TKO 02.29.2012 by Gabriel Rom

the

Kenyon Observer February 29, 2012

Should the Government Be Run Like a Business? Green and Variano|pages 8, 10

Kenyonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine

the

Kenyon Observer February 29, 2012

The Kenyon Observer February 29, 2012

5 From the Editors Cover Stories

alexander variano

Should the Government be Run Like a Business? jon green

10 The Government is Not a Business

Editors-in-Chief Jonathan Green and Gabriel Rom Managing Editor Sarah Kahwash Featured Contributors Ryan Baker, Tommy Brown, Matt Hershey, Richard Pera, Megan Shaw and Alexander Variano

6 Summer Sendoff

Contributors James Neimeister, Jacob Smith, Tess Waggoner and Yoni Wilkenfield

gabriel rom

Layout/Design Wilfred Ahrens

tommy brown

Facing the Reality and Creating Our Own Alternative.

12 A Resurgent Occupy Movement

Moving to Advocate Within the System matt hershey

14 Barack Obama’s 2013 Budget This Year’s Best Comedy megan shaw

16 What is a Person? richard pera

18 Obama’s Defense Cuts Put Americans at Risk

Cover Art and Illustrations by Nick Nazmi

Illustrator Nick Nazmi Faculty Advisor Pamela K. Jensen The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College. The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and lettersto-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to Jon Green (greenj@kenyon.edu) or Gabriel Rom (romg@kenyon.edu).

Quotes Compiled by Ryan Baker

FROM THE EDITORS

Dear Prospective Reader, In bringing you our largest publication since our revival, The Kenyon Observer addresses issues ranging from local to national, constant to current and theoretical to empirical. With a healthy mixture of contributors from different segments of the political spectrum, we hope to provide a healthy dose of conversation material and food for thought as we prepare to head home for Spring Break. Headlining this issue, Jon Green and Alexander Variano discuss whether a government is analogous to a business. The other features inside this issue include Gabriel Rom covering Occupy the SEC, Richard Pera objecting to proposed reductions in defense spending, Megan Shaw explaining what restrictions on abortion rights mean for women’s rights as a whole, Tommy Brown offering students a new perspective on changes to this year’s Summer Sendoff and Matt Hershey critiquing President Obama’s recent budget proposal. Our goal continues to be the presentation of a publication that disagrees with itself without fighting with itself. If we are successful, the commentary provided here will demonstrate the multiple sides to many stories that are often resolved in our own minds. As no consensus can be reached without prior argument, we hope to start some of these conversations on our pages. As always, we invite letters and full-length submissions either in response to content in this issue or on other topics of interest.

Your Editors, Gabriel Rom and Jonathan Green Editors-in-Chief, The Kenyon Observer

“I have made this letter longer than usual because I lack the time to make it shorter.” Blaise Pascal

TOMMY BROWN

Summer Sendoff FACING THE REALITY AND CREATING OUR OWN ALTERNATIVE

Many years ago, Kenyon folklore tells us, a group have been saying that Sendoff is ruined again. The of students were frustrated with an overly despotic College administration has made its fear of liability college administration. Sound familiar? In protest, patently clear with the passage of increasingly resome students pushed a piano out of a Bullseye strictive party policies, and at first glance this year’s window; others lit a tree on fire; others still col- Sendoff plans appear to be no exception. Acceptlected all the wooden furniture around campus, ing the reality that we cannot change the stance of piled it in the South Quad the administration, howevand lit it aflame. For years, er, the student body is nevhe ollege administra it was called Spring Riots. ertheless left with things to From that, however, Sum- tion has made its fear of celebrate, and even room mer Sendoff was born. liability patently clear in to bring back the Sendoff In response to increasing we used to know. tensions between students the passage of increasingly As it made clear in its and the administration of official statement, Social restrictive party policies the College, and in hopes Board views the concert that it would give students and at first glance this to be its primary concern an outlet for their postwhen planning Sendoff. In winter antsiness, Summer year s endoff plans appear years past, we have enjoyed Sendoff was created as a to be no exception such illustrious bands as community celebration for Rebelution, The Hood Inthe coming summer. ternet, RJD2 and Clipse. Every year I have been at Kenyon, Summer Students have rightly complained that they are not Sendoff has changed, and this is year no different. given enough influence in deciding which bands to Social Board has opted to have the concert — and invite, while also being restricted by budgetary contherefore the South Quad merrymaking — on Fri- cerns. The reason Social Board was able to get as day rather than the traditional Saturday. Students well-known and well-received artists as Big Boi and

’ S

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.” Harry Truman

FLICKR CREATIVE COMMONS

Starf***er is because they had an expanded budget. By changing the concert to Friday, Social Board no longer has to worry about providing lunch, the necessary Safety officers’ overtime pay and all the other expenses involved with an 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Saturday Sendoff. Big Boi, as far as I can tell, was much more readily accepted by the student body than Rebelution, but it’s important to remember that one of the only reason Social Board can afford such a big name is because Sendoff will be on Friday. We will enjoy music more students actually like, while also having our traditional festivities on the South Quad. Additionally, more students will actually have the opportunity to come and enjoy the concert, rather than being between naps or out of commission. If Sendoff has been moved to Friday, what, then, of Saturday? Sendoff, to many students, means a war zone of day drinking on the South Quad, a welcoming of summer after a much despised and brutal Midwest winter. Beyond the drinking elements that apply to some students, Sendoff was fundamentally a final community celebration of the year, at a time before we have to hole up in the library to study for finals. It presents one last free-for-all before we all go our separate ways for the summer. The Social Board-sponsored concert fails to take advantage of a full day event, basking in the sun with all of your friends.

As such, though, I think Saturday presents an excellent opportunity for all Greek organizations to step up. The school has made it clear that it will not oversee the typical South Quad anarchy we have come to enjoy — a sad reality that we all must come to accept — and as a Greek I think this is a great opportunity for our organizations to fill the void. As organizations, we are well versed on the party policy and how to work with the administration of the school. While this would be too large of an endeavor for any single organization to undertake, if we pool our resources and work together this is something that could actually happen. We would be able to enjoy a great concert organized by Social Board the night before, while framing the next day’s event in our own eye. As students, especially those of us that have enjoyed a more “pure” Sendoff, it is easy to complain about what we are missing. We must accept the reality of the administration’s stance on Sendoff and realize it won’t be changing its position anytime soon. Greek organizations are in a unique position on campus to make this a reality and need to take this challenge head-on. If we work together we can have our cake and eat it too: enjoy a great Friday concert by bands we’ve actually heard of while taking pride in organizing our own day of fun on Saturday. Rather than constricting Sendoff to Friday, we should revel in this opportunity. TKO

“O Lord, help me to be pure, but not yet.” Saint Augustine

ALEXANDER VARIANO

Should the Government be Run Like a Business? A DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT IS ESSENTIAL. BUT DO NOT MISTAKE THE SOURCE OF OUR PROSPERITY.

“Getting rich requires serving a mass market, cation, health care and retirement coincide with govwhich means the rest of us can buy what the rich ernment domination of these areas? In education, buy,” Andy Kessler wrote recently in the Wall Street test scores are the same today as they were in 1970, Journal (“The Rise of Consumption Equality,” despite doubling spending per pupil in real terms Jan. 3), arguing that “the and halving class size in wealthy bust their tail … profound advancements in the interim. Personal medibut at the end of the day cal expenditures continue variety and af they can’t enjoy much that quality to rise, despite (or perhaps the middle class doesn’t fordability of personal because of) ostensibly limitalso enjoy.” In other words, less spending on Medicaid entry level and Medicare. And retirees profound advances in the electronics quality, variety and afford- automobiles and medical with a well-endowed 401(k) ability of personal electronplan can enter their golden have democ ics, entry-level automobiles innovation years while seniors relying and medical innovation, to mainly on Social Security name a few categories, have ratized the consumption of benefits put their faith in the democratized the consump- goods and services actuarial competence of the tion of goods and services. program’s administrators. In response, a letter to the The deplorable condition editor asked about education, health care and retire- of education, health care and retirement is a predictment, three prominent areas where such freedoms are able and inexorable result of entrusting the state with scant for the middle class despite their fundamental more funding and power to exert more control over importance to a strong society. our private lives. Despite whatever benevolent intenIs it any surprise that bleak opportunities in edu- tions underpin an expansionary proposal, the actual

, , ...

“The chief business of the American people is business.” Calvin Coolidge

outcomes most always fall short of its forecasted expectations, and in reality the ultimate solution is often worse than the original problem it sought to address. No personal flaw of noble-minded policy proponents explains this phenomenon. Rather, culpability lies with the belief that the state can impose a superior outcome to the natural equilibrium of an unimpeded market. Economic intervention relies on the governing body to correctly identify both the true nature of a policy concern and the best method to address it. But the state most always implements policy that does not satisfy these conditions because a legally-sanctioned monopoly on violence and coercion need not yield to popular opinion or factual data. In contrast, a free market enriches participants with superior quality, quantity, variety and availability of goods and services because it enables human beings to enter voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions. Government programs forcibly impose the political class’ will on the ordinary worker and consumer, while the market, far from a singular inalterable resolution, reflects the collective indiscriminate agreements made between many individual buyers and sellers. The miracles of the market do not simply abound: they define the best parts of our everyday lives. After Steve Jobs gave us the iPad, Amazon offered us the Kindle at a fraction of the price; blissfully unregulated (for now) food trucks provide some of the best cuisine in American cities; more traveling passengers and lower per-mile costs followed airline deregulation in the 1970s; and the principles of free expression enshrined in the First Amendment engendered the celebrated plurality of contemporary American life, from religion to fashion to news media, and all points in between. A market is not just a stock exchange, or even a farmer’s market: autonomous individuals free to choose among competing alternatives create a prosperous market. Government functions are far less welfare-enhancing precisely because competing alternatives are virtually absent. The typical Department of Motor Vehicles is rage-inducing and the Postal Service is a perennial stalwart for managerial and financial ineptitude because the former monopolizes that particular market and the latter receives unconditional public funding. Consumption substitution rewards innovative producers and signals the need for change at lackluster ones. School vouchers, a promising solution to

the education crisis, empower parents to select their child’s school based on value rather than geographic location. Empirical data demonstrates that inner-city students — overwhelmingly poor minorities — enrolled in pilot charter programs are finally catching

S chool

choice poignantly

affirms the market ’ s superi ority to a government pro gram as a tool for social welfare . up to their well-heeled suburban peers. The nascent school choice movement is a welcome challenge to state-controlled education: if public officials truly believe that educated youths are the economic future, why confine and condemn them to mediocre public schools? School choice poignantly affirms the market’s superiority to a government program as a tool for social welfare. To be clear, does not suggest that the state should be wholesale replaced by market devices. Milton Friedman famously highlighted the critical distinction between political rights and economic rights, emphasizing that the latter is a necessary — though not sufficient — prerequisite for individual freedom. The legal system, police department and armed forces are desirable public functions essential to the fluid and fair operation of the market. But a government that expands beyond a limited framework threatens the individual liberty that has produced the best amenities, activities and aspirations of the twenty-first century. Disagreements over the role of governments and markets speak more to establishing an optimal mix of the two rather than substituting a business template for a democratic framework as a means of organizing society. Obviously, totalitarian states marginalize the individuals they intend to serve and lawless anarchies expose individuals to coercion, but nobody advocates either extreme. Instead, progressive optimists and libertarian skeptics alike should acknowledge that the state and the market are fundamentally different institutions, and examine the consequent policy implications. That said, the record of private triumphs and public failures in contemporary America is a compelling indicator of the direction of imbalance. TKO

“A liberal is a man who is willing to spend somebody else’s money.” Carter Glass

JON GREEN

The Government is Not a Business LOOKING PAST PROFITS FOR A HEALTHY SOCIETY “The federal government is in financial disarray. It spends more than it makes and its investments are not based on sound financial principles.” — Kelly Campbell, “5 Reasons the Government Should Be Run Like A Business,” U.S. News Proposals to treat our government like a business in which we choose to invest and from which we expect to realize short-term gain has led to calls for a balanced budget amendment, privatization or abolition of the social safety net and low, flat taxes because businesses need only focus on profit and efficiency. If society really was just a business transaction between two otherwise unaffiliated parties acting in their immediate self-interest, then such proposals would have merit: we could “become more efficient” by downsizing and doing less with much less. But government is far more than a business transaction: it provides the means for private prosperity, and also the protections for social capital and a well-functioning society, which do not always maximize financial gains in the short term. In the state of nature, it is advantageous to engage in reciprocal action for protection and long-

term gain. Continued reciprocity generates social capital, the willingness put long-term gain ahead of short-term interest. But reciprocal action is vulnerable to cheating; I can choose not to return a favor and reap benefits at little to no immediate cost. In the business community, cheating (failing to honor a contract, for example) is either rewarded by being ignored or punished by a refusal to engage in future reciprocal action. This form of punishment does not work in a society because one cannot just walk away from unreturned favors. Members of a society are constantly forced into collective situations and are unable to choose whether or not to buy the product offered by the state without leaving it altogether. Governments are constructed to set up incentives and constraints around larger-scale reciprocal actions to prevent failure to reciprocate. For example, if the Internal Revenue Service was

“Blessed is he who expects nothing, for he shall never be disappointed.” Alexander Pope

abolished and taxes became optional next April, how many people would pay? Disaster would ensue when our society would be unable to maintain its military, schools, highway construction and other

W hile all of society is obvi ously better off when taxes are collected , few members pay their dues willingly . basic governmental functions. While all of society is obviously better off when taxes are collected, few members pay their dues willingly. Therefore, government is required to impose collective action. Attacks on the social safety net and other proposals to curtail large-scale reciprocal actions are based on a perverse individualism that discourages the critical interdependence that this nation is built upon. As a society, we have decided that although it may cost money, it is in our long-term interest to provide all of our citizens with a basic floor of economic well-being. We decided that every citizen deserves a shot at a successful career, so we established public school systems. We found it unacceptable that half of senior citizens lacked health care and a third lived in poverty, so we established Medicare. Abolishing these social establishments may help a hypothetical America, Inc. realize shortrun financial gain, but the social costs outweigh the financial benefits. This is evidenced by the strong positive correlation between a country’s engagement in large-scale collective action and their ranking in the United Nations’ Human Development Index. There is more to a nation than turning a profit: helping those who cannot help themselves, even at a financial loss, is a moral responsibility and a measure of a country’s worth. “Businessment” ideology invites statements such as, “I shouldn’t have to pay property taxes to fund

public schools if my child goes to private school,” “those old people don’t need Medicare” and “if it doesn’t directly affect me, why should I bother?” This mentality ostracizes the rest of society, establishes boundaries around the individual rather than the community and rejects the idea that a society’s success depends on cooperation with others. It fails to recognize that an educated workforce is in everyone’s financial and moral interest, as is a reciprocal responsibility to take care of those who took care of us. If we are going to accept this ideology and become a nation of prosperity that does not help the poor, then we will have to acknowledge that we are too cold, too selfish and too isolated to continue to be considered a first-world country. If you want an organization that makes decisions based purely on market fundamentals and “sound financial principles,” I invite you to open an eTrade account. If you are so bound to your individual liberties that you would reject your responsibilities

A merican

government

its core is not a for - profit enterprise .

is the arbiter

of the large - scale social engagement that makes us a first - world country . to your fellow citizens, then I invite you to live in a cave with your head in the proverbial sand and avoid the possibility of finding yourself in a collective engagement. If you wish to do so, however, you will have to use roads funded by your neighbors’ taxes to get there. American government, at its core, is not a for-profit enterprise. It is the arbiter of the large-scale social engagement that makes us a firstworld country. TKO

“Governments that buy too heavily into the idea that customers are a higher form of life than citizens risk losing the participation of taxpayers as partners.” — Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “Consumer Disorientation,” Governing

“I’d rather live with a good question than a bad answer.” Aryeh Frimer

GABRIEL ROM

A Resurgent Occupy Movement MOVING TO ADVOCATE WITHIN THE SYSTEM Many critics of the Occupy Wall Street movement have pointed out that their demands were so diffuse and their leadership structure so horizontal that they would only have a nominal affect on the political establishment. These criticisms are legitimate, but through a new organization called Occupy the Securities and Exchange Commission, OWS is beginning to circumvent traditional channels used to implement policy and is in the process carving out new routes of communication between the public and their elected officials. Because the Occupy movement is so heterogeneous, local subfields of Occupy with their own distinct characteristics have emerged. Occupy Oakland has taken the most militaristic stance while other movements are emphatically non-violent. The New York Assembly analyzes policy, and recently released “Occupy The SEC,” a 325-page response to over 200 questions about financial regulations asked by the SEC, Federal Depository Insurance Corporation and other government agencies. These questions are technically open to the public, but because of their arcane nature they are usually only answered by the lobbyists and corporations affected by the legislation. Occupy the SEC’s web page encourages citizens to read multiple congressional reports and third party descriptions of how the Volcker Rule (part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform Bill) will be implemented. In their response Occupy the SEC lays out a complex legal argument in support of the Volcker rule, as well as advocating for specific regulatory changes within the financial industry. Comprised of both disillu-

sioned former financial sector employees and concerned citizens with no direct connection to Wall Street, Occupy the SEC speaks for public interest in direct competition with corporate interest. Occupy the SEC is engaging with the political process more directly than similar-minded protest movements, not with drum circles or pithy placards but rather legitimate commentary on complex policy. If OWS combines this attitude with their discourse of the 99 percent versus the 1 percent, The movement could become a potent mix of populism and pragmatism. Unlike the Tea Party, OWS has not officially endorsed any political candidates or organized political funding committees, and is generally perceived as uninterested in engaging with the political process in general. As Professor Villegas told the Observer two weeks ago, “So far there haven’t been any people who are willing to take up the mantle of the 99 percent label.” But if initiatives like Occupy the SEC continue to grow, these criticisms may miss the point because the OWS approach to policy implementation is different but no less serious than conventional methods. OWS is evolving now that they have established themselves in American cultural and political discourse, and are making an effort at actual policy implementation. They still have a long way to go—one attempt at manipulating policy through traditional public comment is not a conclusive victory—but these developments might indicate more future political influence than its detractors would have you believe. TKO

“If you want truly to understand something, try to change it.” Kurt Lewin

MATT HERSHEY

Barack Obama’s 2013 Budget THIS YEAR’S BEST COMEDY

Nowadays, you do not have to go to the movies to years of his administration, federal spending has get a good laugh. All you have to do is read President reached more than 24 percent of gross domestic Obama’s latest budget proposal, which promises a product, the highest level of spending since 1946. good laugh. For those nostalgic for the Bush years, The White House estimates that Obama’s budget Obama will have incredibly outspent his predecessor proposals will reduce the deficit by 1.1 trillion dolby March 15, 2012. Bush got grief for spending like a lars, a mere 2.9 trillion dollars less than the savings child in a candy store, but Obama has been spending forecasted under the bipartisan deficit commission’s like that child with a really proposal. The federal govbad meth habit. ernment plans on spending ush got grief for spend No president has ever a record 46 trillion dollars run budget deficits exceed- ing like a child in a candy over the next decade — that ing a trillion dollars in each is the next decade, not cenbama has been tury. This spending is not of four consecutive years. store but George W. Bush only ac- spending like a child with a all money borrowed from complished this feat twice. China, either. The amount It took 231 years for Amer- really bad meth habit of debt that is publicly held ica to accumulate 10 trillion and which the government dollars in debt; it only took Obama four years to must pay back will rise from 74 percent to 77 perspend half as much. If war spending is decreasing cent of GDP. and it has been years since the American ReinvestWhat could possibly account for these skyrockment and Recovery Act, why are federal deficits pro- eting costs? Put simply, a combination of Obama’s jected to grow years into the future? unwillingness to effectively reform entitlements. Obama’s budget reflects a blatant lack of fiscal Obama was elected in 2008 to change beltway poliresponsibility, but some budgetary accomplishments tics but his budget confirms that he is simply a poare nonetheless worth highlighting. In the first four litical animal. His budget offers no attempt to re-

“Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power.” Aldous Huxley

form Medicaid, which some believe will go bankrupt by the end of his second term. Far from resolving future solvency issues for Medicare and Medicaid, Obama’s health care reform legislation will increase the number of federal program dependents to reduce the number of uninsured Americans. As opposed to to streamlining our growing welfare state, The Affordable Care Act will also create a new entitlement program for middle class Americans who earn incomes up to four times the poverty level.

H is

budget offers no at -

tempt to reform

M edicaid ,

which some beleive will go bankrupt by the end of his second term . Obama has also adamantly rejected even considering viable reform options such as Paul Ryan’s voucher system on the grounds that they are “un-American.” Even Obama’s own Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner concedes that the president will leave us with unsustainable welfare programs. Does it get funnier—or gloomier—than that? President Obama has time and again promised budget cuts if only obstructive Republicans in Congress would get out of the way. But the difference between the platitudes and realities of the administration’s fiscal proposals are profound. Even most liberals would laugh at the absurdity of what constitutes a budget cut. For example, Obama counts the 781 billion dollars that would have been spent occupying Iraq and Afghanistan over the next ten years as a budget cut. Why not consider how many trillions of dollars it would have cost to continuously occupy every other country we have fought and the trillions of dollars in savings that would result from not doing so? This sort of logic will not solve the budget crisis. Joke as he may, President Obama’s illogical tax policy is no laughing matter. It relies largely on higher taxes on the rich that cannot possibly reduce a deficit caused by runaway spending. But the budget does not mention how precisely to implement these

taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Obama touts the Buffett Rule on camera, but fails to mention it at all in the budget. The budget does include a number of sizeable tax increases, raising the long-term capital gains tax from 15 percent to 20 percent, treating dividends as ordinary income for taxpayers making over 200,000 dollars and allowing the estate tax to revert to 45 percent, up from 35 percent under existing legislation. Rather than reform a complicated and top-heavy tax structure, Obama is pursuing policies that actively discourage investment. America competes with foreign countries for capital, and contrary to popular belief in the White House, increasing tax rates on risk-taking investors does not attract investment. Funnily enough, President Obama has received more political contributions from Wall Street firms and executives than all of the Republican presidential hopefuls combined. Could this be attributed to the fact that most of his tax increases will preserve the current loopholes that allow many of these people to significantly reduce their tax burdens? By simply raising taxes, Obama can appear like he is cracking down on “the one percent” while doing the exact opposite.

B y simply O bama can

raising

taxes ,

appear like he is

cracking down on ‘ the one percent ’

while

doing

the

exact opposite . Meanwhile, Obama’s hard-fought payroll tax holiday will expire in ten months. The president’s rhetoric about rebuilding the working class and asking more of well-to-do Americans contradicts his own budget that preserves special privilege for the financial elite and raises taxes on ordinary workers. Even if these tax increases yielded all the new revenue the administration promises, the 2013 deficit will still be 901 billion dollars, or about the size of annual deficits for the rest of the decade. Obama’s limitless propensity to spend money is a laughable idea of “change you can believe in.” TKO

“A clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it.” Albert Einstein

MEGAN SHAW

What is a Person? Over the past few weeks, women’s reproductive and health rights in the United States have been under a magnifying glass. From anti-abortion bills being pushed through the Virginia and Oklahoma Congresses to the Susan G. Komen for the Cure organization defunding (and then refunding) Planned Parenthood to the controversy over the federal mandate for all insurance providers to cover contraceptives, women’s bodies are the subject of discussion in a manner reminiscent of the Roe v. Wade era. Practically since the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established that the right to privacy includes women seeking abortions and defended the legality of abortion under the Constitution, some states have taken it upon themselves to make access to abortion more difficult to attain. Such barriers include provisions like waiting periods or mandatory counseling. Some provisions create even larger obstacles. Currently, two so-called “personhood bills” are passing through the Congresses of Virginia and Oklahoma. In Virginia, the summary as introduced to the House for HB 1 states that the bill “provides that unborn children at every stage of development enjoy all the rights, privileges, and immunities available to other persons, citizens, and residents of the

Commonwealth […].” HB 1 passed the Virginia House on Feb. 14 but fortunately was put on hold in the Senate, although the Senate could return to it as soon as next year. In Oklahoma, the Senate also recently passed a similar bill, SB 1433, on the Feb. 15, which would similarly define life as beginning at conception. It is expected to pass in the House. These “personhood” amendments give absolutely no thought to the rights of the women or female-bodied people who would actually have to carry a child to term. They do not take into account the health risks of pregnancy, the mental or emotional trauma that is associated with carrying an unwanted fetus to term, the physical pain of childbirth or the opportunity for job advancement or education. These bills do not even provide room for abortion in cases of incest, rape or situations in which a pregnant woman’s life is at risk. They essentially say that a fertilized egg is more of a person than a pregnant woman. And for those of us who don’t live in Virginia or Oklahoma? Just this past summer, the Ohio House of Representatives voted on HB 125, otherwise known as the “heartbeat” bill, which would ban abortions after the heartbeat of a fetus could be detected — as early as six weeks after conception. Many women, especially those who have irregular

“What lies in our power to do, lies in our power not to do.” Aristotle

menstrual cycles, may not even discover that they are pregnant by the six-week mark. But the Ohio House voted in favor and the bill may head to the Senate at any time. The struggle for women to retain legal rights over their bodies has not ended just because Roe v. Wade is in place. The Virginia House also recently passed HB 462, a bill that would require women in Virginia to first undergo a trans-vaginal ultrasound before getting an abortion. This procedure, which like all ultrasounds is not medically necessary for most women seeking an abortion and would add to the cost of the procedure, is incredibly invasive. The National Institute of Health describes how, when a woman gets a trans-vaginal ultrasound, “A hand-held probe is inserted directly into the vagina. The probe is moved within the vaginal cavity to scan the pelvic structures, while ultrasound pictures are viewed on a monitor.” This means that every woman in the state of Virginia who wanted to get a legal abortion would be forced to undergo a medically unnecessary procedure in which she is vaginally penetrated without a choice. In fact, since the FBI recently updated it’s definition of rape to “the penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina […] with any body part or object […] without the consent of the victim,” many pro-choice advocates called this bill “state-mandated rape.” Luckily, in response to this controversy, Virginia Governor McDonnell called for some amendments to be made. The bill would still require an ultrasound, but not specifically a trans-vaginal one. The reality, however, is that in many early-stage abortions when the fetus is still very small, a trans-vaginal ultrasound would be the only type that could detect the fetus and would still be required of many women, should this ultrasound bill pass. While this amendment is still a small victory for pro-choice advocates, many do not realize that many of these ultrasound bills are in effect in other states. In Texas, for example, a law was just recently enacted requiring women to have a sonogram 24 hours before getting an abortion. During this procedure, the woman is required to listen to the fetus’ heartbeat aloud, and hear a description of the fetus in great detail. While it is not directly written in the law, a trans-vaginal ultrasound is generally required in order to obtain such an in-depth description.

These abortion requirements are spreading rapidly over the country for the sole purpose of dissuading women from having abortions by making them physically or emotionally uncomfortable. This is especially disconcerting given that these are largely the same people who oppose the distribution of contraceptives to all women under President Obama’s health care plan. Such rhetoric and action begs the question: what message is being sent? What does it mean when Foster Friess, one of GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum’s biggest donors, argues against distributing birth control by saying, “back in my days, they used Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and it wasn’t that costly”? Or when organizations like Susan G. Komen for the Cure pull funding for potentially life-saving breast cancer treatments at Planned Parenthood because of pressure from outside parties? It means that the issue here goes beyond arguments of religious freedom or political differences. The issue is the way that women are perceived in this country and the way society allows them to be perceived. We treat women with unwanted pregnancies as children who ought to be punished. We force a woman to undergo counseling before getting an abortion, implying she cannot have possibly thought it through well enough beforehand. We do not want to provide women with birth control out of fear for encouraging promiscuity (because apparently fear of pregnancy is the only reason a woman wouldn’t have sex). No one would ever refuse to give chemotherapy to a smoker with lung cancer, even though it is common knowledge that smoking can lead to cancer, but if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, some people legitimately use the “she should have known better” excuse as an argument against providing abortion services. We need to reevaluate the women are treated in this country. We need to stop viewing them as egg incubators or baby machines and start viewing them as autonomous people who deserve to make decisions about their own bodies. Because the message women receive when all-male panels or religious institutions make such decisions is that our choices and opinions don’t matter. And in a country founded on a principle of “liberty,” that is unacceptable.TKO

“Do not confuse motion and progress.” Alfred A. Montapert

RICHARD PERA

Obama’s Defense Cuts Put Americans At Risk Despite the killing of Osama bin Laden, it is na- rifices must be made to overcome trillions of dollars ïve to believe America is safer now than on 9/11; of national debt, but should our national security be terrorism is still alive and well. Russia continues the first thing we risk? Supporters of Obama’s plan to reinvent itself as a global military power and its are quick to point out that American defense expenprime minister recently pledged the largest military ditures are over 45 percent of global defense spendincrease since the end of the ing and eight times more Cold War. China’s meteoric than each of our greatest ithout a doubt sacrifices competitors, Russia and rise to economic superpower has led to dramatic expansion must be made to overcome China. U.S. defense spendof its military. The new reing, however, amounts to gime in North Korea remains trillions of dollars of na just 14 percent of the total as unpredictable and perplexbudget, less than a third tional debt but should our of entitlement programs. ing as before. In the wake of the “Arab Spring” and forth- national security be the To put things in perspeccoming American withdrawal tive, annual spending on from Iraq and Afghanistan, first thing we risk entitlements (social secuthe Middle East is less stable rity, healthcare, welfare) than it was a decade ago. On top of all this, Iran, comprises 150 percent of the entire world’s military will likely possess a nuclear weapon soon. So, does it spending (2.11 trillion dollars), including our own. make sense for the Obama administration to pursue An equal percentage of cuts to entitlement spending major cuts to the U.S. military? (as opposed to defense) would result in three times In early February, President Obama called for mil- the savings. itary cuts far deeper than those already planned (if The escape route from our piling national debt the President took no action, the Defense Depart- should not go through our military. That said, in light ment was already projected to shrink by 487 billion of withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, it seems dollars over the next ten years). Without a doubt, sac- logical to cut some Army and Marine Corps end

“2 is not equal to 3, not even for large values of 2.” Grabel’s Law

strength — going back to pre-9/11 levels is ill-advised. After all, can we really say for sure that we will never again deploy major ground forces in combat? Personnel cuts should not lead to significant base closings. Military bases inside the U.S. provide critical economic security (i.e., jobs) for communities across the country. The U.S. bases overseas provide enormous flexibility in time of crisis, affirm our commitment to allies, and keep enemies in check. The most dangerous defense cut the Obama administration can make is to the fleet. The U.S. Navy is the President’s most effective tool of national power projection. Seventy percent of the world’s surface is ocean, allowing the fleet to extend U.S power and influence to every corner of the globe. Eighty percent of the world’s population lives within 100 miles of the coast, and most importantly, 90 percent of all trade travels by maritime conveyance. Trade is what has allowed the U.S. to gain economic hegemony, and trade is key to growing our economy out from beneath massive debt. A large and technologically superior fleet is necessary to ensure a vibrant U.S. economy. Constantly deployed, the fleet can project power at a moment’s notice. Just recently, President Obama directed two aircraft carriers to the Arabian Gulf despite Iranian threats of retaliation. When a South Korean frigate was sunk and North Korea shelled the South last year, we scrambled our forward deployed carrier strike group straight to the Korean peninsula. Naval exercises throughout the Pacific, including off Taiwan, are more than mere battle simulations; they demonstrate to China that the U.S. will remain the Pacific power. The Obama Administration used naval power effectively during Operation Odyssey Dawn, when American forces led the ousting of Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi. The U.S. was able to conduct operations successfully from the Mediterranean Sea. This was only possible through naval power and overseas bases, (including U.S. bases in Italy and Greece) from which allied forces staged their operations. Of note, U.S. surface ships and submarines fired over 100 Tomahawk cruise missiles at Libyan targets. In 1987, the United States Navy boasted 594 ships, just six shy of President Reagan’s ‘600-ship’ Cold War-era goal. In 2007, that total fell to 278, the lowest amount since the nineteenth century. In his 2012

budget announcement, the President spoke of shifting the national security focus from Europe and the Middle East to the Pacific. The distance between Los Angeles and Shanghai is 6,844 miles. An ocean so vast can only be patrolled by an extensive naval force — precisely the one Obama is crippling with budget cuts. How can this new strategy succeed if we do not adequately resource the Navy? Technology has developed to a point at which the capabilities of different types of 1980’s vessels can be condensed into one modern warship. It is true that many of our current ships are capable of multi-role combat operations; unfortunately, each ship is far more expensive than before, but I would argue that shipbuilding is worth every penny. First, ships are an effective instrument of power and political leverage over a 40-year lifespan. Second, ship operations and maintenance are less costly than ever before; technology and automation has cut on-board manpower, meaning fewer paychecks and repair bills. Third, contracting ship construction to private companies not only ensures the most sophisticated military technology, but also provides jobs that pay a living wage. Local economies in Connecticut, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi and Virginia rely heavily on shipbuilding. One final argument in favor of securing our military spending is humanitarian. Our armed forces are the first on-scene after natural disasters strike anywhere on Earth. Not often discussed, by some standards, the Department of Defense is the largest and most effective humanitarian assistance organization in the world. For example, the fleet provided immediate and vital assistance to individuals after the 2004 Asian tsunami, 2005 Hurricane Katrina, 2010 Haitian earthquake and 2011 Japanese earthquake/ tsunami. Additionally, the military conducts scheduled (i.e., non-emergency) missions with foreign partners to provide medical assistance and food around the world. Besides the peacetime mission of deterrence, military humanitarian missions project a positive U.S. image around the world. It is this reality that inspired the motto of the U.S. Sixth Fleet: “Power for Peace.” It is imperative that defense of our homeland and allies not be risked. With these cuts to the military, the Obama administration has over-reached in a hasty attempt to cut the overall budget. The risk is simply too great, and every American will be in jeopardy. TKO

“Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised.” Marilyn Manson

RYAN BAKER

Summer Sendoff Corrupted

We depart from the traditional levity associated with this page to cover an important new crisis facing the Kenyon College student: the alteration of the beloved Kenyon tradition of Sendoff. Social Board has decided that indie/electronica phenoms Strfkr will open for rapper Big Boi â&#x20AC;&#x201D; on a Friday night. This change in scheduling is the most radical of changes that could possibly face the event, and will lead to more restrictions placed on student behavior over the course of the following day. Many have taken this as a slap in the face to what is a time-honored tradition here at Kenyon. And in a way, it is; to change the concert from the afternoon on Saturday to a night show on Friday is a bold move, and sure to change the lives of many. As for the new rules and restrictions on students, many students question why the Administration feels the need to follow Ohio state law if it conflicts with their desire to drink outside all day. Students, understandably, fear that their rights to party in a manner that Sendoff demands are being threatened. After all, what other day of the year can students drink prodigiously and otherwise be merry? Other than, of course, every Wednesday, Friday and Saturday (and if youâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;re feeling especially whimsical, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and/or Thursday as well). In the end, the real tragedy here is not that the school is taking away an excuse for students to enjoy themselves in the manner that they see fit; the tragedy is in those students who need the excuse in the first place.