Wednesday
October 5th, 2005
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
Opinion
An arguement for base closings
By Jason Satek - Columnist
First, a confession: I have never been down-sized, right-sized, reassigned, transferred, terminated or let go. To those persons directly affected, their family, friends or intimates, you have my sympathy. It is easy for me to advocate actions I no longer would be affected by, and I am very much aware that policies executed on the macro scale have very real consequences on the micro level. Having said my piece, I'll begin my piece.
Seventeen years ago, an important procedure concerning military alignment was enacted by Congress to improve the chances that the right decision, and not the political decision, was carried out when military officials desired to reconfigure the existing armed force deployment. Today that action is bearing contentious fruit.
Elected officials whose states or districts have been adversely affected by the Base Realignment and Closure Commission have sought to deny or repeal the latest slate of changes, as might be expected of individuals elected to stewardship of a constituency, but this very action reinforces the wisdom of the original determination.
In his 1961 farewell address to the nation, President Dwight Eisenhower warned against the “acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex,” further stating that the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” This from a man with former Supreme Allied Commander and sole decision-maker for the D-Day “go ahead” on his resume.
Yet today, the military is big business, with a budget in the hundreds of billions of dollars. There is a political adage that one man's pork project is another man's job, but I believe that idea could find traction here.
By giving away the power to make such decisions, Congress strengthened national security at the possible cost of local commerce.
Military bases are an economic boon. My military experiences are largely from outside the country, but I have seen the businesses that orbit a base, supplying necessary amenities, promoting financial stability along with generating employment for the surrounding areas.
From this view, no official would want a base closure in the name of efficiency or streamlining, but this view is incomplete. The role of a military is to defeat those who threaten its government, and to protect the citizens of its land. Any side effects, whether economic, cultural or other may be welcome, but must come second.
A major force behind this reconfiguration is Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. He is one of the five holdovers, out of a possible 15, from the original cabinet of President George W. Bush. Rumsfeld has had a tempestuous tour of duty, going from looking out of sync with the administration, to becoming the post 9/11 “matinee idol” for his straight-talking press conferences, to being the face of troubling developments in Iraq and Guantanamo and finally, largely submerging his public profile.
It is widely believed that Rumsfeld is aggressively seeking to transform and modernize the military, pursuing this through utilization of outer space, advanced technologies and force redeployments. This is his second time in the job, book-ending himself as youngest and oldest Secretary of Defense, and leaving little to speculate at for personal ambitions; Rather, he is attempting to forge a legacy.
The public at large should support BRAC, recognizing its higher intentions as paramount to any personal contraventions. It is many times more difficult than placing a magnetic ribbon on your car, and all the more needed because of it.
Intelligent design is anything but
By Ron Felten - Columnist
Last October, the Dover , Pa. school board passed (by a six to three margin) a measure that requires its high school teachers to read a statement to all biology students informing them of the supposed “controversy” surrounding the science of evolution. What's the alternative, you ask?
Well, according to the Dover school board, a theory known as intelligent design is good ol' Charlie Darwin's big competition. Intelligent design (which, in my humble opinion, is anything but intelligent) is the idea that all living things, from spiders to your significant other's mother, are too complex to have evolved from lower forms. (Spiders maybe, but her mother!?)
Anyway, a few sane parents, including Steven Stough, who teaches middle school life science (and is, according to The New York Times , a Republican), are now suing the Dover Area School District in an honorable attempt to prevent any more children from being subjected to what is essentially creationism (the teaching of which, by the way, was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1987).
If this is making any sense to you, you're probably asking yourself one important thing: “How do these Adams and Eves think they can win their case when creationism has already been shot down by our country's highest court?”
Good question. Well, for starters, the intelligent design advocates are claiming that ID is different in that it doesn't specifically mention the Bible or any one religion's god. Good try, guys, but let's get real for a second: George W. Bush is supporting the teaching of ID! And, unless you've been living in Canada for the last five years (lucky you), you know very well who Dubya's rooting for.
You may think I'm crossing some line by bringing Bush into this debate, but knowing what his beliefs are can help to shed some light on the motivations behind the push to get intelligent design into our schools. According to Wayne Slater, a reporter for The Dallas Morning News , Bush is someone who believes “the Bible is the absolute inerrant truth.” Now, you don't have to be a rocket scientist (or a creationist, for that matter) to put two and two together here.
Bush believes the story of Genesis to be the literal truth (including the whole “God said, Let there be light: and there was light” bit). Bush also wants intelligent design taught in America 's public schools. Now, are we supposed to believe that the concept of the Christian “God” would never come up in the course of teaching ID? If so, then whose “intelligence” are we really talking about here?
Polite people are primarily arguing against the teaching of intelligent design on two points. First, they say ID isn't a legitimate competing theory of evolution because it is in no way scientific and can't be tested. Second, they say teaching intelligent design, like creationism, would violate the separation between church and state as the theory's based on religious ideas (albeit in a roundabout way).
As I said, that's what polite people are saying. I, on the other hand, prefer to be a bit more straight-forward and honest about the issue. For example, I wasn't even aware that there was a “controversy” surrounding the science of evolution until the intelligent design advocates invented one in order to win attention to their cause.
Further, I don't think it's very responsible of us to use tax dollars to teach our children, the leaders of tomorrow, to believe in trumped-up fairy tales. If parents want their kids to think human beings were placed on earth by the hands of a giant invisible man living on a cloud, they're perfectly free to share that view in their own homes. Schools, however, are a place for science, critical thinking and fact; not story time.
Last, I'd like to address the argument that “all sides of the debate” should be discussed in schools. You know, if a given theory had an iota of proof to support it, that argument might be valid. But intelligent design has nothing to back it up. What's more, it's a theory that can't necessarily be disproved because none of its claims can be tested – they're all hocus-pocus and supernatural.
I will tell you one thing: If this whole intelligent design craze begins to catch on, I'm going to start advocating a new cause – to get schools to teach what I call the “stork theory” in sexual education classes. I will, of course, have to leave out the part about storks evolving 60 million years before humans.
Housing fees are potential cause for concern
With the proposed increase in the cost of student housing for the 2006-2007 school year, The Journal Editorial Board is concerned about the effects of continued housing increases on various aspects of student life and enrollment.
The proposed fee increases include a 7.1 percent increase for four-bedroom townhouses, which would make the cost approximately $440 per month. The proposal also calls for a 4.9 percent increase in Lincoln Residence Hall, a 4 percent increase in four-bedroom campus apartments and increases in all other housing options.
We understand that at times rate increases are needed because of increases in various utilities. For instance, City Water, Light & Power rates will increase 34.1 percent over the next 2 ½ years, according to John Ringle, director of housing and residential life. But, we also see that increasing on-campus housing costs could drive even more students to live off-campus where they may find cheaper residence. Ringle himself acknowledges that “the potential is there.”
For example, one of our Editorial Board members lives in a spacious downtown apartment with two bedrooms, one bathroom, a living room, kitchen, separate dining room, two separate entrances, a garage and a balcony. This individual shares this apartment with one other person. This individual's rent per month is $290 plus approximately $80 for electricity, gas, internet and phone and gas to and from campus for class adds up to about $40 per month.
This individual's total for living off-campus plus the cost of gas equals $410 per month, similar or even cheaper per month than many of the on-campus housing options. Many similar apartment and housing options are available in the Springfield area.
Housing is a major selling point for UIS. It is clean, efficient and nice for students who choose to live on campus. We also understand that it is more convenient, but students may be forced to move off campus if a cost-benefit analysis proves off-campus is a better choice for them.
We worry that this will have negative effects on campus student life. If more students are driven to live off-campus, it is possible that fewer students will be involved in student life activities. Yes, UIS will soon add a fresh batch of general education freshman and sophomores to campus, which will likely increase attendance to student life events, but this and future housing fee increases may drive transfer and other students to live off-campus, thus decreasing their participation.
On paper, it definitely looks like these increases for the 2007 fiscal year are warranted. Ringle said, “We are not a nonprofit organization. We have to generate our operational expenses from the rent we take in.” Regardless of this fact, we are worried about how high future increases will go and the impact it will have on students.
“I'm sensitive to the point that we're reaching a price sensitivity point where we're going to become comparable to what's off-campus as opposed to less then what's off-campus,” Ringle said. “For many years we were very much a low cost provider in the Springfield area but unfortunately that means we also didn't generate a lot of money for repairs and renovations.”
So how far will these increases go in the future? The Journal Editorial Board asks the housing department to think about this and consider it when proposing housing rates for the 2008 fiscal year.
