Author: Editorial Board

Last fall during his campaign, Barack Obama told the American people again and again that he was running for office because of the “fierce urgency of now.” A wide array of deeply rooted problems plagued this nation and, if left unaddressed, promised only to grow and worsen.  Over a year later, that urgency has not faded. Fortunately, neither has the President’s resolve to confront them.

In the wake of worsening poll numbers and Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown’s election to the Senate, Obama faced rampant speculation calling for him to back down on health care, climate and other tough issues. But instead of succumbing to the political winds of the moment, President Obama used the State of the Union address to strengthen his call to pass key legislation while reassuring Americans that every possible measure will be taken to combat unemployment and restore a healthy economy.

The Editorial Board applauds the President for valuing his principles over political expediency and disputes the popular notion that the American people are out of step with the substance of his policies.

Obama’s emphasis on job growth–clearly the centerpiece of his speech–touched all parts of the political spectrum, from correctly pointing out that the stimulus bill saved the jobs of thousands of teachers and firefighters to embracing the Republican proposal to eliminate the capital gains tax. His call to use windfall taxes on Wall Street banks to help community banks combined good politics with good economics. If there were any problems here, they were only in building expectations for an area over which the government has only so much short-term power.

Obama then used the jobs-bill as a springboard to discuss climate policy, making the salient point China and Germany are “making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs” and that, as the Editorial Board has pointed out before, “the nation that leads the clean-energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.” But even in his emphasis on economic benefits, Obama assailed critics head-on, citing the “overwhelming scientific evidence” for climate change.

On health care, too, Obama pushed forward with force, exhorting Congress not to walk away from reform, “not now, not when we are so close.” Indeed, this administration, in the face of a firestorm of opposition and misinformation, has brought this historic legislation closer than ever before. Bill Clinton did not even get his health bill out of its congressional committee.

Which brings us to our larger point: President Obama should push for this bill because it holds reform that Americans do want. While polls show the public opposed to the demonized caricature the bill has become, further analysis shows the popularity of its provisions. A 2007 Gallup poll, taken before the controversy, showed 76 percent of Americans supporting subsidies for low-income families to buy insurance. In a more recent Wall Street Journal poll, 89 percent support requiring coverage of those with pre-existing conditions, with 63 percent calling it an absolute must.

And those who view Scott Brown’s election as a rebuke of Obama’s plan are flat out wrong. Sixty-eight percent of voters in Brown’s election support the Massachusetts health plan, which closely resembles the Obama plan. If anything, they just do not care to pay for a national plan to extend coverage when 98 percent of Massachusetts citizens already have it. Brown won because he ran a great campaign and because his state did not want to bear extra costs for benefits they already receive. Not because Massachusetts citizens oppose Obama’s model of reform.

Similarly, in last month’s Washington Post/ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans said they would support curbing greenhouse gases even if it cost them $10 per month in electricity bills, and 55 percent would even pay $25 per month. In key swing states, including coal regions such as Pennsylvania and West Virginia, 60 percent of voters said they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supported the climate bill.

If these numbers do not sway reluctant senators, we hope President Obama’s words will when he called on Congress to resist the temptation to “do what’s necessary to keep our poll numbers high and get through the next election instead of doing what’s best for the next generation.”

The American people elected their officials to govern, not to run a perpetual political campaign. Getting re-elected does not matter if you are not accomplishing anything in the first place. President Obama just proved his willingness to stare political problems down in the pursuit of progress. It is time for Congress to follow his lead.

This time last year, students would have been sipping on warm espressos, nibbling cookies and reading at tables next to Green Library. Currently, however, the empty building that was once MoonBean’s Coffee is a locked-up eyesore, almost as dreary as the threatening grey winter sky above it. Almost a year ago, the Editorial Board came out on MoonBean’s behalf, arguing that the University was wrong to push out the longtime campus café in favor of a Coupa kiosk. But whether or not it was right for MoonBean’s to be pushed out and replaced, the Board believes Coupa’s ongoing failure to do something with the site amounts to rubbing salt in a wound.

First, the Coupa kiosk was set to open in the summer, then the fall and now March 3 at the earliest. In the meantime, the entire west campus remains bereft of a nearby source of quality coffee. Furthermore, MoonBean’s was a center of west campus activity, as its location by Green and Meyer Libraries made it the perfect place for students to meet and study. Now MoonBean’s is gone, with only its empty kiosk to serve as a dreary reminder of its service to the Stanford community.

The University and Coupa have offered explanations for the delay in getting the new café up and running. Problems have arisen in the construction and acquirement of permits. Meanwhile, the basic function of providing the student body with coffee seems to have been lost in the shuffle. While the full hot menu that Coupa promises would be a treat, it was clear that MoonBean’s made its clients happy with the basic smattering of baked goods, coffee drinks and blended beverages. The continued absence of any replacement for MoonBean’s has truly robbed students of a precious resource and a traditional space at Stanford. Coupa’s inability to provide any clear sense of progress or renovation of the building has disheartened students, and has only made the original removal of MoonBean’s all the more questionable.

Coupa is also losing in this prolonged opening. Not only has revenue been non-existent from the empty space, but the continual disappointment of the student body will only cement the hard feelings expressed when MoonBean’s was squeezed out last spring. MoonBean’s was a part of a Stanford tradition of unique, non-corporate centers for student dining and community. Coupa may not exactly be Starbucks, but the bureaucratic nightmare that now entangles it does nothing to combat its image as the corporate coffee factory that bumped off the quaint local café. If Coupa ever hopes to attract a fraction of the loyalty that MoonBean’s once had, it is going to have to get its act together, and soon.

The Editorial Board believes a coffee delayed is a coffee denied. The once proud campus hub of conversation and coffee is now an empty blot on the landscape outside of Green. The longer Coupa continues to prolong the absence of coffee and community on the west side of campus, the longer students will remember and long for the original café, MoonBean’s, that was pushed out.

In 2005, the United States experienced the worst natural disaster in the country’s history. The devastation that Hurricane Katrina unleashed on the city of New Orleans was not unexpected. The storm developed six days before its landfall on Aug. 29, 2005. Over 1,800 people perished not only as a result of the hurricane and subsequent floods, but also from thirst, exhaustion and violence that followed the hurricane. The media flooded the American public with images of the destruction and the desperation of those victims still stranded in the flooded city. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated to us that there is no way to prevent natural disasters–you can only prepare and respond. Those responsible for responding to Hurricane Katrina failed miserably.

The order to evacuate New Orleans was given only 19 hours before the hurricane struck, not allowing adequate time for residents to leave. Flaws in the city’s emergency response plan were revealed when designated shelters such as the Superdome overflowed with residents. Although there were many logistical and organizational failures that amplified the storm’s impact, the biggest criticism was of the lack of leadership during the emergency response.

This month, a magnitude 7.0 hurricane struck the poorest country in the western hemisphere. To date, over 80,000 have been confirmed dead in Haiti, and that number is expected to exceed 100,000. The damage in Haiti is definitely worse than what happened in New Orleans and the response has, thus far, been far superior. This difference is directly a result of public leadership, and it is a shining example of how the intangible qualities of leadership can be so important in times of crisis.

The Haitian government was crippled by the quake, with most of its ministries and even the presidential palace in ruins. Haiti’s government and infrastructure was in desperate need of assistance, and the response by the United States has been incredible. This is due in large part to the Obama administration’s leadership and ability to empathize with the people of Haiti. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Haiti the day following the quake. In an impassioned speech, President Obama ensured the people of Haiti that they would not be forsaken. The United States has pledged millions of dollars and supplies to Haiti.

In watching the government’s remarkable response to another country’s disaster, it is evident that this current administration has learned much from the failures of its predecessors in emergency response. Former President George W. Bush was on vacation while New Orleans was devastated by Katrina, and he was remarkably soft-spoken during the aftermath. Bush’s failure to adequately respond to the disaster attracted heavy criticism, notably Kanye West’s infamous accusation that “George Bush doesn’t like black people.” In contrast, President Obama and his entire administration have shown a steady and confident poise that has inspired many Americans to give to Haiti, and has hopefully comforted the people of Haiti in this time of disaster.

While the United States’ powerful image as the world leader has dimmed around the globe with this economic recession, the government’s response to this disaster has again proven that the U.S. can be a shining example to the rest of the world for its humanitarianism. While thousands of fans filled the Superdome last night to celebrate the Saint’s first NFC Championship, we cannot lose sight of our not-so-distant past, and the fact that the very same Superdome once overflowed with relocated residents of the city. Katrina taught us a number of lessons about emergency response, and it is encouraging that our nation finally has leaders in place who can manage disasters effectively.

In the past week, “Text ‘Haiti’ to 90999” has become a ubiquitous phrase seen and heard throughout the U.S.–almost as ubiquitous as the news of the catastrophic 7.0 earthquake that struck the small island nation. Mass text messaging, coupled with Twitter and Facebook updates, have helped relief efforts by disseminating info about easy $5 and $10 donations to the Red Cross, Partners in Health and other organizations. Millions of dollars have been raised. Just as was the case of the Iranian election protests this past summer, the global exchange of digital information has connected the world with the plight of the Haitian people, allowing relief to flow more quickly and in greater quantity than ever before.

What perhaps is most surprising about the aid efforts is not the dollar amount that has been raised, but the social significance of these new media forms in starting and perpetuating the movement. Who would expect the United States would find, among the everyday minutiae of second by second tweets and status updates, a heart aching for the people of Haiti? As text messaging slowly erodes verbal communication from English to acronym and status updates elevate the trivial to earthshaking, the response to aid Haiti casts a refreshing light on our media obsession. While the Editorial Board still holds mixed feelings about the long-term social impact of digital media and networking, the disaster of the last week has proven how invaluable these resources may prove in a crisis situation.

Perhaps even more important than the ability to speed donations is the social media’s capacity to reunite the scattered survivors of this calamity; Facebook alone has allowed the Haitian people to locate or search for lost family members in the ruins of Port-au-Prince, to keep family members in other countries updated on their situations and to make the world vividly see the effects of the earthquake on real people. The democratization of media has only begun to become apparent. The summer protests in Iran were experienced by the larger world through the lens of the cell phone camera and Twitter feed. Haiti, in a similar way, has become an epicenter of life-changing use of media that has yet to be seen.

The threat of new media, however, is that these innovative uses of what we consider daily necessities will soon become too commonplace, thus losing their emotional effect and significance. What this tragedy has shown, however, is the power that our mere cell phones can wield when what truly matters–the human heart–is deeply engaged. As new channels of communication open in the future, we must consider the ramifications of our actions in media. Do not let the simplicity of donating or ease of learning the breaking news cause us to forget the human side of the story, or the value of reaching out to others in need. The real miracle that has come out of this tragedy does not lie in the design of a cell phone, but in the hearts of those who have reached out, and continue to reach out, to the people of Haiti.

The current ASSU Executive officers, computer science co-terminal student David Gobaud and Andy Parker ’11, are roughly half-way through their term. Last spring, the Editorial Board gave its full endorsement to the former Gobaud/de la Torre Executive slate, praising its “bountiful platform” and “well-researched and thoughtful proposals.” Now, with the term half-over, it is time to see how well this Executive team has lived up to its campaign platform and proposals.

Overall, the Executive team of Gobaud and Parker–and, until last quarter, Jay de la Torre as well–has been largely successful in delivering on its campaign promises. Gobaud especially has shown an extraordinary level of tenacity and commitment to student leadership, highlighted by his most recent work coordinating with other universities to raise relief funds for Haiti. Throughout its term, this team has led the way on a number of initiatives–some highly regarded and others less noticeable–that have exhibited significant dedication to issues both on campus and in the world at large.

Engaging graduate students, utilizing technology in innovative ways and promoting sustainability have all been, in particular, major accomplishments of the Executive’s first six months in office. In these areas, the Executive officers have completed nearly every bullet point of their platform; open and transparent government was a promise made and strongly delivered upon. Numerous town hall events with key administrators have been organized and broadcast. The ASSU book exchange and events calendar have also served to help democratize information.

The graduate student community has been given considerable attention by this Executive, a marked improvement over previous administrations. The Executive cabinet currently includes numerous graduate students, as well as various positions meant solely to serve the graduate population. A town hall held this past summer brought several hundred constituents together with Provost John Etchemendy and his colleagues to discuss student life. Work has also been done to more actively incorporate the Graduate Student Council into the broader ASSU fabric, from small gestures such as inviting professional school presidents to meetings, to holding joint-council meetings and instituting election reform, which bring professional school voting dates in alignment with those of the greater campus.

Some of the greatest progress made under the current Executive has been in the area of campus sustainability, which during the campaign was a central pillar of their platform. Tresidder and Old Union are moving closer to zero percent waste, while plans are currently in the works for a campus Sustainability Summit in spring quarter. The tray-less dining hall campaign and the green move-in and move-out programs are also commendable initiatives made by this Executive. The ASSU Green Store has also been expanding, selling over 20,000 recyclable cups since its opening. Comparing these initiatives to their sustainability goals during the campaign, the Executive has already made enormous strides in fulfilling their platform promises.

One area of their platform that has been largely left incomplete concerns reforms to the Judicial Affairs process, specifically regarding the procedure for handling sexual assault cases on campus. While Gobaud has actively worked to initiate review and discussion in this area, real reform in Judicial Affairs must be made on the committee level. And at this time, unless major action is made across the different layers of the organization, it is entirely possible–and perhaps likely–that real change in Judicial Affairs will have to wait for another time and a different Executive.

The Executive administration’s commitment to fulfilling the platform of their campaign, together with the officers’ dedication and ability to engage the student community, leaves the Editorial Board feeling very positively about our endorsement of the slate. Though the scandal of Jay de la Torre’s resignation casts an unfortunate blemish on the Executive slate’s term, the officers have nevertheless exhibited a strong ability to live up to their promises, even in the face of controversy. For this, the Editorial Board congratulates the ASSU Executive slate on a successful term half-finished.

See tomorrow’s Daily for the second part of our ASSU Executive Mid-Year Evaluation, in which we will examine the work still left to be done by this administration.

Early next month, Sarah Palin will be the keynote speaker at a political convention in Nashville, Tennessee. But rather than addressing the Republican National Committee or the mainstream Conservative Political Action Conference, whose invitation she rejected, Palin will be headlining the first annual National Tea Party Convention.

The fact that this event even exists might come as a surprise to many–this disparate group of zealous protesters is trying to form an actual political party? Indeed, the convention will pull together various Tea Party and anti-government organizations from across the country, giving them the opportunity to network and coordinate future activities. With the attendance of Palin and U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Marsha Blackburn, the prospect of this loose-knit coalition of ultraconservatives forging a single, structured party seems increasingly plausible.

Moreover, the Tea Party movement has shown broad appeal beyond the fringe of right-wing extremism. While only 28 percent and 35 percent of Americans have a positive view of the Republican and Democratic Parties, respectively, 41 percent have a positive view of the Tea Party movement. The support does not seem constrained by geography either, with ordinarily moderate states such as Maryland and Florida becoming hotbeds of Tea Party action. In fact, a growing number of Floridians have turned against Senate candidate and popular moderate Republican Governor Charlie Crist in favor of a new conservative named Marco Rubio–the first potential Tea Party senator? Even with the well-documented malcontent over the future of America, only recently has the possibility of going in an entirely new direction become so real.

Naturally, liberals and moderate conservatives have scorned this rise. These sentiments are entirely reasonable given the rancorous hatred Tea Party protestors have engaged in; they have called the president everything from a communist to a Nazi to a terrorist, held posters of him as a caricatured African witch doctor and thrown around the n-word with no heed. There is no doubt that some, even many, of their members openly wish harm upon members of the federal government and anyone who supports them. Some are unabashedly racist and filled to the brim with hate.

Yet, 41 percent of Americans have a positive view of these people. And while much of this might be attributable to many voters’ having only a passing knowledge of the Tea Party’s actual nature, that is certainly enough support to garner attention.

The Editorial Board cautions against simply dismissing the Tea Party as a benign assortment of backwoods bigots; reactionary populism of this kind must be observed with caution and alertness.

How best to confront the issue of these Tea Partiers remains an open question. Perhaps largely ignoring their presence on the national stage will be successful in allowing the enthusiasm to fade. Maybe they can be subdued by, as the Board has suggested before, engaging the moderate right in real bipartisan progress that will give some conservatives a better venue for their beliefs. Any course of action has its benefits and its flaws. But what we absolutely must not do is give this movement what it wants. We, the Stanford population, are the highly educated, largely liberal elite that these people love so much to revile. By scoffing at the Tea Party or disparaging its members, we play into the caricature they have created for us and fuel their fire of anger–which, at the moment, represents their only real foundation.

One year ago, Santa Clara County passed a social host ordinance which would fine home and property owners whenever underage drinking occurs on their premises. Stanford was granted a one-year exemption so that the county could consider whether the Stanford campus falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinance. With the court’s decision soon to come, the Editorial Board believes the ordinance’s language should be rewritten to accommodate Stanford’s unique situation, rather than risk possible harm to students by extending the ordinance to campus.

The University was originally exempt from the ordinance because of the campus alcohol policy and its success in preventing harm to students. This policy remains effective across campus. While proponents of the ordinance may cite a slight rise in the number of arrests and Minor-in-Possession offenses in the past year as reason to extend the law to Stanford, these numbers must be tempered with the realization that the police presence on campus has substantially increased in the last year. The University’s policies have proven themselves effective, and thus an additional ordinance on the campus would not be of any significant benefit to the campus population.

The risks, however, posed by the additional ordinance threaten the safe and open environment the University Alcohol Policy has worked thus far to promote. Extending the ordinance would indicate that Santa Clara County law enforcement would be present on campus in addition to the Stanford University police force. While not threatening in any physical sense, student reaction would most likely take the form of pushing drinking underground and behind closed doors. This danger is what was envisioned when the University Alcohol Policy was crafted as an open environment where safety is the utmost concern. The presence of additional law enforcement has the potential to disturb the safe campus atmosphere. The University policy succeeds in that it is, in most cases, non-punitive and more concerned with the health and well-being of the student population. This goal would be lost beneath the more punitive mindset of the county ordinance. If Stanford is going to be fined every time one of its students is caught drinking under age, then financial and legal concerns may drive Stanford back into the days of being an officially dry campus. In such an environment, campus drinking would almost certainly become more secretive, extreme and, above all, dangerous.

This is not a plea to waive the legal severity of underage drinking for Stanford students, but rather, a consideration of what will truly keep the well-being of students at the forefront of alcohol policy. The ordinance itself was not written with Stanford in mind, nor has the past year somehow changed the meaning of the ordinance or the atmosphere of Stanford. Until the University policy is, in some way, failing or endangering the student body, it is best to stay with what is working. Rather than renew the question of Stanford’s exemption annually, the wording of the ordinance should be clarified to exclude the institution of Stanford. In this case, the letter of the law would better match the spirit of the law that did not have Stanford in mind in the first place. The Editorial Board urges representatives of Stanford and the County of Santa Clara to consider these issues before making a decision that will have negative consequences on the safety and health of Stanford students.