Understanding his- tory in Europe’s ground war

Biden aimed to help low-income college students in debt. Instead, he screwed every taxpayer in the country and gave colleges the greenlight to raise tuition skyhigh.

Dominic Cingoranelli Student Writer

I have no doubt that most of us are already aware of the Biden Administration’s plan to cancel up to $10,000 of federal loan debt, $20,000 for those who accepted Pell grants. This is extremely beneficial for many of us — but is it a good policy?

If we are thinking about long-term implications, it seems clear the detriments will outweigh the benefits. This policy is inflationary at a time when inflation reduction is sorely needed, and it is a regressive transfer of wealth from the lower class to the middle class. Most importantly, it does nothing to countermand the ballooning cost of college attendance, and perhaps enables it to rise further.

This policy is inflationary because the post-pandemic inflation has largely been demand-driven, and loan forgiveness would increase aggregate demand. Excessive inflation hurts everyone — it devalues our savings and incomes, eroding our purchasing power. Inflation is also disproportionately damaging for the lower and middle classes, since the ultra-wealthy typically have much of their net worth tied up in assets, the values of which tend to increase commensurate with inflation.

Regardless of how the loan forgiveness is paid for, it is regressive. If it is financed with loans from the federal reserve, then it will contribute to inflation. Small amounts of inflation can be healthy, but according to the most recent CPI report we are at 8.5%, which is not a small amount. This is just about the worst timing possible for loan forgiveness, which has been estimated to cost upwards of $300 billion (although the White House refuses to give an estimate). If it is paid for by implementing some additional tax, then the new tax will almost certainly impact the lower and middle classes more — and it will certainly impact people who never attended college in the first place, or else loan forgiveness would be pointless in the first place.

In order to understand why this does not curb the rising cost of college tuition, we need to understand why these costs are rising so astronomically in the first place. In short, high demand, constrained supply, easy access to subsidies and incomplete access to information (about the true cost of college education as well as the expected return on investment) are among the most commonly-cited factors. Nullifying loans is great for the people who hold student debt right now, but it only incentivizes universities to further abuse the knowledge that the government will step in and cover whatever they believe students will be unable to pay. But what could be done to help address the college tuition crisis?

To reduce the cost of tuition, thereby eliminating the need for any debt forgiveness in the future, policy focused at reducing demand, increasing supply, limiting — or at least refraining from increasing — access to subsidies and providing better information to potential college-goers would be more appropriate.

Demand can be reduced by encouraging vocational training. Does every IT or cybersecurity professional really need a four-year degree? The National Cybersecurity Center doesn’t seem to think so, which is why they offer low-cost training and certification to help people break into the (rather high-paying) industry without a degree. By encouraging programs like this — through grants or less stringent licensing requirements — we can incentivize people to avoid taking out student loans in the first place. Increasing supply is a simple matter of streamlining the accreditation process to lower barriers to entry.

I understand that many college-goers are dependent upon federal loans, which is why I will not advocate for simply removing them overnight as that would be extremely costly for low-income students in particular, especially in the short term. However, raising the amount that the government is willing to provide or forgive does not line these students’ pockets so much as it lines the pockets of universities.

As for incomplete information, many students do not know how much loan relief they are likely to receive until they are already accepted to college. The Department of Education already has tools to help people more accurately assess how much college will cost them such as the Loan Simulator. Perhaps requiring that this tool is used before filling out the FAFSA form for the first time would provide people with a better idea of how much their degree is going to cost, and a rough estimate of expected salary based on degree would be relatively easy to find as well — all of the data is there.

I understand that none of these suggestions represent a “silver bullet” which could easily solve the problem. But they could help, which is why I’d rather see any one of these suggestions implemented than loan forgiveness. If there is a mechanism to do so, I think I’ll have to put my money where my mouth is and pay off my $12,000 in federal loans the hard way. Because although debt forgiveness is, no doubt, a tremendous relief to millions of people for the time being, it’s also dangerously short-sighted and loaded with negative side effects. We, members of the lucky 30 million on the receiving end, may feel only the benefits for now, but the consequences will come back to bite us — as they will all 330 million Americans.

courtesy whitehouse.gov The debt relief applies to individuals earning less than $125 thousand per year or $250 thousand for married couples.

Understanding the conflict between Russia and Ukraine

Six months after Russian military troops invaded Ukraine, Dylan Moucka examines the history behind the two nations.

Dylan Moucka Student Writer

On February 24, 2022, Russian military forces invaded Ukraine. After six months of fighting, the war has led to the emigration of over 10 million Ukrainians, along with tens of thousands of deaths for those who chose to stay, according to recent estimates. Numerous cities have been destroyed, leaving ruins in the wake of a once vibrant country. At this point, there appears to be little prospect of the war ending anytime soon. In order to understand how this war broke out, and how it has evolved over the past half year, we ought to return to history. key purposes: first of all, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has claimed multiple times that Russia and Ukraine are actually one people, thus allowing him to unite them by whatever means he deems necessary. In this instance, unification is just another word for colonialism. To be clear, there is no historical unity between Russia and Ukraine. This would be akin to saying there is historical unity between the United States and England. Unification may have existed at one point in the past, but a lot has happened since then. The idea that Russia and Ukraine were once united, and thus retain said unity, is in reality a misunderstanding of history that has been appropriated for Putin’s own desires. Putin understands that when Ukraine was previously unified with Russia, it came as a result of the Ukrainian-Soviet War, which quelled Ukrainian independence movements by forcefully adopting Ukraine into the emerging Soviet Union. The colonization of Ukraine lasted for 70 years, until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Therefore, if unity is to be achieved once again, according to Putin, then Russia must colonize Ukraine under the guise they are one people.

The second case for understanding Ukraine and Russia’s history is that it allows the current war to be understood outside of a few major political figures. The courage of Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and the colonial mindset of Vladimir Putin are not to be undermined, but if we only understand this war as a collection of these men’s actions, then we lose track of

“The people who are fighting this war each bear their own responsibilities.”

The majority of Americans have minimal, if any, knowledge of Ukraine or its history. This is a problem. If this war is to be understood, then it has to be placed within its recent historical context. This serves a few the experiences of everyday Ukrainians and Russians. President Putin undeniably wants this war, and President Zelensky has been crucial in maintaining the morale of all Ukrainians, but the actions of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers are not solely indicative of their leaders. The people fighting this war each bear their own responsibilities. If the Ukrainian people did not choose to defend their country, Russia would have quickly won this war. Instead, Ukraine has surprised the world by standing up to one of its biggest militaries and winning the fight against them.

The Russian military presents an important reason for seeing this war beyond just

courtesy wikicommons Zelensky has been critical in rallying Ukranian troops against Russian forces since February 2022.

Putin: Russian soldiers have committed numerous war crimes throughout this conflict. The massacre of Ukrainian civilians at Bucha, for instance, included the execution of prisoners whose hands were tied behind their backs. This, sadly, is only one of many examples. The Russian military have repeatedly subjected Ukrainians to torture and barbaric killings. These acts cannot be simply regarded as a result of Putin’s will. It is evident that plenty of Russian soldiers are more than willing to commit heinous acts of their own volition. The history of the 20th century sheds light on how we might be able to understand this. In her famous account of the Adolf Eichmann trial, Hannah Arendt suggested the Holocaust occurred not because people were evil but because they were banal. To put it another way, the senseless killings perpetrated by the Nazis were a result of men who refused to think for themselves, question their actions and stand up against injustice. The banality of evil, as Arendt coined, has not gone away, and still, the world has not learned from the 20th century.

History is not eternal, nor an uncharted wasteland where the roots of the past have not spread into the present. There are no rules of history that solidify ties between sovereign nations: every nation is constantly evolving and is the product of the will of its people. The Ukrainian people have made it clear that unification with Russia is not something they desire. The last thirty years have proven that: Ukrainian independence in 1991 helped to bring the Soviet Union to an end; the Orange Revolution of 2004 and the 2014 Maidan Revolution further cemented Ukraine’s yearning for freedom from foreign interference and corruption; and finally, their courage to defend their country from an invading Russian military has so far proved successful, albeit in a pyrrhic manner.

The Supreme Court expanded gun rights for citizens to grant equal protection, but who’s responsible for our protection?

Matthew Montanio Student Writer

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court expanded upon the rights for citizens to be capable of owning guns in public, changing the way we as a country, legalistically, view gun rights and gun control. Specifically, restrictions in New York requiring a special permit for concealed carried handguns were overturned. The primary reasoning for the 6-3 ruling was that the existing permits were too restrictive and didn’t grant equal protection for the average citizen trying to purchase a weapon.

There are a few possible ways to answer this question. One answer is to delegate that responsibility primarily to the government. More restrictions toward guns and a harder stance on gun control has sound reasoning. If a person has the intention to cause destruction, then simply take away the tools that can destroy. However, skeptics of this answer point out this proposition would go against the spirit of the Constitution. The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide citizens with equal means to defend themselves from the government if necessary, so giving up those means is not entirely attractive. Furthermore, gun violence doesn’t come from the citizenry alone; there is also a threat of violence from governmental bodies like the police. Distrust in the police leads to vigilantism and violence, among other things: if we can’t trust law enforcement to protect us, then we should take matters into our own hands. This line of thinking perpetuates the need, however real or imagined, for guns.

For those opposed to the presence of guns, there is another attractive solution. Instead of delegating the responsibility of protection onto the government, we should take the responsibilities for ourselves. Law enforcement doesn’t always have the five minutes to arrive at a scene when a shooting occurs and can’t protect everyone at once. Therefore, perhaps it’s better to have people who can respond to threats like this almost instantaneously. There has been video footage of shop owners successfully defending

their establishments from would-be robbers. However, this is not an ideal solution as much as the previous answer, either. Justifications for using guns aren’t always as cut and dry when it comes to self-protection as it is when defending businesses, and by entrusting a larger population with the ability to handle weaponry, the liability becomes that much larger. With allowing more people to access weaponry, there is an even larger chance that somebody will practice poor gun safety and harm others. That’s not even counting the instances where intentional incidents happen involving a gun.

In response to these changing gun laws, on August 30, New York City has designated specific spots like Central Park, churches and theaters as sensitive locations; these locations are spots in the city where guns are prohibited indiscriminately. It is unknown whether this is going to be a national development or not, but the option is left open to individual states if they deem it appropriate. Regardless, this still sparks debate about whether there should even be gun-free zones because it restricts access to guns for citizens. With more restrictions, it will take longer for both a prospective gun owner to get authorization to handle a gun and the police to issue gun permits. Ironically, the extra time could arguably be restrictive anyway, begging the question: Why are there going to be more restrictive measures that ultimately achieve the same result? There is certainly more rigor in the vetting process, sure, but to what extent does it change the process for issuing permits? The Supreme Court decision was intended to make it more accessible for citizens to carry weapons in public, but they may have found another means to prevent owners from getting a gun. The current decisions seem to only perpetuate this argument rather than come against some satisfying solution.

Both a restrictive view and relaxed view towards gun law seem inadequate. Trusting the government alone will not bring change fast enough to save lives in the near future but trusting in ourselves alone opens the door for liability and violence. Instead of viewing government and citizenry as two separate beasts, they need to collectively take responsibility and stop pointing fingers. This means to also spread the issue among multiple solutions, not just a three part approach. Like how a wise investor will diversify their income sources among both shortterm and long-term investments, reform activists should dedicate time to looking at long-term and short-term changes.

For those looking into trying to alleviate violence from guns, investigate supporting local communities’ health centers, childcares and other local facilities. By tackling smaller issues within the community in tandem with larger scale advocacy, change can be achieved on both a short-term and longterm basis.

“... government and citizenry ... need to collectively take responsibility ...”

“Even when employees frantically asked what was going on, the director remained silent.”

With the recent rise in devastating shootings, ranging in locations from schools to concerts, and the growing cases of violent crime, there is no doubt that there is a need for substantial reform to be made, not only in how the US government views guns but in how we as a culture view guns. Unfortunately it seems that we are stuck on a knife’s edge with a very important question: whose responsibility is it to protect citizens from guns?

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of expanding gun rights for U.S. citizens. courtesy wikicommons

Police officer arrested for staging mass shooting at Catholic Charities

A police officer simulated a mass shooting in Omaha Catholic Charities without telling employees it was a drill.

to their safety and security? What if an employee had been armed and shot Channels? While shootings have become a tragically routine element of our lives, instilling paranoia and generating trauma in people would not at all help them to better face a crisis. Instead of building her employees’ confidence and capability to act with a clear head, Bartels threw them into the deep end and just stood by to see if they would swim, even after their desperate pleas for information. Now, employees are being offered mental realize that keeping a clear head and having a contingency plan could save your life. Even though it’s unfortunate that we now live in a world where security systems are a must and identification is required to open a door, it’s important to see the benefits of these tools and understand that even though they can’t prevent someone from having malicious intent, they can certainly save lives. It’s deeply saddening that the people of Omaha Catholic Charities had nothing to protect them, were offered no counsel as to how they could best protect themselves and now have to live with the trauma of what was and what could have been.

Abby Fakhoury Student Writer

This past spring, a man fired blanks through a window at a Catholic Charity in Omaha, Nebraska. The situation devolved from an ordinary day into utter chaos, with one woman jumping off a retaining wall and bloodied bodies scattered across the hallway. An elderly employee feared the shock and fear would induce a heart attack.

Imagine being in this kind of situation, one that we see all too often in headlines and on our television screens. What would you do? Would you even be able to think coherently? How would you feel knowing you might never return home? Then, think how you would react when you found out it was all a drill.

The man who fired the blanks at Omaha Catholic Charities was John Channels, a police officer for the Offutt Air Force Base and CEO of his own security company, Exousia Protection Agency. The director of the charity, Denise Bartels, hired Channels to stage the shooting, which was complete with actors strewn about the floors and smeared with fake blood.

No one knew that the shooting was a

courtesy @ccomaha on Twitter The director of the charity hired Channels to stage the shooting. simulation but Bartels, Channels and his team. Even when employees frantically asked what was going on, the director remained silent. She claims Channels said he would make police aware of the planned drill, which he did not, as law enforcement arrived fully expecting to try and avert a crisis. Channels was arrested and is now being tried for five counts of making terroristic threats. Bartels claims she hired him “based upon recommendations from respected sources, and he clearly misrepresented himself and his qualifications.”

While I’m not entirely sure what qualifications would be deemed adequate in order for someone to stage a mass shooting, other than sadism, that’s beyond the point. The idea that an executive director of any establishment could even think of simulating such a horrific and tragically relevant event at the expense of their employees is sickening. I hesitate to even call the incident a drill, because a drill is when a group of people practice a pre-established contingency plan to avert a crisis. Did Bartels simply want to gauge how her employees would react to an armed invader? There certainly was no predetermined plan that gave the employees any kind of recourse in the face of danger.

Bartels claims that her “intention in holding the training on May 19 was for the safety and security of [her] staff and to prepare for the sad reality that organizations face today.” How does staging a shooting without making your colleagues aware contribute and emotional support services when they could have been offered training to keep themselves safe.

While the issue of gun violence continues to become more dire, it’s important to

John Channels

Channels was previously convicted of sexually assaulting a minor.