Op/Ed

Op/Ed

We may never get this chance again, so please make the right vote on election day

0

In one of the most publicized election years in recent memory, it seems everyone has an opinion on the US election. However, the only plausible choice for president has never been more clear. For students reading this article, this is the most important presidential election in our lifetimes, and I–as a middle eastern American and registered Independent–am pleading you, it is vital we do not make a catastrophic error by electing Hillary Clinton, in which the consequences would simply be destructive for generations. In order to protect our constitutional values, basic freedoms, and classical liberal Western ideologies, we must vote Donald Trump.

To many readers, my plea for the presidential candidate may come as a surprise to you. The mainstream media has of course indoctrinated us to believe Donald Trump is “racist”, “sexist”, and “xenophobic” among other names. For a long time, these trigger words utilized by the media worked effectively to influence the opinions of the masses. However, as the electoral process continues to develop, Donald Trump has now taken the lead over Hillary Clinton in many polls in several key states as well as nationally. Regardless, many voters (especially younger ones) are still not sold on Donald Trump. This article will explain while he is simply the only option.

The most common argument against Trump is that he is “racist”, and many point to his comments regarding illegal immigration. Mr. Trump “stereotyped” all Mexicans, calling them “rapists” and “drug dealers”. Truthfully, Donald Trump has said countless times he is in favor of legal immigration from Mexico and has expressed a level of great respect for the millions of Mexican Americans living in the United States:

I happen to have a tremendous feeling for Mexican Americans not only in terms of friendships, but in terms of the tremendous numbers that I employ in the United States and they are amazing people, amazing people. I have many friends, so many friends and so many friends coming to Mexico and in Mexico. I am proud to say how many people I employ.

And the United States first, second and third generation Mexicans are just beyond reproach. Spectacular, spectacular hard-working people. I have such great respect for them and their strong values of family, faith and community.”-Donald Trump on August 31, 2016

Clearly, these are not the words of a man who has deep hatred for the people of Mexico.

In reality, Trump was referring to an influx of crime coming in from illegal immigrants across the southern border. The statistics show Trump is not incorrect. Between 2008 and 2014, 40% of all murder convictions in Florida were criminal aliens. In New York it was 34% and Arizona 17.8%. During those years, criminal aliens accounted for 38% of all murder convictions in the five states of California, Texas, Arizona, Florida and New York, while illegal aliens constitute only 5.6% of the total population in those states. These numbers were compiled by the Government Accountability Office using official Department of Justice data on criminal aliens in the nation’s correctional system. The term “criminal aliens” refers to non-U.S. citizens who have been convicted and incarcerated, and about 90% of criminal aliens happen to be illegal aliens. Furthermore, according to the Texas Department of Public Safety, between 2008 and 2014, 35% of the all murder convictions were illegal aliens.

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, while illegal immigrants accounted for about just 3.5% of the U.S population, they represented 36.7% of federal sentences in the fiscal year of 2014. Taking a closer look at the numbers, illegal immigrants represented 16.8% of drug trafficking cases, 20.0% of kidnapping/hostage taking, 74.1% of drug possession, 12.3% of money laundering, and 12.0% of murder convictions. What is most frightening, is the fact that the number of illegal immigrants crossing the border is increasing majorly this year, according to data provided by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

Donald Trump’s concerns of illegal immigration are seemingly valid, and to argue that being against illegal immigration is equivalent to being racist is pure lunacy. Proving this point, African-American civil rights activist Clarence Henderson, one of the men who helped stage the 1960 sit-in at a North Carolina Woolworth’s lunch counter to protest segregation, endorsed Donald Trump and touched on the meritless accusations of him being a racist, “I come from a time known as Jim Crow — and I know what racism is and isn’t.” Clarence Henderson made a fantastic point that it is Hillary Clinton, not Donald Trump who has ties with racism. Hillary Clinton has been open about her relationship with former democratic congressmen and Ku Klux Klan leader/recruiter Robert Byrd, whom she considered a friend and mentor. Donald Trump meanwhile has no affiliation with white supremacy groups, and has said along with his running mate Mike Pence that he disavows and does not want the support of white supremacists.

Clarence Henderson is not the only civil rights activist who is in favor of a Donald Trump presidency. African-American civil rights leader and former mayor of Mississippi Charles Evers has also endorsed Trump and stated he has not “seen any proof of [Trump] being a racist.” Both Henderson and Evers agreed that Trump would be the best president for jobs and the economy in general. Evidentially, those that are wise enough to look past the mainstream media’s attempts of demonizing Donald Trump, realize he is not racist. This can be seen through the fact that Lynne Patton, a female African American executive of the Trump Organization, released a powerful video slamming those who try to align Donald Trump with racism, and revealed the Trump Organization has hired more minority and female workers than any other company she has ever worked at. Patton states, “to equate racism with my boss’s call for a temporary moratorium on a flawed immigration system that radical Islamic terrorists continue to exploit, or the construction of an impassable wall to protect our borders from the influx of illegal drugs, is not only incendiary, it is wholly irresponsible.”

“Sexist” is another term used to attack Trump. However, an article published in the Washington Post on November 25, 2016 reports: “many women who have worked closely with Trump say he was a corporate executive ahead of his time in providing career advancement for women…his companies nurtured and pro­moted women in an otherwise male-dominated industry.” Taking all the aforementioned information into account, the primary cases against Donald Trump have been debunked.

With that being said, the case against Hillary Clinton becomes much more alarming. I already mentioned some of Hillary Clinton’s ties to racism, an area where Hillary Clinton has gotten off the hook is sexism. Firstly, we know Hillary Clinton remained married to Bill Clinton, who committed adultery in the Oval Office, solely for political clout. On top of this, Bill Clinton has a long history of sexual assault. As a matter of fact, Bill Clinton has been accused of sexual harassment and sexual assault by at least 10 women. One victim, Juanita Broaddrick, spoke out: “I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now 73….it never goes away.” Knowing her husband was doing such horrific acts, and not doing anything about it (or worse, silencing the victims), makes Clinton a clear enabler of sexual harassment and assault.

It does not make much sense to call Hillary Clinton a feminist when she supports and arms Saudi Arabia, as the International Business Times reported. Saudi Arabia is quite possibly the worst country in the world when it comes to civil rights. Women in Saudi Arabia are second class citizens, atheism and homosexuality are punishable by death, and citizens are still beheaded. With the weapons given to them by Hillary Clinton, Saudi Arabia massacres innocent women and children in Yemen, confirmed by the United Nations. Even more appalling, Hillary Clinton has happily accepted tens of millions of dollars from oppressive regimes, according to the Wall Street Journal. This includes Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, and Morocco (reported by politico). In the United Arab Emirates, laws exist that allow husbands to assault their wives and children. In Qatar, women again have no rights and are second class citizens, atheists and gays are sentenced to death, marital rape is permitted, and having sex out of wedlock is also punishable by death. In Oman, women particularly face discrimination pertaining to domestic issues such as child custody and rape. In Morocco, authorities restricted the rights to peaceful expression, association and assembly through several laws and continue to prosecute print and online media when they criticize the government, and the king. All of this information comes from the Human Rights Watch. For someone to say Hillary Clinton will fight for civil rights, when she supports, arms, and is affiliated with regimes that completely disregard basic human rights, is laughable.

Donald Trump has smartly called out Clinton for supporting these corrupt governments, and ordered she returns the money, which she has not done. A Hillary Clinton presidency would see the further empowerment of these oppressive Islamic countries that strictly enforce violent, outdated scripture in the Quran that states “men are a degree above women” and “If you fear highhandedness from your wives, remind them [of the teaching of God], then ignore them when you go to bed, then hit them.” We simply cannot let this disgusting ideology continue to remain in great power and spread throughout the global world. The ideologies directly threaten our values of basic human rights, the constitution, free market capitalism, civil liberties, political freedom, and democratic representation. There is no free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, or freedom of individual thought in these corrupt countries Hillary Clinton loves to empower. Citizens in these nations have no right to bear arms, and thus are defenseless against the terrorizing authorities. Again, we simply cannot afford to elect a candidate who enables these horrendous ideals.

Hillary Clinton’s disregard for constitutional rights can also be seen in the policy she has imposed on America. Hillary Clinton voted in favor of the patriot act, which completely disregards the fourth amendment, stripping away our protection of unreasonable search and seizure. She proposes an agenda that seemingly diminishes our second amendment right to bear arms which would leave us defenseless against a corrupt government. She supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) that allows large corporations to bypass regulations and standards by going overseas, diminishing the environment and costing our country significant jobs while incentivizing the continuation of unethical labor practice overseas, where workers get slaved for insignificant pay.

Hillary Clinton has an infinite list of blunders. She has armed and trained Syrian rebels that have given the weapons to ISIS to use against us, according to Amnesty International. She destroyed Libya by ousting Muammar Gaddafi, whom under him the country was thriving both in terms of the economy (Africa’s richest democracy under his power, per Centre for Research on Globalization) and civil liberties (women had immense rights and privileges), and left the nation completely destabilized. She opted to intervene in Syria, further fueling fire to the radical Islamic terrorism movement. She voted in favor of the Iraq war, which cost our nation over $6 trillion (according to Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University) and led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and led to the foundation of ISIS in the first place. She claimed she had suffered a brain injury so severe she could not answer FBI questions. She directly lied to the American people on what she did and did not send and receive on her private email server. In Benghazi, she personally felt it was not worthwhile to attempt to rescue our ambassador, staff and military personnel due to possible diplomatic complications. The list of inexcusable detriments to our country and to the world goes on and on, and goes to show Hillary Clinton has no business being President of the United States of America.

It goes back to my original point, in order to protect our constitutional values, basic freedoms, and classical liberal Western ideologies, we must vote Donald Trump. I understand Trump is not a perfect candidate. While I agree with the majority of his policies (strengthening the border, increase vetting from Islamic immigrants, upholding the second amendment, cut and simplify taxes, end ties with oppressive regimes, etc.), I understand he can be crude and obnoxious at times. However, there is no such thing as a flawless candidate. As an 11-year-old Trump supporter intelligently said on CNN, “listening to a few bad words coming out of Donald Trump’s mouth is a lot better than people blown up by terrorists, people getting burned alive, people’s heads being chopped off, and people being drowned.” An 11-year-old can understand it, so should you.

Accomplished retired neurosurgeon and politician Ben Carson said it best: “Although Donald Trump, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have their flaws as well, to argue that they even come close to the level of corruption displayed by someone who lied about sniper fire in Bosnia, lied about a videotape in Benghazi to help secure an election result, lied about what was sent and received on a forbidden private server, attacked women who were taken advantage of by her husband, defended the brutal rapist of a 12-year-old girl and laughed about it, admired and befriended Saul Alinsky, the community organizer who hated America and wanted to change it, used a charitable organization and her political position and power to enrich herself and her family and largely avoids press conferences because she might have to answer questions about all of these things, requires the suspension of rational thought processing.” We may never get this chance again, so please vote Donald Trump on November 8, 2016.

Letter to the Editor: On Paris and Beirut

0

I’m deeply troubled by the carnage this past weekend in both Paris and Beirut. This sadness comes from a number of places—I have friends, both from Lebanon and from France, and I feel the intense sadness they feel for their own people. I am also troubled because this is another tragic moment where fanaticism and hateful, exclusionary ideology has manifested itself as a violent outbreak, leaving the global community crippled and asking, yet again, “Why?”

Aside from my grief, I feel something else; I feel confused. I am confused as to why a global outpour of sympathy has been directed almost exclusively towards France, leaving Lebanon, for the most part, in the dark. This is not to say I think there should be no sympathy shown for France—on the contrary, I wonder why people do not see the bombing and loss of innocent life in Lebanon, by the same group of fanatics, as troubling as the French incident. Monuments were lit up with France’s colors of red, white and blue, as well as people’s Facebook profile pictures, and I was sitting there wondering, what about the rest of the victims? Aren’t their lives equally precious and important? I did not see this sort of solidarity for the victims of the Lebanese bombings, or the Yemeni civilians crippled by airstrikes, or the Jordanian fighter pilot, and all the other journalists and aid workers who were brutally murdered at the hands of ISIS. These are just a few examples that hit close to home.

I just wonder, what if my home in Jordan, which is just a borderline away from Lebanon, were to be subjected to such terror? Would the global community stand in solidarity with my people, my family, my friends and my home? Or will it be seen as just another act of violence that can be expected in such a turbulent region?

My thoughts and best wishes go out to anyone who has been affected by this past weekend’s global tragedy; no life is less precious than any other.

Conflicted student seeks internship solutions

0

“Middle-market. Leveraged capital buyout. T­–M–T.”

My friend is wearing a pink striped tie and a blazer. He has a video interview tonight, his eleventh recently, and recites contrived phrases as he paces the room.

“Enterprise software solutions. Accretion.”

I am lounging on a bed wearing a loose-fitting kurta and sipping iced coffee. I do not have an interview tonight, nor have I had one this month or the month before.

“This isn’t for lack of trying,” I would like to write. But, except for a few consulting applications, I haven’t embarked on my Junior Year Internship Search, that all-important third-year rite. Until now, I’ve hurdled through my college years like one of those Spartan racers. Having overcome classes and clubs and jobs, I feel like a mud-streaked champion, successful if not graceful. Now, an unexpected roadblock. I can’t bring myself to upload my resume and click submit.

Babson student life: Ranked #1 in bureaucracy

0

The Babson website proudly compares starting a club at Babson to “starting a new venture,”- even alluding to the notion that participating in student life functions as entrepreneurial practice. However, every club’s events must be approved by SGA, every piece of marketing material must include an SGA logo, and every dollar raised during these events must be returned to SGA. In reality, students who start and run clubs look less like entrepreneurs and more like bureaucrats. It is quite ironic that a school ranked #1 in entrepreneurship forces students to create the collegiate equivalent of government agencies in order to have a registered organization on campus.

While the structure of the system might be slightly ironic, the plethora of issues that stem from it are no laughing matter. The current incentive structure creates an environment where club leaders can ask for a large amount of money as many times as they can. Since the money they are spending is not “their” money, there is no organic incentive against requesting funding for pizza for every meeting, even if such spending is relatively frivolous.

Since the government decides which events can go through, and at times choose to not fund or partially fund events, club leaders are incentivized to submit as many budgets as possible, in the hope that some get approved. This system leads to an enormous amount of proposals and creates an environment that wastes the time of both club leaders and SGA members. On top of that, the need to request funding for each event creates a massive amount of uncertainty regarding whether the event will be able to be financed per the specifications of the club.

A good example of the issues with the current system can be found with the experience of the Babson Political Association. Caleb Wursten, founder of the BPA, expressed to me how difficult it is to plan events with such “immense levels of uncertainty.” He says that club leaders are essentially forced to “shotgun budgets and hope some get approved.” As someone incredibly passionate about politics who founded the very first political association on campus, Wursten (‘19) is exactly the type of student that the system should encourage. Instead, he finds himself in an environment that constantly inhibits his club’s flexibility and holds his passion bureaucratically hostage to the extent that running the club at times creates more stress than enjoyment. It comes as no surprise then that the government weights put on the back of organization leaders lead to high club turnover and lack of club longevity.

Clubs on campus should operate to fulfill the needs of their members and students who are interested in that particular club. The college should finance those organizations, not because every little function they perform benefits the whole campus, but because they provide value to the students who are interested in that activity.

Isaiah M. Williams, Co-President of Babson TV, explained to me how his club has had “a very difficult time pitching a budget” because SGA doesn’t exactly see the projects and events of Babson TV translating well to “the greater student body.” So much for the “diversity” of clubs that Babson advertises on their clubs page. Williams (’19) goes on to explain how in his presentation to SGA, many members seemed disinterested, on their phones, and generally seemed to lack care about a subject that he and the many members of his club are passionate about. His description of the immense difficulty in navigating the SGA “red tape” contrasts almost comically with Babson’s claim on their club page that “Red tape is kept to a minimum.” People who love media and film should be the ones deciding what projects can be completed, but in the centralized economy that is Babson student life, the government is the one who decides whether a a club’s function adds value, and they do that by questioning whether it adds value to the whole community. In the real world, instead of attempting to add a little value to the entire population, companies fill specific niches and add a lot of value to specific segments of the population. If we start emulating real world venture creation, maybe our student life can finally live up to our #1 entrepreneurship ranking.

Aside from the minutiae and specifics of the funding process, the entire mindset behind student life is misguided. Marketing materials must have an SGA logo because the events are funded by SGA. Any money raised with the assistance of SGA funds must be returned immediately to SGA. The message is clear: it is SGA’s money and they are graciously giving it to you. If the SGA is truly a government for the people, then it is not their money at all. They should merely perform the job of fairly allocating it among the various student groups (and get paid the same $1000 they already get paid). As students and sources of tuition money, we, the broader student population of Babson, should have access to funds given for the purposes of student life without the restrictions (such as having an SGA logo on all flyers) levied on us by what is essentially a financial middleman.  

I propose that Babson migrate to a different system of financing student life in order to make it more vibrant and efficient. Rather than having organizations apply for funding for every little thing they do, they should instead apply for funding for every semester. They would submit a general outline of why they need the amount they are asking for and then SGA will allocate money to be spent by that organization for the semester. How large the funding an organization can receive should be based on past performance (how long they’ve been active, how much value they added last year, etc). Tying funds to past performance would also help reduce club turnover because clubs would be incentivized to be active and add value every year. A faculty advisor for each organization would have to approve each time funds are disbursed by a club in order to regulate spending.

Any perceived mismanagement of funds can be dealt with by the SGA in the form of asset freezes, lack of future funding, etc. This system would create an incentive structure that promotes conservation of funds because any dollar spent by an org would mean they couldn’t spend that dollar on an event later in the semester. Williams (’19) and Wursten (’19) both expressed extreme enthusiasm for the idea as they claimed it would allow their respective clubs to be more efficient and add more value to the student body by removing many of the incredibly restrictive regulations placed upon them by the SGA. This idea isn’t new either; many colleges use a similar system to fund their student life.

At Columbia University clubs put in funding requests to their student government at the end of the academic year and then receive a lump sum for the next year. When club leaders come back to campus in the fall they already know their resources for the year and can plan their club accordingly. Adopting a system like Columbia’s or some version of the one I proposed would make both clubs and the government more efficient.

The Babson website on their clubs page proclaims, “as in any entrepreneurial venture, at Babson anything is possible.” Well at the moment that should be modified to say that at Babson when the government supports your idea, anything is possible.

“To my fellow first-years…”

0

Dearest collegiate freshman,

Here you are, the class of 2018. You’ve studied, you’ve crammed, you’ve been the president of school clubs, directors of plays, producers of television shows, and editors-in-chief of newspapers. You’ve done so much already in such a short period of time.

And now, here you are. Standing before me, I see a class filled with potential, a class that exudes charisma and charms that go beyond the classroom. Your passions bleed beyond the small Babson community into the global world. I see you all going places – some will be CEOs of Fortune 500, while others will take their innovative ideas into the nonprofit sector. Of course, there will be a plethora of careers in between, all gearing up to do more.

But before we go off and explore the infinite possibilities that lie ahead, let us take the time to reflect on some of the most important, and oftentimes overlooked, parts of our college experience. First off, high school may have adequately prepared some for the vigor of college academia, but for many of you, this is a new experience. Now, I’m no expert on college, nor do I have any exceptionally amazing credentials. These thoughts are mere suggestions and tips that I’ve picked up during my short time at Babson, and they are subjected to change as I morph into the entrepreneurial leader I wish to become. Here are three things you should keep in mind as your journey at Babson continues.

One

This marks the beginning of your adult life. You’re free for the first time – free from daily familial obligations, free to be your own person, free to explore your own boundaries and take charge of your own future. Take advantage of that freedom and go explore the unknown. Get out of your comfort zone, and be proactive about your future. Join that club or organization you’ve been interested in, or better yet, join and run for that e-board position. Take the time out of your day to recognize your strengths. Build upon them.

Two

I know this is an abstract concept, but I encourage failure. Our FME professors tell us “failing is growing” and “failure only leads to success in the long run.” But let’s be honest here: from the student perspective, failing sucks. Failing means you did not accomplished what you set out to – or that’s the definition as we know it now.

Let’s re-define failing. Failure is not defeat. Failure is a mere road bump which leads to greater understanding of our strengths and weaknesses and builds stronger leaders. We’ve been trained as a society to think that failure is the ultimate form of defeat, when in actuality, failure may lead to success. The ambitions that we, as a class, have are stronger than the adversities and naysayers that try to hold us back. We are resilient, we are strong, and we are united.

Three

As we grow up and migrate away from the metaphorical “nest,” we often lose sight of the important things in life. We change as individuals, and sometimes, we stray from our core values and beliefs in hopes of discovering something better. I’m not here to tell you not to experiment and not to find yourself. What I will say is the grass is not always greener on the other side. Sometimes you must be adamant with your beliefs and stay true to your values.

College is a time of discovery and rediscovery; it’s a time of innovation. As cliché as it sounds, it truly is the time for you to be selfish and find yourself. Don’t waste this time. Take advantage of all the resources and activities offered, and live these next four years with no regrets. Put yourself out there and stay forever young in your thoughts and unafraid of change—set forth to make a difference, and do it.

Why the Donald Trump represents the modern day republican party

0

The Republican Party today seems astonished by the fact that Donald J. Trump is their party’s nominee in this election. The Republican establishment acts as if Trump is an unfair hand they have been dealt with, without any of their own actions contributing to his success.

There is a general outrage that the party has chosen an individual who is expressing hateful and vile judgements about various groups of potential voters.  However, there should be no surprise that Republican voters applaud Trump’s ideas such as the “Great, Great Wall” and “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” when the party has spent years telling immigrants they are not welcome here through “self-deportation”, the anti-Dream act, and anti-refugee rhetoric. The Republican Party has relied on fear mongering as a tactic for years by establishing suspicion of Latinos and Muslims long before Trump.

Republican lawmakers express shock when Republican voters cheer at Trump’s inappropriate derision and actions, even as they themselves deny our president common courtesy, for instance, by not standing during a state of the union address or by not giving a fair hearing to a supreme court nominee.

Republicans have no justification for their surprise at the rise of Trump considering that they have been laying the foundation over the last seven years for such an authoritarian and egotistical candidate. It all began when Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, said in an interview to the National Journal, “It is our top political priority over the next two years to deny President Obama a second term”. The Republican Party at that point decided to block all legislation and policy on all issues regardless of urgency or merit, with examples including: Veterans Affairs Funding Bill, Infrastructure Bill, Equal Pay for Women Bill, Student Loan Forgiveness, Bring Jobs Home Act etc… The greatest absurdity, however, is the fact that Republicans claim to back policies that support the former bills and acts, but since, it was President Obama who supported those policies, the Republican establishment couldn’t respect it.

In the seven years that President Obama has been in office, he has been filibustered over 500 times. For some context, Lyndon B. Johnson had two filibusters during the same time period. President Obama has also had 79 nominee blocks during his administration, versus 68 total for all of the other presidents combined.

That same disrespectful, uncompromising and dictatorial nature is exemplified in Donald Trump’s oratory, with examples such as, “Because you’ll be in jail” as he threatened his opponent with jail time or “You have to take out their families” referring to how to deal with terrorism through war crimes; clearly showing no respect for the judicial process.

The party is now reaping what they have sown. The Republican establishment prioritized the happiness of its right wing voter base rather than approaching the issues that mattered to the majority of Americans.

The Republican Party has not moved from that model. Even after condemning Trump’s policies, most Republican lawmakers have endorsed Donald Trump due to fear of their political futures. Until earlier this month, respected Republicans such as Paul Ryan and John McCain had backed Trump, even after Trump refused to denounce an endorsement from the leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Republican leaders supported Donald Trump through comments that denigrate Latinos, Blacks, Muslims, disabled, and now women. Even now, the Republicans who are now abandoning Trump are doing so because his comments about sexual abuse affect their predominantly white right-wing voter base.

The Washington Post sums up the situation: “Trump is the GOP’s Frankenstein monster”. Conservative leaders through their words and actions demonstrated that government, politics, and political parties were institutions that did not deserve respect, and now it is their own nominee who is taking advantage of those perceptions.

Conservatives leaders have incited nothing but fear, hate, distrust, and resentment in their most avid supporters; therefore, it should be no surprise that they have nominated Donald Trump, a product of their own actions.

Links used for Evidence:

http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/12/2015-year-anti-immigration-trump/421893/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/08/27/Top-20-Words-Voters-Use-Describe-Trump-Bush-and-Clinton

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-gops-frankenstein-monster-now-hes-strong-enough-to-destroy-the-party/2016/02/25/3e443f28-dbc1-11e5-925f-1d10062cc82d_story.html?utm_term=.215d83f5c1f1

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/29/politics/harry-reid-donald-trump-frankenstein-monster/

Community Unity Educators: From “salad bowl” to “melting pot”

0

On its website, Babson proudly boasts of having as many as 80 countries represented in its student population. In front of the Horn Library, international flags wave in unison as another remind of the diversity on campus. Babson even dedicates an entire residence hall, the Pride tower, towards LGBT awareness.

Yet as much as Babson strives to cater to the needs of its multicultural community, it still has a long way to go. Babson is like a salad bowl, where students of different backgrounds are tossed together, as opposed to a melting pot, where everyone contributes to the development and wellbeing of the community.

As a CUE, or Community Unity Educator, my mission is to make the melting pot a reality. I, along with four other CUES, want to start the conversation around inclusion.

One of our initiatives was a question box that asked people to explain what the phrase “BISO” means to them. Since it was anonymous, we received many frank responses. Someone wrote in that he couldn’t stand to be called a BISO, because of all the negative connotations that come with the label.

Despite the stereotype, not all international students are wealthy or exclusive. Evidentially, there is a lot of potential for a more unified community here at Babson.

To promote this vision, the CUES are hosting office hours, where students are encouraged to stop by and share your thoughts and experiences. Whether it is an offensive comment or ideas about new initiatives and events, we are here to listen. CUE can be reached on Twitter: @BabsonCUES.

Our Presidential Candidates: What You NEED to Know

0

Our Presidential Candidates: What you NEED to know

Hillary Clinton

         Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton is the democratic party nominee who also happens to be the first major female candidate in history. Her candidacy marks an era where gender no longer bars political ambition, where one can campaign on a message of inclusion and diversity. On policy, the Secretary has been unapologetically centrist on issues, an accusation to which she pleads “guilty.” Her personal center-left politics are moderate to say the least, as she is not extreme at all. Notwithstanding the occasional tug of a primary race, or a flip flop to address a new age, her positions are roughly the same: centrist policy that hardly anyone can agree or disagree with.

What you need to know

After the primary, Hillary Clinton took a very hard, and uncharacteristic, turn to leftist ideology in order to appease Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders’ supporters. She favors more government intervention, or “investment” as she refers to it, in the economy. Entitlement growth, government subsidies, and public sector expansion are all to be expected under a Clinton administration. Clinton has also explicitly expressed a potent sense of fiscal responsibility. Being quoted for claiming to pay for everything she proposes, and “not adding a penny to the national debt,” one can also expect to see high tax spikes under her term. These taxes are meant to come from the wealthiest persons and corporations in the United States.

On foreign policy, Clinton has a very hawkish attitude. In Syria, she proposes a “no fly zone” over Aleppo that would prohibit any nation from flying into the area; an action that Generals in the United States military say would cause war with the Russian Federation.

Beyond policy, Clinton has an impressive array of personal qualifications, yielding experience that undoubtedly equals what is asked of the President of the United States. She has been a successful attorney, the First Lady of Arkansas, the First Lady of the United States, a New York Senator, the Secretary of State, and now a premiere presidential candidate. Her political experience is unparalleled, unrivaled, and beyond comparison to Trump. Her experience is so overwhelming that some consider it to be a fault.

On a more personal level, Clinton has a few problems. Firstly, both President Obama and Senator Bernie Sanders have said that Hillary Clinton has poor judgment. Clinton also lied about Benghazi, her state department emails, and even in the third presidential debate, she was caught in a lie over her desire for “open borders.”

She is also on the record for having “a public and private” political position on issues, suggesting that her real intentions are not as transparent as previously thought. She has repeatedly refused to release her transcripts from speeches made to big banking donors behind closed doors.

Additionally, Clinton has been accused of operating a “pay to play” system at the State Department during her tenure as Secretary of State. The accusation includes giving her donors special favors after a monetary exchange, or donation, to the Clinton Foundation. Her charity foundation took in millions of dollars from foreign governments- the same she dealt with in the State Department. Clinton represents the status quo. She is an establishment candidate who has been in politics for 40+ years. Her policies would largely represent an extension of the laws and processes that Obama has been pushing forward for the last 8 years.

Donald Trump

          Donald John Trump is a billionaire business mogul who is the Republican presidential nominee. Rather than pursuing politics, he has spent his life crafting a personal brand of opulence and success that is self evident from any of his real estate ventures. Donald Trump’s landmark candidacy is particularly surprising because of his ability to, well, win. As a total and complete political outsider, he beat a well-qualified group of 16 candidates in a primary that he was never, ever supposed to win. He is unapologetically brash and uncensored, preferring to speak his mind than use a politician’s filter.

Using plain and imprecise language, Trump has often landed himself in controversy, perhaps purposefully. Through a clever use of the media cycle, and a belief that bad publicity is better than none, Mr. Trump prefers the media to do his advertising for him through name recognition, as he is now known to be “the Loudest Man on the Planet”.

What you need to know

                    Donald Trump’s political background is murky to say the least. By “playing off both sides” Trump has built up a very convoluted political past. He has supported and critiqued both democratic and republican presidents, showing his unconventional political stances. Beyond his support for varying policies, Trump is very outspoken.

He does not care whether his comments are misunderstood, offensive, misleading, or purposefully unclear. Since Trump so clearly represents a populist surge in American politics, he has faced hurdles at every step of his campaign. No party establishment wants an outsider- someone who will completely break apart their status quo, and yet he managed to pull off a landslide victory.

Trump answers to an extraordinarily angry and distraught electorate, the kind of people who lost their jobs as they watched their communities fall apart. These people feel betrayed by the political class, by everyone who has had the power to help them out, so it’s not surprising that they are so willing to overlook Trump’s comments and faults.

Trump’s policies are not what one would expect from the typical Republican playbook. He is not for free trade as others, but would rather have “fair” trade. He wants a system that allows workers in America to pursue good jobs. Trump’s greatest appeal lies in his proposition to help fix the broken trade deals that America is currently engaged in.

             Another position is his hardline stance on immigration. Just as the Republican party was about to concede the immigration debate, Trump exploded the conversation. He wants to fully overhaul the immigration process, as he says “there is none; they’re pouring over our border!” Building a wall, deportations, and strict adherence to immigration laws would be expected from a Trump administration.

Trump would also like to lessen the tax burden on American families, individuals, and companies. The Trump tax cuts would slash the federal budget, and in the short run blow up the yearly deficit. At the same time, however, Trump believes the plan to spur the economy into robust growth (of about 3-4% GDP as opposed to 1-2%) and massive reinvestment due to the low corporate tax rate.

Trump has also expressed concern over our National Debt, however, he considers fixing the economy a primary concern. On foreign policy Trump is less hawkish than Mrs. Clinton. He proposes working together with Russia, and pulling out of the Middle east; an action that would avoid large conflicts with other countries in the area.

The volume of words

0

A rose may rise solemnly in solitude, but if it grows in unison with its brothers and sisters, it creates a beautiful scene, a backdrop, art. Words are of the same mold; when alone, their connotation is underwhelming, however, when strung together to form sentences, their essence is multiplied. An innumerable combination of phrases, arguments and statements may stem from the simple formation of words. It may be as plain as a command, or as intricate as scholarly text. Words are flavours, each with their own dynamic personality.

The words ‘interesting’ and ‘electrifying’ may be cousins in terms of similarity, but their demeanors are polar opposites. They are both incredibly valuable when trying to express a conjecture, but are used differently, at different times, and with different intent. Words also may appear ‘beautiful’ or ‘ugly’. For example, the word ‘plethora’ is an efficient and imposing word, but it reads and looks unappealing. The opposite is true for the words ‘embellish’, and ‘patronage’, which sound as good as they look.

This is the very lure of writing; it is vast and perhaps, endless. There are infinite ways to reshape a sentence and still retain its meaning. This is how authors make a living, how students set themselves apart from their peers, and how different forms of writing are conceived.

Words allow for us to personalize our plays, poems and essays. One can create a piece with a professional, serious impression, or, at the simple exchange of words, breath a radically different life into it. Our writing, just like the condition of our room and the clothes we wear, is representative of who we are. It adds an element of style and flair to our writing personas, or in certain cases, eliminates such sophistication.

This is due to the flexibility of languages; we can contort words to convey messages or to provide descriptions under any given context. For example, authors often push words to the extreme extent of their meanings and usage, in favor of creating literary illusion, or to cleverly annunciate a point. The word’s definition may not directly align with its usage, yet it is manipulated in such a fashion so that the reader still understands what is being expressed.

Beyond decorating our papers with layers of ingenuity and slick phrases, words come together for another purpose, for the very reason they were breed. Writing was, and still is, the industrious and immune foe of time. Used primarily as a method of ancient communication, its resilience allows it to stand alongside its contemporaries (the telephone, Facebook, Snapchat).

The human race, like it or not, still reads and writes,which can take the form of billboards and signs, or texts, emails and letters. We write for fun; we write songs; or we write to transmit meaning. This mutualism between writing and reading is eternally significant, for you need one to do the other. Writing possess a multitude of faces; it can be used to provide entertainment, to inform, or to teach. Writing is permeable; it disregards the bounds of languages, and passes through them all.

And writing is universal: it exists in even the most remote of civilizations, and its ubiquitous characteristics make it a necessary and very basic human right. A foundational aspect of our lives is robbed of us if the skills of writing and reading are not well, or even at all, versed.

In this regard, books are essentially the harvest of writing. Books provoke one’s desire to obtain information and intelligence. When reading, you are reading the words of another man or woman, just as you are reading this.

Significantly, this means as we read, we delve into the mind of the author’s words, their perspective on any given subject matter, and their ideas. In turn, we may borrow elements of their themes, words, and concepts. The primitive composition, or the complex amalgamation of words, is responsible for the texts we read every day.

Books, as a product of writing, are necessary in documenting our thoughts, the inner-workings of our imagination, and our intellect. It then acts as a platform to share and obtain knowledge from those around us. There is a simplicity in the book that revives and beckons the words of millenniums ago, but dually, it bears a variable element of purity that allows it to prosper yet in the modern world.

Letter to the Editor: On the diversity petition Op/Ed

1

Dear Babson Free Press Editor,

I applaud your effort in taking the initiative to research and put forth factual data so that we as students are more informed about the various clubs and resources we have on campus. An article such as yours will receive backlash due to its sensitive subject matter however, it does what all great journalism pieces do: It forces people to have a difficult conversation from different points of view.

I cannot validate nor invalidate any individual’s experience at this school as every person’s experience is different. I can however, share my experience in the hopes that people realize that Babson is diverse in many aspects. I am not one to actively seek diverse courses or subjects but as my experience will convey, diversity permeates all throughout the college.

My second semester during my first year here I was required to take Rhetoric II in which an openly gay, white male professor taught us about the experiences of black lesbian females and the intersectional oppression they face from not one, but three groups. The professor was neither black nor female yet was still able to teach us and open our minds to the idea of oppression as “the sum of all parts” and apply those critical ideas to various topics including our own lives. The professor excelled at two things: exposing us to a group whose oppression often goes unnoticed and helping us realize that this oppression can be universally applied to every form of oppression. Once again, I did not know the topic of the class before I took it nor did I actively seek out this subject matter however I was exposed to it, and thereby allowed to make my own critical analysis.

This semester I took a course called South Asian History. Many people would expect a person from South Asia to teach this course. However, the person who taught me about the region where I am from was from Maine. Yes, a white man from Maine who has a PhD in History taught me about the South Asian region. He was able to deliver the material in a clear unbiased manner that taught us to think critically about the problems that plague the area. His race, ethnicity, socioeconomic background, gender or sexual orientation simply did not allow him to have any advantages or disadvantages when it came to the delivery of the subject matter.

Professors at this school are hired because they are learned academics who have devoted years of their lives studying the subjects that they teach. Discrediting them because of their race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation or perspectives is shamefully wrong. Professors who qualify for an open position based on merit should not be forgone in favor of professors who have a diverse social backgrounds. If hiring new faculty and staff to ‘be more diverse’ is the goal, what happens to the current faculty?

Furthermore, I would like to remind the first year students who are so vehemently in favor of this petition to realize that they have only experienced one semester at this college. There is simply not enough data for them to make conclusions about the entire institution without having experienced it fully. Their opinions are valued and offer a perspective into their experiences but it must be realized that most of them have only experienced 4 or 5 courses.

Lastly, I welcome informed discussion, debate and conversation about this topic but I will not stand for attacks on my own or other people’s character, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, or socioeconomic background because they should not discredit my own opinions that I have expressed above. I further acknowledge that my experience may not be the same as other’s experiences but I am open to hearing about these. I would like to remind all students that diversity encompasses the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies.

Thank You,
Vikrant Ghate