. But after students adjust to the new schedule and forget how things used to be, the changes to the program pose more of an inconvenience than a new threat.

Students venturing off campus will not always be safe, whether they cram into free cabs or lurch back on a free bus. Long before they were told to shuffle to a bus stop, some students would decide to drive drunk or walk home in the dark instead of competing for a cab. Saratoga Taxi will still answer late-night calls, and most students can save money that would have gone toward another beer, buying a ride home instead.

But the new schedule makes a larger statement about administrators' approach to student life. Free taxis showing up at the end of the night told students that administrators wanted us to come home safe, regardless of the financial investment required. It only takes one, the free taxi program said, and that chance is more of a cost than the college is willing to pay.

The free taxi program was a convenience and a symbol, but students didn't realize it at the time. It was as invisible as school-funded lunches with your favorite professor and limitless paper for printing in the library, as quietly reassuring as calls from Campus Safety reminding students their lights are on in the parking lot. It was there like all the other small pieces of campus that make the college our home.  

Students miss the free taxi program, and hope members of the class of 2014 might just have a good story to tell in three years: "When I was a freshman…" But administrative attention could be better used in other places than tallying up taxis and buses.

When they heard about students falling out of cabs, too drunk to stand after binge-drinking in the "dry" dorms, hopefully they came to a different conclusion than just deciding cabs might not be a bad idea. Changes to students' drinking need to take place at home, with the examination of procedures based on hypocrisy and mutual disrespect.

Get students drinking responsibly on campus, rather than worrying about how to shuttle them off. Consider alterations to the "dry campus" policy and the red tape that keeps Falstaff's from returning as an on-campus bar. Question the assumption that students just don't know how to drink responsibly.

The free taxi program represented laudable concern and respect from administrators, a spirit students wish they could see reflecting in all aspects of the school's approach toward student life. It should have only taken one, Skidmore, and the drinking policy has hurt more than that.