Anthony Ghosn – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com Breaking news from the Farm since 1892 Tue, 20 May 2014 09:05:49 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.3 https://stanforddaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/cropped-DailyIcon-CardinalRed.png?w=32 Anthony Ghosn – The Stanford Daily https://stanforddaily.com 32 32 204779320 GOP 2016: Blue state, blue state https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/20/gop-2016-blue-state-blue-state/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/20/gop-2016-blue-state-blue-state/#comments Tue, 20 May 2014 09:05:49 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1085773 Democrats have successfully branded conservative candidates as being special interest representatives with antiquated social policies. Consider the fact that during the 2012 election, Republican pundits all believed that Romney was going to win. It may be far in the future but barring any extreme disaster in the Democratic Party that would makes its general election candidate unpalatable to the American people, I give the 2016 race to the Democrats by a large electoral college majority. America’s leading conservative party is just not sufficiently adaptive or nimble enough to navigate the enormous challenges it faces in competing for the White House.

The post GOP 2016: Blue state, blue state appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
The prospects for a Republican White House in 2016 are slim, to say the least. The GOP would have to overcome numerous and complex challenges in order to win the necessary 270 Electoral College votes come Election Day. Not only do the Republicans face problems organizing their own party and popular base, but they are also competing against the ultra-organized Democratic Party, which already has very promising prospects for 2016.

The main challenge that the Republicans will face in 2016 is a demographic one. Ethnically white individuals constitute 89 percent of the party base, which does not bode well for the future. During the last Republican presidential win, in 2004, white Americans constituted approximately 67 percent of the population. By 2020 that number will be closer to 60 percent. This is especially concerning to Republican hopefuls because in the 2012 elections, Republicans only captured 20 percent of non-white voters. If the Republicans are unable to shift their message to capture the hopes of non-white Americans, they are at risk of being in serious trouble in the coming presidential election.

The demographic reality is exacerbated by the way that the Electoral College works in this nation. Nearly all states apportion all of their Electoral College votes to the majority winner of the state election, as opposed to giving them out representatively. As a consequence, even a below average Democratic candidate could start out with approximately 246 electoral votes. This was reflected by the fact that Obama only won 51 percent of the popular vote in 2012 but trounced Romney with an Electoral College lead of 332 votes to Romney’s 206.

Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus has supported state legislatures’ initiatives to vote for changes to the system that would favor Republican candidates. However, opponents have characterized such measures as being blatant examples of election rigging. I’m not convinced that any bold changes in the fabric of our electoral process will bear any fruit by 2016. In fact, I’m sure that this electoral disadvantage will persist.

***

It would be one thing if there was a united and adaptive Republican Party that could face these hurdles together. However, the GOP has proved itself to be lethargic and out of touch. Democrats have successfully branded conservative candidates as being special interest representatives with antiquated social policies. Consider the fact that during the 2012 election, Republican pundits all believed that Romney was going to win. The key conservative polling group, Rasmussen, was consistently incorrect in predicting the electoral outcome of the primaries and the general election. Moreover, the sophisticated and data-driven campaign strategies of the Democratic Party have yet to penetrate the Republican organization.

To make matters worse, the key moderate prospect for the Republican seat, Chris Christie, has been relatively marginalized as a potential candidate because of a series of scandals in his home state of New Jersey leaving mostly radical party members as alternatives. Ted Cruz and Rick Perry are all considered hard-line conservatives that can fire up the shrinking base, but other than that they have little global appeal. Jeb Bush is not guaranteed to run. Rand Paul seems to be building a more nationally appealing image, but the idea that Americans will elect a self-avowed libertarian over a moderate Democrat is a pipe dream.

It may be far in the future but barring any extreme disaster in the Democratic Party that would makes its general election candidate unpalatable to the American people, I give the 2016 race to the Democrats by a large electoral college majority. America’s leading conservative party is just not sufficiently adaptive or nimble enough to navigate the enormous challenges it faces in competing for the White House.

 

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post GOP 2016: Blue state, blue state appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/20/gop-2016-blue-state-blue-state/feed/ 4 1085773
Convergence https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/13/convergence/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/13/convergence/#respond Tue, 13 May 2014 08:54:17 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1085542 We have seen enormous progress in America. However, when you think back to the men who laid their lives down for this nation – the men whose blind hope and faith in the future of this country led them into battle against what was then the most formidable empire in human history – you cannot help but feel that they would be disappointed. That perhaps we owe it to them, if not to ourselves, to try to bring about a convergence between the reality of this nation and the ideal it was made to embody. And we must approach this goal actively – we must not simply wait and hope that it will be achieved for us.

The post Convergence appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Despite the fact that none of my parents were born in the United States, I would describe myself as being an American patriot. I spent the last sixteen out of the first eighteen years of my life living in other countries and yet I feel an incredible passion about the issues facing this country.

When I try to pinpoint the origin of that passion, I constantly trace it to David McCullough’s 1776. In his narrative history of the beginning of the rebellion that became the Revolution, McCullough paints a brilliant portrait of the men who laid their lives down for the principles of that revolution. It was when I first tried to put myself in their shoes that I first realized the enormity of their task and began to appreciate the exceptional nature of this nation.

The rebels’ faith that there was something better for them in an independent America was astounding. There is a story about a rebel named Nathan Hale who was captured in New York in September 1776 by the English and sentenced to death. Before being hung, he is said to have cried, “My only regret is that I have but one life to give to my country.”

It’s hard to imagine the kind of blinding, all-powerful hope that that story implies. It’s genuinely hard, in this age of relative apathy, to understand that men were willing to lay down their lives for a new country and a new idea of society: That they were willing to stand up to the mightiest army in the world armed only with their faith in the future of this land.

When I think about those men, men who were my age, I cannot help but feel a sense of frustration at the current state of affairs. There is a sense of apathy in Americans today. Many friends tell me that “constitutional violations are so abstract” and that the Constitution is effectively irrelevant to our everyday lives. They repeat that historically, the United States has been nowhere near as socially egalitarian or tolerant as it is now. They remind me constantly that the revolving door in Washington is practically incomparable to the corruption that was prevalent during the gilded age. They point out the fact that in the sixties, it was surprising that we had a white Catholic President instead of a Protestant one and now, five decades later, we have an African-American president.

Essentially, they make the case that there has been a steady upward curve in American history and so the nation will inevitably sort itself out. And they are right, for the most part, in that there is really no such thing as the “good old days” for America. We have seen enormous progress.

However, when you think back to the men who laid their lives down for this nation – the men whose blind hope and faith in the future of this country led them into battle against what was then the most formidable empire in human history – you cannot help but feel that they would be disappointed. That perhaps we owe it to them, if not to ourselves, to try to bring about a convergence between the reality of this nation and the ideal it was made to embody. And we must approach this goal actively – we must not simply wait and hope that it will be achieved for us.

Yes, the enterprise of convergence can be exhausting and seem futile, but it is part and parcel of the American story. It’s a vision, a perspective, that transcends time, space, race, religion, social class and gender. It connected Obama during his brilliant speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention to the young boys who slept in fields outside of Boston in 1776. It is why being a patriot does not mean agreeing with everything the nation does or is, but rather, finding the places where we could improve and do justice to the exceptional story that we’ve inherited. It means holding our elected officials accountable and trying to tell as many people as will listen where we can continue to improve.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post Convergence appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/13/convergence/feed/ 0 1085542
Rights and responsibility https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/rights-and-responsibility/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/rights-and-responsibility/#comments Tue, 06 May 2014 09:55:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1085326 Stereotype threat can cause minority groups with negative stereotypes to perform worse on tests. More importantly, however, there is psychological evidence to support the representation of intelligence as an entity that can grow, as opposed to a fixed quantity. Intelligence is something that is cultivated, and the academic, social and economic environment of a student matters. Students should be evaluated with reference to their origins and environments for a system to be truly meritocratic.

The post Rights and responsibility appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Generally speaking, I am an unrelenting opponent of government intervention. Let the free market decide the optimal outcome; often times, it is the system most beneficial to society as a whole. On the subject of affirmative action, however, my opinions are slightly different. I wholeheartedly disagree with the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold a ban on affirmative action.

The truth is that the challenges facing minority communities today are not born from free-market phenomena, but are rather shaped by political, social and economic realities. It is our government that, for the first half of the last century, explicitly and consistently pursued policies that came at a great disadvantage to people of color in this country. Our government pursued polices of oppression and division such as segregating schools and tying public school financing to property taxes. However, instead of attempting to elucidate all the ways that citizens of color are disadvantaged, I will attempt to address two of the main objections to affirmative action.

The first and most frequent objection is that affirmative action causes a distortion in a meritocratic system. While I value meritocracy as a metric upon which to judge candidates, I do not feel that static comparisons of curricular achievements are appropriate metrics for judging merit.

Consider the fact that the average African American senior in high school has roughly the same reading level as a white eighth grader in this country. Stereotype threat can cause minority groups with negative stereotypes to perform worse on tests. If African Americans’ lower test scores are taken into account without considering contextual evidence, you are no longer creating a fair atmosphere. The playing field is not level.

More importantly, however, there is psychological evidence – championed at this university by Professor Carol Dweck – to support the representation of intelligence as an entity that can grow, as opposed to a fixed quantity. In other words, intelligence is something that is cultivated and as such should be evaluated with reference to the opportunities for growth that were available, rather than some kind of fixed character trait that has an upper limit. In other words, the academic, social and economic environment of a student matters. Students should be evaluated with reference to their origins and environments for a system to be truly meritocratic.

The second and frankly most objectionable argument was put forth by Justice Kennedy when he wrote, “In a society in which those [racial] lines are becoming more blurred, the attempt to define race-based categories also raises serious questions of its own.” Could he be referring to the mere 2.4 percent of Americans who identify with two or more races? Surely they could not have “blurred” the fact that 97.6 percent of Americans are racially homogenous.

Even when taking a clear distinction between whites and non-whites, we see that non-whites have a median income that is $18,300 lower than that of whites, or roughly 65 percent of the white median income. This is especially relevant because public school financing tends to be tied to local taxes. A report coming out of the Center for American Progress stated, “Children attending school in higher-poverty districts still have substantially less access to state and local revenue than children attending school in lower-poverty districts.” Take these two facts together and you get a pretty damning picture of racially delineated disadvantages in this country.

Affirmative action is a crucial step towards righting some of the political wrongs that have been committed by the United States. It is a necessary correction to an unfair system and it is a real tragedy that the Supreme Court has expressed dissent towards the process.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post Rights and responsibility appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/05/06/rights-and-responsibility/feed/ 6 1085326
Domino theory in the 21st century https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/29/domino-theory-in-the-21st-century/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/29/domino-theory-in-the-21st-century/#respond Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:18:31 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1085006 The short-termism that has plagued our economic decision making and has led our leaders to burden our generation with historic amounts of debt can now be seen in a much more dangerous context. The world is so vastly transparent and fast moving that we cannot afford to miss opportunities to demonstrate that we stand for something greater than geopolitics – or, in the case of Crimea, domestic politics – as a nation. We stand for a way of life – of freedom, democracy and free exchange – and these concepts are worth standing up for.

The post Domino theory in the 21st century appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Hindsight can be cruel. Watching the Ukrainian crisis unfold raises many “if only” moments. If only President Obama had been more assertive with Putin over the extradition of Edward Snowden. If only the U.S. foreign policy apparatus had not looked so weak in its commitment to protecting Syrian civilians from chemical weapons. If only we had been more decisive in the early days of the Crimean annexation.

Unfortunately, it is only in retrospect that we can know the effects of foreign policy fumbles. However, revisiting the chain of events that has left Eurasia in a state of total uncertainty sheds light on a timeless reality: foreign policy is not a one-shot game.

As Winston Churchill eerily stated the year before the outbreak of the Second World War, “Do not suppose that this is the end. This is only the beginning of the reckoning. This is only the first sip, the first foretaste of a bitter cup which will be proffered to us year by year unless by a supreme recovery of moral health and martial vigor, we arise again and take our stand for freedom as in the olden time.” The rhetoric of “if only’s” was present during Churchill’s time as well: If only we had not allowed Germany to violate the Treaty of Versailles by occupying the Rhineland; if only we had never permitted the annexation of the Sudetenland or that of Austria.

My concern however, is that the “if only’s” are going to get worse. The President was recently in Japan and the Philippines, two U.S. allies that have serious territorial disputes with China. China and the Philippines have been on the brink of war several times in the last decade and Sino-Japanese tensions soared last year as a result of a territorial dispute over islands in the East China Sea. The question is obvious: How can our allies depend on our guarantee of protection when we have done absolutely nothing to hinder the annexation of Crimea?

If Russia, only the world’s sixth largest economy (and its third largest army by military spending), intimidated us, how can our allies expect us to stand in the face of China? China’s military spending is almost twice that of Russia, and unlike Russia’s, the Chinese economy is central to global trade and prosperity. Not to mention the fact that the Chinese government has enormous U.S. dollar reserves and American debt that can be used in all sorts of ways to haunt our fragile economy.

So what can China do? It can continue pressing its military might, extending its air defense zone and furthering its saber-rattling in faraway waters. It can continue deepening its relationships with potential client states in Asia and Africa that may no longer consider American assurances 100 percent valid.

The effects of our foreign policy impotence in Russia will be felt internationally and in unexpected ways. The short-termism that has plagued our economic decision making and has led our leaders to burden our generation with historic amounts of debt can now be seen in a much more dangerous context. The world is so vastly transparent and fast moving that we cannot afford to miss opportunities to demonstrate that we stand for something greater than geopolitics – or, in the case of Crimea, domestic politics – as a nation. We stand for a way of life – of freedom, democracy and free exchange – and these concepts are worth standing up for.

The applause at the official diplomatic platitudes that President Obama is espousing in Asia seems to have temporarily drowned out the hollow sound of gunfire that sent the mayor of Ukraine’s second largest city into critical care. My fear is that the reverberations from the bullet will outlast the applause.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post Domino theory in the 21st century appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/29/domino-theory-in-the-21st-century/feed/ 0 1085006
Hope and government https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/21/hope-and-government/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/21/hope-and-government/#respond Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:08:36 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1084725 Immigration reform is going to go totally unrealized unless the Republican majority gets unseated in the midterm elections, or the Democrats agree to support Boehner in any Speaker election – and they would rather wait for the next midterms and watch the Republicans embarrass themselves in the meantime. The reality is that the reason the law will not be passed has almost nothing to do with the law and everything to do with political divisions in Washington. Millions of men and women who came to this country pursuing freedom and happiness, but their chance at getting a real shot at being American has been pulled away by the hard reality of political dysfunction. It such a shame that this has become a normal political expectation for Americans.

The post Hope and government appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
In some senses, the Senate immigration bill, S.744, is a contradiction of all of the modern day caricatures we have about Washington. A bipartisan group of eight senators, including political heavyweights John McCain (R-AZ) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY), authored the bill. It is progressive in content and implementation, a seemingly genuine response to the immigration problem that this country faces. It cuts costs: According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), it would reduce the deficit by $1 trillion over 20 years. It focuses on the people by giving millions of non-legal immigrants the chance to obtain legal residence in this country. Most surprisingly, enough Senate Democrats and Republicans actually agreed on it to get the bill passed submitted it to the House by a vote of 68-32.

The “Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act” focuses on increasing the technological sophistication of our border monitoring techniques, increasing visa allotments for more educated foreign nationals and permitting existing illegal immigrants the chance to legally legitimize their residence in the United States. One thing that everybody agrees on is that the current situation, with constant inflows of illegal immigrants, is unacceptable. S.744 is, for once, a real legal attempt to solve the persistent limitations of the United States’ current immigration framework.

Here is the rub: The bill will never be signed into law.

Despite the fact that the bill was co-authored by Republicans and Democrats and that 92 amendments were passed on the bill to satisfy the concerns of various Senators, there is no chance that the bill will see the President’s pen. Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) says he will obey the Hastert Rule, which states that as long as the Republicans control the House, any bill will require the support of a majority of the Republican caucus in order to be moved to the floor.

The Hastert Rule is a clever political tool that both Republicans and Democrats often employ. Republicans, who control the House, internally vote on a Speaker of the House so that they can all agree on one person to vote for in the full Speaker election – even if a minority of House Republicans do not agree with the Speaker, they will still vote for Boehner rather than risk handing the speakership to the Democrats. Thus, Boehner’s obedience to the Hastert Rule ensures that he cannot be overthrown by his own caucus. With Boehner assaulted from both the left (the Democrats) and the right (the Tea Party), he needs to make sure he keeps his support. But at what price?

With a majority of House Republicans against the bill, Speaker Boehner insisted that “The House is going to do its own job in developing an immigration bill.” Although the Tea Party is now somewhat muted, Boehner needs to hold to the Hastert Rule nevertheless. The importance of their support was made clear to him when, despite coming to an agreement with the President on the terms of the debt ceiling, he could not get the House to vote his way some years ago.

This much-needed reform is going to go totally unrealized unless the Republican majority gets unseated in the midterm elections, or the Democrats agree to support Boehner in any Speaker election – and they would rather wait for the next midterms and watch the Republicans embarrass themselves in the meantime. The reality is that the reason the law will not be passed has almost nothing to do with the law and everything to do with political divisions in Washington. There are so many conflicting interests at play that the real problem trying to be addressed is entirely overshadowed by politics. Millions of men and women who came to this country pursuing freedom and happiness, but their chance at getting a real shot at being American has been pulled away by the hard reality of political dysfunction. It such a shame that this has become a normal political expectation for Americans.

It seems like we sometimes forget that the words United States were once considered to be radical because they brought Dutchmen, Englishmen and Frenchmen together under one government. And Americans did this because they considered the immigrant an American and not a foreigner. This country’s vitality was based largely in its openness to new Americans. They are great inventors and business people, with over 40 percent of Fortune 500 companies being founded by immigrants or their children. We have come so far in some respects, but in others we have completely degenerated. The state of our political system is genuinely dire and the story of this bill harshly juxtaposes for us what could be against what is. Immigration reform is a reminder that there is hope and then there is government, not the other way around.

 

Anthony Ghosn welcomes questions, comments and fresh ideas at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post Hope and government appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/21/hope-and-government/feed/ 0 1084725
On Senate and SAFE Reform https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/14/on-senate-and-safe-reform/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/14/on-senate-and-safe-reform/#respond Tue, 15 Apr 2014 06:30:39 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1084442 During the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate of 1960, then-Vice President Richard Nixon emphatically stated, “I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.” This type of amicable rhetoric has been for the most part absent in recent American history. To draw a parallel ahead of 2014’s midterm elections, we must be able to overcome hurdles like SAFE Reform as a community if we expect our national leadership to do the same.

The post On Senate and SAFE Reform appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
During the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debate of 1960, then-Vice President Richard Nixon emphatically stated, “I know Senator Kennedy feels as deeply about these problems as I do, but our disagreement is not about the goals for America but only about the means to reach those goals.” This type of amicable rhetoric has been for the most part absent in recent American history. It seems that in the last few years our country’s leaders have forgotten a simple truth: that they’re united in their service to this nation.

This story reminds me a lot of what took place in our political community over the course of the last week. We had a situation in which two groups that are wholly dedicated to improving our community went head to head on how to enhance our special fees system. It is no secret that there is a big problem with the way that funding works today. The current system is lethargic and bureaucratic and levies one of the highest student fees in the country on our student population – three times that of Harvard and twice that of Berkeley.

Over the course of my Undergraduate Senate campaign, I had the chance to meet with the various authors of the bill and get insight into the SOCC- and FLIP-sponsored arguments against it. Justine and Olivia Moore, the two genuinely impressive sophomores who spearheaded SAFE with Dan Ashton, Billy Gallagher and Stephen Trusheim, seemed passionate, levelheaded and dedicated to improving this community. They mentioned to me that they had met with over 500 people to discuss the new funding regulations and were very hopeful that it would pass. It seems, however, that many student group representatives, especially those of SOCC, felt that their concerns, although heard, were not addressed in the actual text of the amendment, and that is why they decided to mobilize their coalition against the measure. Naturally, this came as a surprise to many who contributed to the bill, and certainly to the standing Senate who passed it unanimously, hoping to avoid the funding cuts that we will now have to oversee this year.

What came after was an unfortunate and antagonistic tension between the proponents of SAFE and its detractors. While many felt that organizations opposed to the bill had been spreading misinformation, the opponents continuously stated that they were pointing to the possibility of losing vital funding down the line. Many feared that identity groups such as the LGBT Community Resource Center would be eventually defunded if SAFE Reform passed. Some conversations even descended into vitriolic ad hominem attacks, and people I spoke to on both sides seemed to feel that power was being abused.

As a newcomer on the Stanford political scene, I was surprised to see the contradiction between intention and interpretation on both sides of the aisle. The SOCC communities are an integral part of our campus and they have been doing great work bringing our community together and ensuring that everybody has a support system on campus. Meanwhile, the executive team and the Senate have been working tirelessly to solve what is a legitimate problem in our organization. Both arguments are born from a genuine eagerness to improve this community and ensure students’ well-being.

Mutual positivity is too often lost in our national political system, so let us be wary of losing sight of our common goals in campus politics. SAFE Reform is emphatically not a zero-sum game; we can still move forward in a way that both satisfies our need to fix our broken funding system and ensures that minority groups continue to foster a sense of community on campus. All of the men and women who are putting so many hours of work into these organizations want the same thing, and we have the next year to fix it.

I came to the Senate with an agenda to implement SAFE Reform, and I personally thought that lowering student fees was overall a good thing. Although SAFE Reform has failed to pass this year, I am now excited to work with this Senate class and SAFE’s detractors to come up with a solution that satisfies all parties. I have seen good faith on both sides, and I am sure that a concerted effort from every party will pave the way to a concrete solution.

To draw a parallel ahead of 2014’s midterm elections, we must be able to overcome hurdles like SAFE Reform as a community if we expect our national leadership to do the same. The paradox is ultimately that everyone is passionate about this contentious issue for the same reason: we want to make this community better. So let’s get to work.

Anthony Ghosn

ASSU Senator-elect

Anthony Ghosn was elected as a sophomore representative to the Undergraduate Senate this April. Help him hit the ground running by contacting him at anghosn “at” stanford.edu.

The post On Senate and SAFE Reform appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/14/on-senate-and-safe-reform/feed/ 0 1084442
On drones and foreign policy https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/08/on-drones-and-foreign-policy/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/08/on-drones-and-foreign-policy/#comments Tue, 08 Apr 2014 07:48:27 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1084197 There was a time when Americans could believe in the exceptional nature of our nation and in the unique and “self-evident” protections of our constitution. From the sea of authoritarianism and monarchy emerged a community founded on revolutionary principles of the rule of law and justice, one that held the government accountable to the people and not the other way around. The more I learn about the true state of our nation and our foreign policy, the more I begin to feel that dark moment of clarity in which one realizes that reality is far uglier than one hoped.

The post On drones and foreign policy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
There must have been a brief moment in time, a frozen second like a glance at a swinging pendulum, when those who rooted for freedom in the streets of 1789 Paris began to realize that they had traded despot for despot. And I’m sure that those Chinese villagers who expected peace and respect from the Communist revolution but got famine and abuse instead shared this feeling. Both revolutions were idealism confronted by reality, hope checked by depravity.

There was a time when Americans could believe in the exceptional nature of our nation and in the unique and “self-evident” protections of our constitution. From the sea of authoritarianism and monarchy emerged a community founded on revolutionary principles of the rule of law and justice, one that held the government accountable to the people and not the other way around.

The more I learn about the true state of our nation and our foreign policy, the more I begin to feel that dark moment of clarity in which one realizes that reality is far uglier than one hoped. And the more I learn, the more I empathize with that indescribable stillness that occurs when a man or woman realizes he or she is fooled.

Perhaps the most emblematic example of the contradiction between American principles and actions is its current drone policy. Our new ability to send unmanned aircraft into areas of conflict and execute enemies from afar has permitted us an incredible freedom to act. Internally, there is currently no public reporting mechanism to relate the number of civilians or “enemy combatants” killed by drone strikes around the world. Our government has been freely exercising its ability to murder anyone anywhere in the world. No habeas corpus, no nothing.

In 2011, a 16-year-old American citizen, Abdulraham Al-Awlaki, was sitting with his father in Yemen when a missile ended his young life. By virtue of the Constitution he was supposedly entitled to a just trial by his peers, but this teenager never had the chance of self-realization or independence. Far from the peaceful hills of Palo Alto, this is the reality that many civilians face. Drone strikes generally have collateral damage, and in many cases a mere association with someone on the CIA’s death list can be cause for your murder. As for Abdulraham, advocates took his case to court but nothing came of the trial. His grandfather wrote a piece in The New York Times last year (linked above) which claims that he has not even heard from the American government on the subject of his grandson’s death.

Our foreign policy is so far from its original principles that it has become unclear whether we even have a foreign policy at all. Vladimir Putin has been dancing around the inefficiency and inconsistency of our foreign policy machine since the Snowden debacle. He picked up that the American bark is louder than its bite after the Syrian red line controversy and applied that lesson to his invasion of Crimea. America can strike nearly everywhere, but it cannot enforce its will everywhere, and as the world moves towards multi-polarity, the costs of our foreign fumbles are going to become greater and greater.

What sets us apart from other countries, however, is that our population – if not our politicians – genuinely believes in the values espoused by our constitution. I also have faith that our democracy is receptive to change. Being American means that we have a responsibility to make sure that we feed the bright light that is the American experiment while being conscious of the shadows our choices create. Our drone policy is a heck of a shadow.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn “at” stanford.edu.

 

The post On drones and foreign policy appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/08/on-drones-and-foreign-policy/feed/ 1 1084197
Financing the World https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/01/financing-the-world/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/01/financing-the-world/#comments Tue, 01 Apr 2014 07:20:04 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1083927 In 2002, William Kamkwamba used bicycle parts, blue gum tree and scraps to build a windmill in his village in Malawi. Only fifteen, William nevertheless managed to use the windmill to power several electrical appliances in his village. What is striking is that despite William’s lack of money, if William had applied to Stanford he would have been ineligible for financial aid. Despite our $18 billion endowment, we still do not provide financial aid to international students, even though other top-tier universities such as Harvard do. It is genuinely surprising that despite the fact that Stanford has yet to open itself up to financing opportunities for international students without Social Security numbers.

The post Financing the World appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
CORRECTION: A previous version of this column said that Stanford did not offer financial aid to international students. Stanford does offer financial aid to international students, but it is not need-blind during the application process. The column has been updated to reflect this.

 

In 2002, William Kamkwamba used bicycle parts, blue gum tree and scraps to build a windmill in his village in Malawi. Only fifteen, William nevertheless managed to use the windmill to power several electrical appliances in his village. What is striking is that because of William’s lack of money, if William had applied to Stanford he would have been at a disadvantage from the start.

Without financial aid, William’s inability to pay the full $42,000 would essentially disqualify him from attending Stanford, and moreover, that financial aid is not a given. Despite our $18 billion endowment, we still do not have need-blind admissions for international students, even though other top-tier universities such as Harvard do.

Eleven percent of the undergraduate population at Stanford are international students, many of whom have had to some degree to find alternative ways of funding their educations. Although Stanford does not provide information on the number and source of its international applications, it is evident that an increase in financial aid would undoubtedly make Stanford an option for more students across the world.

This marginalization of disadvantaged international students seems to be a rightable wrong. Princeton, Harvard, Yale and Dartmouth are all schools of a comparably high caliber and financial standing that admit international students on a need-blind basis. For this reason it is genuinely surprising that despite the fact that Stanford – routinely the best fundraiser in higher education – raised a record $1 billion dollars last year, it has yet to open itself up to financing opportunities for international students without Social Security numbers.

Our university has been widely characterized in popular media as being a “Get Rich U” that feeds the machine of innovation that is Silicon Valley. William is a perfect example of the type of positive outcome that can come from the Stanford blend of engineering, ingenuity and enterprise in developing countries. Many areas of the world are far worse off than the United States and are in real need of the type of innovation and technical expertise upon which the Valley prides itself.

Armaan Ali characterizes the potential good that can come of this kind of technological spread. Armaan is a current sophomore and international student at Stanford; over the summer, he worked on an organization that brought cheap health care technology to those in need in Bangladesh and Pakistan. Visiting Armaan, I had the chance to visit Dhaka, the capital of Bangladesh, and the reality of the Dhakan poor is truly astounding. Dhaka, far from the airy hills of Palo Alto, is grossly overpopulated and its infant mortality rate is five and a half times higher than that of the United States. By bringing low-cost technology such as jaundice-fighting light bulbs to the area, Armaan and his colleagues opened up the possibility of saving literally thousands of lives.

Stanford is not the only university whose students help people across the globe. But certainly there is a lot that students at well-heeled universities such as Stanford take for granted that could mean the difference between life and death for millions of people around the world. The education that we get here is incredible and could have lasting impacts on developing countries. Exchange programs are useful, but spending four affordable years at Stanford would be far more important and far more meaningful for someone trying to learn skills that will eventually save lives where they live.

I think it is important to try to foster the connection between what is going on here and what is taking place around the world. It is easy, when trying to come up with the “next big thing,” to forget that half of the world’s population survives on less than $3 a day. We must commit ourselves to helping bridge the gap by admitting more students from international backgrounds who would otherwise miss out on the unique opportunity that is Stanford.

This is but one of the reasons for which I believe that admitting more international students who come from disadvantaged backgrounds will yield great fruit. Appealing to the culture of Silicon Valley, empirically speaking, immigrants are disproportionately likely to become entrepreneurs: think Elon Musk, Sergei Brin, and Jan Koum. Immigrants, according to Forbes magazine, founded more than 40% of the Fortune 500 companies. Naturally, not every international student is going to come straight to university, found a company or take up American citizenship, but the point remains: international students embody some of the core ideals of our university.

William Kamkwamba, whose ingenuity should have been welcomed by any university on the planet, ended up at Dartmouth University. We are truly missing out on an incredible opportunity to render our campus more diverse and serve the entire world. Let’s make sure that the next generations of global entrepreneurs are given a chance to try their hands on The Farm. By working together I believe we can convince the University administration to give this policy a second look.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

 

The post Financing the World appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/04/01/financing-the-world/feed/ 1 1083927
Beware of the “Bad”: A Second Look at Ukraine https://stanforddaily.com/2014/03/04/beware-of-the-bad-a-second-look-at-ukraine/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/03/04/beware-of-the-bad-a-second-look-at-ukraine/#respond Tue, 04 Mar 2014 10:04:22 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1082947 Imagine if a popular pro-Chinese movement in Tokyo toppled the Japanese government today. Yes, this scenario is extremely unlikely, but indulge me for a moment. The United States has very well-defined interests inside Japan, including a number of important military bases. The Japanese government is our largest ally in the area and a great supporter […]

The post Beware of the “Bad”: A Second Look at Ukraine appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Imagine if a popular pro-Chinese movement in Tokyo toppled the Japanese government today. Yes, this scenario is extremely unlikely, but indulge me for a moment. The United States has very well-defined interests inside Japan, including a number of important military bases. The Japanese government is our largest ally in the area and a great supporter of our regional interests. Now imagine it was rumored that the Chinese government had fanned the flames of the revolution and that it was intending to orchestrate the institution of a new pro-Chinese government.

The implications of such a revolution would be enormous for American trade, military and diplomatic initiatives in Southeast Asia. As an American citizen, I would expect that our leadership would get involved in order to safeguard our military bases in Japan from the new anti-American government and, for one, to ensure that our weaponry would stay under our control.

Russia has found itself in a very similar position. Not only is the Crimean city of Sevastopol the base for Russia’s Black Sea Fleet, the peninsula is also home to four missile regiments and a dozen active bases. In addition, The New York Times reported that an overwhelming majority of Ukrainian nationals in Crimea are native Russian speakers as opposed to Ukrainian ones – a legacy of Crimea’s long political association with Russia. Add to that the fact that the ouster of former president Viktor Yanukovych constitutes an effective severance of Russian control over the Ukrainian political class, leaving the country open to Western machinations.

In addition to the more abstract ethnic and military losses, less control over Ukraine means more economic exposure to Western interests and less diplomatic independence for Russia. To Russia, the Ukraine situation is especially important because Russia’s economy is heavily dependent on oil exports to Europe, its largest trading partner, which travel primarily through Ukraine. In response to these circumstances, it would be only sensible to, at the very least, gather some political leverage to ensure the Russian voice is considered in deciding the fate of the nation.

Ostensibly, Russian people, Russian military bases and Russian economic interests are jeopardized by the recent revolution. I am convinced that any country with the power to influence the region would react similarly when facing this set of pressures.

The Russian government has continually stated that their control of the peninsula is temporary and that they have no intention of conquering Ukraine. Despite many media-born rumors about ultimatums, Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, has continuously maintained that the troops will simply remain until there is a “normalization of the political situation.” He has expressed concerns about the manifestation of anti-Russian sentiments in Ukraine and reportedly wants to protect ethnic Russian citizens from potential abuse. Given the antagonistic intensity of the protests on both sides, this is not an absurd proposition.

You may say that Russia should have allowed the international relations apparatus to decide the fate of Ukraine in a fair and neutral way as opposed to making such a boldly unilateral move. I would simply ask you to refer to the effectiveness of international relations forums in ensuring political stability in the wake of a revolution over the last half-decade: Syria is still in a state of civil war and Libya has essentially devolved into a set of antagonistic factional kingdoms. Not very promising to a Russian statesman – especially if there are military and ethnic interests at play.

These Russian justifications for action are being totally ignored in the popular American dialogue: Our politicians, as well as news outlets, are characterizing the temporary effective annexation of Crimea as an expansionist Russian move. However, an analysis from the Russian perspective suggests that its current position is not only a prudent but also a shrewd geopolitical strategy in order to safeguard its interest.

The American political and journalistic irreverence for non-American narratives of international relations is extremely unhealthy, and we’ve seen what kind of situations they have put this country in time and time again. Our press and politicians have historically undervalued important cultural, social and historical considerations when judging international foreign policy. This has been most recently exemplified by our naïve interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, which both ignored complex political dynamics in favor of nationalistic fervor and dogmatic appeals to a nebulous sense of justice.

This is not to say that Russia is a benevolent actor and that it should be praised, but rather that international relations are complex and “good versus bad” narratives usually come at the expense of well thought-out and intelligent solutions. Recent history has taught us that coherent characterizations of certain interests as being wholly bad usually are more suggestive of manipulation than any empirical reality.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post Beware of the “Bad”: A Second Look at Ukraine appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/03/04/beware-of-the-bad-a-second-look-at-ukraine/feed/ 0 1082947
The Pitfalls of California’s Three Strikes Law https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/25/the-pitfalls-of-californias-three-strikes-law/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/25/the-pitfalls-of-californias-three-strikes-law/#respond Tue, 25 Feb 2014 08:15:00 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1082667 Recidivism is a serious issue in our criminal justice system and it deserves its due attention. Fifty-three percent of males released from jail are re-incarcerated, which is especially worrying in a nation that has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Noticing this trend, Californians instituted the three-strike system in 1994 as Proposition 184, which […]

The post The Pitfalls of California’s Three Strikes Law appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Recidivism is a serious issue in our criminal justice system and it deserves its due attention. Fifty-three percent of males released from jail are re-incarcerated, which is especially worrying in a nation that has the highest incarceration rate in the world. Noticing this trend, Californians instituted the three-strike system in 1994 as Proposition 184, which mandates that the third of three felonies be punished extremely harshly — usually with a life sentence.

Hard data on the effects of the three-strike system is difficult to come by, especially because it is difficult for sociologists to confidently parse trends and distinguish between correlation and causation when it comes to something as complex as criminal decisions. Unfortunately, there is no hard data suggesting — or, to be fair, refuting — a direct causal link between the diminishing number of violent crimes and felonies in California and the Three Strikes Law.

The law nonetheless costs the state approximately half a billion dollars a year. It targets many who have committed theft-related felonies and non-violent crimes. Moreover, African Americans are disproportionately represented amongst those who are charged for second and third strikes.

There are countless articles on absurd applications of the law. The New York Times and the Huffington Post have characterized it as being “draconian”. The Stanford Law School’s Three Strikes Project has claimed that 40% of those charged with the third strike are mentally ill. Although a 5-4 Supreme Court decision decided that the law was not a violation of the Eighth Amendment — the protection against cruel and unusual punishment — it is clear that this approach has its problems.

The Three Strikes Law is the perfect illustration of the politics of retribution. The implicit moral logic of this measure is that this kind of rational punitive structure causes intelligent criminals to avoid recidivism. As a state, when we accept narratives that satisfy our collectively limited understanding of a phenomena as complex as recidivism, we end up with a highly expensive and arguably draconian program such as this.

Laws, particularly those that ultimately have the power to confiscate the basic freedoms of our citizens, must be subject to rigorous review after they are put in place. It is also important that they are based in legitimate jurisprudence to prevent such a situation as this one.

Take this very basic statistical set: Criminals who commit a property crime are 13.9% more likely to relapse, where as those who commit violent crimes are 31.9% less likely to do so. Moreover, criminals are 1.2% less likely to recommit a crime for every year they spend in prison. On average those criminals who were convicted for a repeat offense at least once are 58.1% more likely to recommit a crime. Your likelihood of going back to jail drops 2.9% for every year of education you have and younger offenders are much more likely to reoffend than older ones.

These statistics suggest that the most likely third-strike offenders have committed property crimes like petty theft, have spent a relatively small amount of time in jail and are young and uneducated. It seems that the most disadvantaged segment of the population is incurring this extra wrath of the Three Strikes Law.

This reality is far from the popular characterization of the law as a deterrent to the kind of violent crimes that were prevalent leading up to the adoption of that law. If the government insists on spending such a large portion of its budget on combating recidivism, it must ask itself who is bearing the brunt of this intense punishment and why.

Combating recidivism is a complex issue, and I don’t have concrete policy solutions that I believe in. I do think that increasing education standards and, by attracting businesses to California, helping those who would otherwise steal find work would be a good first step to reducing the overall rate of recidivism in the state. And ultimately, the policies we do approve should be based on research instead of moral platitudes.

Instead, we find ourselves in a situation where political expediency has taken precedence over logic and statistics, and where those who are in jail today are the most disenchanted members of our society. It is overwhelmingly clear that the Three Strikes Law is neither a proper tool to deter recidivism nor an intelligent way to distribute the state’s budget. Since the Californian population clearly intends to address this problem, lawmakers should look to the causes of the problem rather than its effects.

 

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post The Pitfalls of California’s Three Strikes Law appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/25/the-pitfalls-of-californias-three-strikes-law/feed/ 0 1082667
And then there is Paris https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/19/and-then-there-is-paris/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/19/and-then-there-is-paris/#respond Wed, 19 Feb 2014 08:27:11 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1082488 I have always found certain parts of history deeply depressing. The depravity that our race has displayed on a wide scale can be totally disheartening. Murder, rape and torture are all so foreign to most of us Stanford students, and yet they are on some level illustrative of our collective nature. Viktor Frankl’s tale of […]

The post And then there is Paris appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
I have always found certain parts of history deeply depressing. The depravity that our race has displayed on a wide scale can be totally disheartening. Murder, rape and torture are all so foreign to most of us Stanford students, and yet they are on some level illustrative of our collective nature. Viktor Frankl’s tale of suffering at Auschwitz is a true testament to the darkness of the human heart, it is the encapsulation of our capacity for evil—as I said it is truly depressing.

Throughout our own lifetimes we have lived through comparable atrocities and demonstrations of this seldom-acknowledged part of our selves. The Rwandan genocide, September 11, and Guantanamo Bay all are different shades of the same black paint inherent in every human. It is a terrifying lesson, but one that history teaches over and over again.

People commit great atrocities under a multitude of banners. There has always been evil in the world, and it is impossible to underestimate how prevalent it has been. Thinking about the torture of the Indians in early New England or the political dissidents in the Soviet Gulag is a constant reminder to never ignore man’s potential for evil. And man is capable of not just evil but chaos: The systematic decapitations during the French revolution taught us that we can go from civilization to anarchy in a matter of months, and that people walking on the streets can turn into murderers even quicker.

Although it is satisfying to draw distinctions between the past and the present on the basis of historical context, such an approach would mean missing a fundamental human reality. There is virtually no difference between me and those executors of the darker parts of our history except that I was not subjected to the same situational factors that they were.

Stanley Milgram’s experiment empirically and psychologically demonstrated how anyone can turn into a torturer in a matter of hours with a couple of situational adjustments. We are, especially at a young age, fickle and situational creatures. Once I began to ignore the superficial distinction between me and the actors of hate, I realized how terrifying history really is.

It is funny that all of these realizations should have come to me in Paris. The same Paris that has been the stage for many of mankind’s darkest moments: the slaughter of the Hugenots in 1572 at the St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre, the guillotine in the 1790s and the capitulation to the Nazis in the 1940s are just a few of its most notable scenes in history.

Yet these scenes are humorously ironic because Paris is also one of the most beautiful cities in the world. Its unparalleled architecture, artistic charm and historical importance make it a lasting symbol of human history. It is a constant reminder that the human heart is capable of explosive beauty, perfection, simplicity and elegance.

Paris is a historical anti-thesis. It exists on the same earth as genocide, on the same land as starvation, hatred and despair. Its statues and buildings are made up of the same atoms as those that constituted the knives of countless murderers.

Paris is a beautiful city. It is beautiful because it is a standing symbol that our lives need not be fickle and that our presence need not be characterized by the trends of our day — that we can all create beauty that transcends paradigm and ordinary lives. It is an interesting note that if Hitler had had his way, Paris would have been blown up before the liberation; Hitler’s general in Paris eventually gave the order to save the city. I like to think that Hitler was intimidated by it.

As Stanford students, we are fortunate enough not to be complicit in any of the great trends that have scarred our history. Moreover, we have access to some of the most brilliant minds and resources on the planet, and we are bound by our ambition and imagination. You have the extraordinary opportunity to build Paris.

 

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post And then there is Paris appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/19/and-then-there-is-paris/feed/ 0 1082488
The Case for Legalization https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/11/the-case-for-legalization/ https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/11/the-case-for-legalization/#respond Tue, 11 Feb 2014 10:34:53 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1082255 There is really no way to argue that the country’s current drug policy is successful. The war on drugs costs the U.S. taxpayers $40 billion a year, yet the United States is the still the largest illegal drug consumer in the world by far. As a percentage of our population, we lead the world in […]

The post The Case for Legalization appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
There is really no way to argue that the country’s current drug policy is successful.

The war on drugs costs the U.S. taxpayers $40 billion a year, yet the United States is the still the largest illegal drug consumer in the world by far. As a percentage of our population, we lead the world in cocaine use, eclipsing the next biggest, New Zealand, by a factor of four. Drug offenses are the primary cause for federal incarceration: 50 percent of men and women in federal prison are being held for drug-related crimes.

Evidently, our approach to regulating drugs is not working in its current form, and we need to devise a new strategy.

Legalizing drugs would be a great first step. Punishing victimless crimes is a violation of basic freedoms of choice. According to many people, under certain sets of situations this trade-off – law and order in exchange for personal liberty – makes sense. With regards to drugs, however, I believe that by legislating substance use and distribution, we are merely conceding control to the black market. Instead of being channeled through industries that can be monitored by the people, drug distribution falls upon those disenchanted with traditional methods of social mobility.

As the penalty for selling and distributing drugs increases, so does the market incentive – the salary of the increasingly scarce and increasingly valuable drug dealers. The growth of this incentive is usually correlated to school dropout rates in areas with a lot of drug trafficking – unfortunately, racial minorities bear the brunt of this effect.

Sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh documents the social effects of the prevalence of the illegal drug trade in Chicago in his book “Gang Leader for a Day.” Venkatesh points to the geographical fractionalization and consequential gang wars that stem from fighting over distribution channels.

By keeping drugs in the black market, we are essentially damning entire subsections of society to live in an extremely violent and drug-laden environment. Fifty percent of street crimes in Chicago are caused by gangs fighting over drug distribution.

Even on an international level, consider who is supplying the black market with these drugs. Heroin mainly flows out of rural Afghanistan where its revenues are shared between farmers and the Taliban. Marijuana and cocaine from Central and South America are responsible for the deep corruption and crime problems that afflict countries like Mexico. As American drug policy currently stands, it is a lose-lose situation. Everyone is in a bad place.

Let’s legalize all drugs. People who disagree with this theory often think that I am supporting the destruction of society. I would argue that if we were to legalize drugs, we would have less problems stemming from drug use. First and foremost, it has become clear that drug use is an undeniable social reality, and that it is impossible to banish completely unless we employ draconian, freedom-suppressing laws like those in Singapore.

Given this reality, let us honestly weigh what could happen if we were to legalize drug distribution and use. Most clearly, the formerly illegal drug supply chains would evaporate: legal drug manufacturers would have more affordable products, given that they do not have to worry about smuggling costs.

Decriminalizing drugs would reduce the costs of incarcerating criminals significantly and eliminate a main criminal vocation in some of the most sensitive parts of our country. Children who might otherwise have become drug dealers would have fewer options outside of going to school and getting regular, legal jobs. The main cause for strife in high-risk neighborhoods would eventually dissipate, drastically reducing the incidence of gang-related murder and violent crime. The risk of drugs containing tertiary substances would also fall due to the fact that competitive market forces would set standards for quality and transparency.

As for drug users, I believe that the market would react by having stricter drug tests for jobs and schools. Although drug use would not be punished by the government, the social tradeoffs would most likely become much clearer than they are now.

Life will not be that different: Like alcohol, I imagine that drug use on the job will not be tolerated. Similarly, social security programs such as the evaluation of the ability of parents to rear children will continue to take drug use into consideration. It’s possible that drug dependency will force more people into an underclass of drug addicts who are totally disconnected from society, but this will be a social tradeoff that will hopefully further highlight an incentive to not actually abuse drugs.

Legalizing drugs, however, should be done through Congress as opposed to executive decriminalization. Obama’s current policy of skirting the legislative process to decriminalize marijuana sets a dangerous precedent for the abuse of executive powers.

It is clear that the criminalization of drugs cannot stomp out the market forces sustaining them. Given that the market for drugs will persist, we might as well eliminate the multitude of consequences I mentioned above by legalizing it.

Not all seemingly moral problems have moral solutions. We must think beyond our impulse to punish the bad and find responses that will work in practice. The prevalence of drugs is a social symptom, not an issue in and of itself. If we want to meaningfully deal with the so-called drug problem, we must look at why people are choosing the bag over the book. In the meantime, let’s rid ourselves of the weight the drug war has put on our country.

Contact Anthony Ghosn at anghosn@stanford.edu.

The post The Case for Legalization appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2014/02/11/the-case-for-legalization/feed/ 0 1082255
GSB average salaries rise, but starting salaries fall https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/30/gsb-average-salaries-rise-but-starting-salaries-fall/ https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/30/gsb-average-salaries-rise-but-starting-salaries-fall/#respond Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:02:52 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1074500 Graduates of the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) have enjoyed consistently increasing average base salaries for the past three years, according to GSB reports. During the same time period, however, the range of starting salaries has decreased.

The post GSB average salaries rise, but starting salaries fall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
Graduates of the Stanford Graduate School of Business (GSB) have enjoyed consistently increasing average base salaries for the past three years, according to GSB reports. During the same time period, however, the range of starting salaries has decreased.

The average base salary for GSB graduates rose to about $129,000 from around $118,000 between the 2009-10 and 2011-12 academic years. For 2009-10, the range of salaries varied between $330,000 and $40,000, while during the 2011-2012 academic year the upper limit fall to $260,000 and the lower limit to $20,000.

Pulin Sanghvi MBA ’97, assistant dean and director of the GSB’s Career Management Center, attributed the range drop to the business school’s ability to prepare students for a variety of fields.

“The statistical variation reflects different choices students made and who ended up reporting in on the optional surveys,” Sanghvi said.

While schools such as the Columbia Business School tend to send the majority of their students into finance and consulting, Stanford has historically sought to cultivate a variety of skills applicable across a range of fields.

For example, 13 percent of the GSB’s Class of 2012 started or explored entrepreneurial ventures, compared to 7 percent of graduates at the Harvard Business School.

“The value of an MBA for a traditional career path at a firm has decreased in recent years,” said Nicholas Flanders, an incoming student at the GSB and a former McKinsey & Company analyst.

“However, the value of Stanford’s MBA program for entrepreneurship has bucked that trend, so these statistics have not affected my decision to attend,” he added.

Startup salaries are completely excluded from the GSB’s statistics, creating a nominal drag. According to Sanghvi, the GSB doesn’t include startup salaries because it is governed by widely practiced compensation reporting guidelines. Those guidelines largely exclude startup compensation on the grounds that equity-based compensation can vary vastly in valuation.

In addition to emphasizing the variety of industries entered by GSB graduates, Sanghvi also cited the GSB’s class size range of 360-390 students as a reason for the salary range drop.

“Dealing with such a small pool, there is always variation at the top,” Sanghvi said.

The declining range of salaries is also hardly unique to Stanford, and has affected peer institutions like the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The Wharton School saw its top salary range drop from a $350,000 upper limit in 2010 to a $250,000 upper limit in 2012.

Even so, GSB graduates’ average base salary of roughly $129,000 remains above that of peer institutions, with the Wharton School and the Harvard Business School averaging around $120,000. The US News and World Report currently ranks the GSB as the nation’s joint top business school, tied with Harvard.

The post GSB average salaries rise, but starting salaries fall appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/30/gsb-average-salaries-rise-but-starting-salaries-fall/feed/ 0 1074500
Stanford hairdresser has cut of history https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/28/stanford-hairdresser-has-cut-of-history/ https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/28/stanford-hairdresser-has-cut-of-history/#comments Mon, 28 Jan 2013 08:49:44 +0000 https://stanforddaily.com/?p=1074390 Carmelo Cogliandro, owner of Stanford Hair, has been a barber and salon owner at Stanford for 51 years. In those years, he has cut the hair of countless academics, provosts, presidents and national figures.

The post Stanford hairdresser has cut of history appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
VERONICA CRUZ/The Stanford Daily
VERONICA CRUZ/The Stanford Daily

Jimmy Carter, Condoleezza Rice, Chelsea Clinton, Jesse Jackson and University President John Hennessy all have something in common—a barber. Carmelo Cogliandro, owner of Stanford Hair, has been a barber and salon owner at Stanford for 51 years. In those years, he has cut the hair of countless academics, provosts, presidents and national figures.

The son of a barber and a hairdresser, Carmelo moved to Palo Alto in his late teens when his father opened a barbershop in the Town and Country shopping center.

“My old man worked as a barber at Harvard until he decided to move to Palo Alto, where he sought the kind of high-performing college town feel of Cambridge,” Cogliandro said.

Then a 17-year-old keyboardist, Cogliandro wanted to pursue his musical career with his friends in Tri-Tone—his five-man jazz band—but his parents encouraged him to pursue a more stable job. So Cogliandro took an apprenticeship with Stanford Hair. Despite his burgeoning career as a barber, Cogliandro continued to pursue his love of music, and throughout his twenties and thirties he traveled around the country to perform with Tri-Tone.

“We [played] at one-horse towns, where you were the only attraction for the weekend so everyone would come down from three towns over,” he remembered.

In addition to harboring a wealth of stories about his time touring, Cogliando holds fond memories of his time at Stanford, as a barber at and later as owner of Stanford Hair. His favorite part of the job is connecting with his clients, with experiences that suggest his relationships with clients can often become genuine friendships.

“I share many special times with my clients,” he says, citing some moments during which he served as a confidant or received advice. “You touch people, people touch you.”

Anticipating a question about the changes he’s seen at Stanford in 51 years, he answered by putting his hands out in front of him and saying one word: “diversity.”

Cogliando pointed to the transition from a school primarily made up of “Caucasian males” to one that is now wonderfully eclectic, strengthening the sense that everyone is yearning to fulfill his or her “ultimate potential,” even as other aspects of the student experience—such as Greek life—have died down.

As far as hairstyles go, Cogliando hesitated to identify a persistent trend, saying only that “haircutting is like a pendulum—it goes one way, and then back again.” Although he does not have a favorite cut, he does have a least favorite—the mushroom/bowl cut. The early 90s were a tough time for Carmelo.

Some of his most extravagant requests have historically come around the time of the Big Game, when he claims he has to turn some clients away because of the obscenity of words or phrases students want shaved in their hair.

A man who looks straight into your eyes with disarming candor, Cogliandro is described by Joseph Isiai, a coworker, as “personal, generous, smart, laid back and always willing to help.”

At 70 years old, this bastion of Stanford life looks forward to serving for at least another decade as owner of Stanford Hair.

“I might work fewer hours, I’m starting to wear down a little, but I hope to be around for the next 10 years,” Cogliando said.

Although Cogliando is currently not cutting hair because of a foot injury, he comes in every day to help make his clients feel comfortable. He hopes to be back in action in a month.

“I have nine or 10 Nobel and Pulitzer Prize winners as regulars, and [University President] John Hennessy just came through an hour ago,” he said. “It’s not the job that has kept me, it’s the people.”

And although Cogliandro never cut Andrew Luck’s hair—the quarterback prefers to style it himself—Luck came into the shop on a regular basis to chat.

“It has been my privilege,” Cogliando said about his time at Stanford. “I always ask myself how I got so lucky.”

The post Stanford hairdresser has cut of history appeared first on The Stanford Daily.

]]>
https://stanforddaily.com/2013/01/28/stanford-hairdresser-has-cut-of-history/feed/ 1 1074390