Last week I had the opportunity to interview three-time US presidential candidate Ralph Nader. Our conversation, which ranged from topics of consumer advocacy, collective bargaining, the media, and the election process, begins at the fourth paragraph below.

Beyond his political ambitions, Mr. Nader is a renowned consumer advocate whose 1965 report on car safety is largely credited with inspiring Congress to pass federal seat belt laws. Additionally, he founded Public Interest Research Groups (PIRG) and the Center for Study of Responsive Law, where he now works alongside his “Nader’s Raiders”—a team of expert investigators, attorneys, and consumer advocates.

Since his last election, Nader has received scant media attention. To my surprise, though, he has been far from quiet in Washington, advocating for more legislation and creating more non-profit organizations than ever.

When I asked him what new initiatives he’s involved with, he replied, “Well we’re always busy. We were recently trying to pass a bill in response to the recent recalls with Toyota, but it got vetoed by the Republicans in Congress. We have also been working on financial regulation reform. So to answer your question, we at CSRL believe people need more choices and more voices. And in this era of corporate globalization, we need to remind people that some things are not for sale. Government should not be for sale. Basic education should not be for sale. Democracy around the world is on the verge of a huge breakthrough, and now its time to subordinate corporatism to the sovereignty of the people here in the United States. Look how little energy it took to sound the national alarm in Wisconsin!”

Knowing that Nader is not known for optimism, I pointed out that “the overall political climate of the US right now, at least in the media, is a tendency for liberals to compromise both in Town Halls and in the White House. What about the watered-down Obama budget, or the growing resistance to liberal institutions in the Midwest?”

“The Republicans are just better fighters than the Democrats,” Nader, the Independent, responded. “Unlike Republicans, Democrats often flounder in their victories and lose lasting impact. Governor Scott Walker won his election on a tea-party platform sponsored by the Koch Brothers and driven by mass media, and now that he is there he plans to exercise his power.” (This statement that Walker ran on a tea-party platform is actually inaccurate. In reality, Walker ran on a moderate platform and beat out a self-described tea-party candidate in the Republican Primary). Nader continued, “You’ll notice that when you hear conservatives talking about the hot issues, their arguments are generally either factually inaccurate or extremely vague moral or ethical stances.”

“Scott Walker has been defending the ban on collective bargaining on the grounds that collective bargaining punishes the most efficient workers,” I added. “He also says that it is necessary to reduce the deficit in a struggling economy. How would you respond to that?”

“Collective bargaining exists,” said Nader, “so that if somebody messes up they go to their union and file a complaint, and based on their argument they evaluate the complaint to raise standards or wages. Nothing about that punishes an efficient worker. On the contrary, the most productive workforce in American history were the car manufacturers in the 50’s who were supported by the largest unions in the country. Walker is just using the deficit as a so-called ‘useful’ crisis which he hopes will gain momentum in order to fight other democratic institutions associated with unions, such as health care reform. The truth is that Wisconsin’s total deficit isn’t actually that bad. Even if the crisis were real, we should not be taking money away from unions first. What about the corporations and special interests to whom the Wisconsin taxpayers gave over $140 million last year? Which one should go first?”

The actual budget deficit in Wisconsin is $137 million, and is by no means an outlier when compared to other states. Contrary to popular belief, Wisconsin’s public sector is among the 10 leanest in the country. The idea that the Wisconsin deficit is due to a ballooning public sector with a byzantine bureaucracy is a myth.

“The decision of the Democrats to flee the state,” I suggested, “while passionate and successful in the short term, is not a long term solution. As a specialist in legal matters, what do you think is the best way to win back collective bargaining in the long run? Is anything Scott Walker doing illegal? What about threatening to cut 12,000 jobs if the protesters don’t stand down, isn’t that essentially blackmail?”

“Governor Walker isn’t doing anything illegal,” Nader said with cold confidence. “The best thing we can do is elect him out of office in two years. In the long run, what we can focus on is teaching students and advocates better civic skills. Even up there at Dartmouth, they teach you how to maximize efficiency and profits, and to do many other wonderful arts and sciences, but they don’t teach you how to defend your rights, organize a protest, and subordinate the corporations to the sovereignty of the people.”

Though I had told myself to refrain from questioning him about his presidential campaign, I couldn’t help but ask, “Many people, both Democrats and Republicans, claim that you were the reason why Bush was elected to 8 years in office. How do you justify your presidential campaign in 2000?”

“This is an absurd idea. The American people have the freedom to vote for whomever they want, and the suggestion that I should not run for president goes directly against the constitutional right for my supporters to vote for whoever you want.”

Finally, as I had the impression that Mr. Nader was extraordinarily well informed, I asked him where he reads his news.

“You know, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Guardian. They tend to cover everything, and after a while you get used to cutting through all the fat. One publication that I recommend especially for the liberal-minded is an online publication called ‘Progressive Populist.’ It really has a lot of great ammunition for people like you, with columns by really eloquent people like Amy Goodman from Democracy Now.”

I thanked Mr. Nader for his time and he immediately asked me for my address so that he could send me a box full of books, magazines, and other resources. If there is one thing If there is one thing I learned about Ralph Nader from this interview, beyond that he has an unapologetic yet benevolent attitude towards politics, it is that the man certainly does his homework.

THE MASTHEAD
Editor-in-Chief: Paul Lintilhac
Executive Editor: Zack De
Managing Editor: Eli Lichtenstein
Publisher: Joseph Z. T. Mesfin
Treasurer: Kate B. Miller

Read Issue 11.3!

There is something refreshing about the raw spirit of the recent revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt. Their messages were simple and unwavering, and the best part was that they didn’t have a face—political dissent was carried out in pure, unadulterated form— by the masses. The protesters have proven that the previously foolproof military, economic, and social tools on which Arab dictators relied to suppress their populations no longer work as well as they used to. Though democracy in the Arab world is still far from ubiquitous, it is clear that the people have begun to insist on the basic democratic tenets of limited terms in office and freedom of speech. We have a long way to go in fulfilling our goals of “reaching out a hand to Egypt,” as President Obama pledged in his Cairo speech last year. But it is obvious that the democratic movement in the Arab world is accelerating.

Unlike Arabic revolutions in years past, when murder and mass oppression could go unnoticed for months or years, the revolution in Egypt, from start to finish, lasted only a few weeks. In Tunisia, one man lit himself on fire and within weeks that fire had spread to the rest of the country via the internet and cell phones. The result transformed the entire country. In comparison, the Iranian revolution of 1979, which was considered exceptionally speedy and widely popular, lasted a year.

Of course, in 1979, Iranians didn’t have the internet. In contrast, with today’s increased connectivity between vastly disparate cultures across the globe, the oppressive chokehold of dictators across the Arab world is beginning to slip. Experts disagree as to whether or not the revolutions are the beginning of a more widespread and frequent series of democratic uprisings to come. One thing, however, I think we can all agree upon: when they do happen, they will probably be quicker and hopefully easier than ever before.

Again, this is not to say that the revolution in Cairo was by any means “easy.” At least 135 protesters were killed during the 18 days of battle, and many hundreds more were wounded. But compared with the estimated 3,000 people killed in the Iranian Revolution, this number is a sigh of relief. The truth is that one man who is videotaped dying for his country will have a much greater political effect than many more equally brave men giving their lives without media coverage.

The important role that internet-based media has played in the Arab revolutions is undeniable. And yet, ask any Egyptian or expert on the matter, and they will tell you that such media platforms played only a secondary role in the revolutions. Facebook and Twitter are applications, not people; they cannot get angry and they certainly cannot fight. Revolutions have taken place for thousands of years before any of these were invented. To credit the success of the revolution in Egypt to these technological advancements from the comfort of our privileged lives is to disrespect the brave and arduous struggle of protesters. Technological advancements must take, at most, a secondary role to the human willpower in our analysis of what has happened in the past few weeks, as Kate Miller makes clear in her column inside.

And yet, staging a revolution is not just a cooperation problem; it is also a coordination problem. Without either of the two—if the military had not finally sided with the protesters, or if protesters hadn’t found a way to circumvent cell phone and Internet outages—the revolution would have been much messier, and in all likelihood Mubarak would still be in power. Without any single revolutionary figurehead, the protesters had to resort to a Google map of the current protest locations in Cario (televised on AlJazeera) to assemble and motivate hundreds of thousands of people within minutes.

As the global internet nexus continues to expand and intensify, so will the strategic efforts of dictators to suppress information and media. The scale of the Egyptian internet shutdown was unprecedented: 97% of Egyptian internet traffic disappeared in minutes, with just enough remaining for the stock market to function. Nothing comparable has ever happened in history. Even more impressive, however, was the tenacity of Egyptian protesters who managed to use what little resources they had to penetrate the information barrier to coordinate their struggle into a concerted movement. With the aid of technology, every Egyptian could act as a journalist, and every world citizen could become an activist.

Before this all started, most Americans I spoke to were largely unaware of the dire situation in Egypt, a country that receives roughly $1.7 billion of American taxpayers’ money every year—more than the budget of our lovely State of Vermont next door. This disconnect between our intimate political connection with Egypt and our public awareness of the country was no mistake: Mubarak understood the value of controlling the flow of public information—whether in the form of cell phones, television, or social media.

And his understanding was spot on. Freezing the media may not provide long term “solutions,” but it certainly acts as an anesthetic during times of upheaval. Note the 1959 Cuban Revolution: the first thing Fidel Castro and Che Guevara did when they laid siege on Havana was to destroy every existing media company, replacing them with the socialist propaganda machine “Cubavision.” Next, they replaced all newspapers with a single government-run publication called “Granma.” By controlling the media, from the newspaper to TV to the internet today, they were able to solidify a movement that still exists after 50 years.

Both in Cuba and across the Arab world, things are beginning to change. It is becoming cheaper and easier to start an Internet blog, buy a cell phone, or watch restricted TV channels. The problem of coordinating an organized demonstration is becoming increasingly surmountable. Ultimately, though, without the willpower and cooperation of the masses, this does not get anyone anywhere. What these media technologies do is help open the doors of democracy across the world. If every country living under oppressive rule eventually gains access to this kind of public media, then the voices of the oppressed will be impossible to ignore. Such a future would by no means be perfect; there would still be miscommunication and general bad behavior. But hey, isn’t that what democracy is all about?

a href=”http://dartmouthfreepress.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/DFP-11-2.jpg”>THE MASTHEAD
Editor-in-Chief: Paul Lintilhac
Executive Editor: Zack De
Managing Editor: Eli Lichtenstein
Publisher: Joseph Z. T. Mesfin
Treasurer: Kate B. Miller

Read Issue 11.2!

Last week marked the birthday of one of the most iconic civil rights activists in our country’s history: Martin Luther King, Jr. After a month-long series of celebratory events—ranging from theatrical and musical performances to campus lectures—hopefully his social revolution will resonate with a new amplitude among Dartmouth students, even those who don’t care about politics. But if Martin Luther King Jr. has shown us anything, it is that you do not have to be a politician to make progress happen and indeed that the greatest progress is often made by groups of people who do not sit in conference rooms behind closed doors.

Some recent happenings here in snowy Hanover have demonstrated to me that certain people and institutions within our community, such as The Dartmouth and the selection committee for the Dean of the College, have failed to take the message of the King Holiday to heart.

Granted, I generally also loathe holidays. But something about being surrounded by other intelligent, critically thinking students instead of my alcoholic uncle makes it easier for me to get that warm feeling inside that reminds me that the power of symbolism has at least a little magic left these days. Still, some people fail to grasp what MLK Day symbolizes—the unified force of large groups of people all asking the same question—and instead they only see the holiday as a celebration of an admittedly imperfect individual.

An article published on Jan. 10th in The Dartmouth entitled “What About Washington?” by Roger Lott argued that while MLK was influential, he is undeserving of a more extensive celebration than George Washington. The author, in an interesting choice of words, stated that our nation’s greatest African-American hero “had his dark sides,” citing evidence that he may have engaged in plagiarism in college.

Judging by the author’s flawed comparison of the two men’s histories, in which he concluded that plagiarizing in college is a more egregious offense than owning slaves, the author’s intent is clear: pick a famous white politician and use his cultural rapport to belittle the achievements of MLK, Jr.

From start to finish this article provides a healthy serving of examples of exactly how to bring social progress to a halt. I am not sure if the author was aware of the racism implicit throughout his piece or if he was simply following the old media mantra “there’s no such thing as negative publicity.” Either way, I am glad he exercised the First Amendment, as his article provides a convenient platform from which I can do the same.

First of all, the author begins by trying to justify the fact that George Washington owned slaves because he eventually freed them. His argument is that since slaveholding was aligned with the common “mores and expectations” of the 17th century, it is not deplorable. Is this not the exact mentality that prevented us from overcoming slavery at all, the same indifference that allowed the murder of millions of Jews during the Holocaust? Just because something is socially acceptable does not make it morally right, and publishing such an opinion in a newspaper is as ridiculous as calling Glenn Beck a journalist.

Yes, I think we can all agree that owning slaves and committing plagiarism are both immoral. But that isn’t even the point. These facts are both irrelevant to our patriotic celebration of MLK’s achievements. Calling the personal behavior of Martin Luther King Jr. “disgraceful” is itself a disgrace. It is the gift of progress—not the men themselves—which we celebrate every year.

Secondly, while MLK was born 80 years ago, George Washington was born over 300 years ago. The messages of our late founding fathers do not bear the same urgency as that of MLK. We are no longer trying to free ourselves from the religious oppression of the British Empire. Racism, however, undeniably still exists in the United States, and especially at Dartmouth College.

Third, we already celebrate George Washington every day. He is on the face of the most printed piece of paper in the United States: the one-dollar bill. He has both a city and a state named after him. To claim that George Washington has been overlooked is to stretch an already unfounded argument to the point of absurdity. So… What About George Washington? I think he can share the historical spotlight.

Racial equality is only the beginning of what we can learn from Martin Luther King, Jr. There are always certain cultural and social deficits in the national psyche that simply cannot be filled in by any congressmen or president, Republican or Democrat. In these taboo situations, when a representative government or administration ignores the needs of a large portion of its constituents, we must resort to power in numbers.

Appropriately timed, one such situation is currently unfolding in the political microcosm of our College on the Hill. Last week at Dartmouth, seven impassioned students sent an email to campus asking for more transparency in our administration regarding the reasons for the sudden resignation of Acting Dean of the College, Sylvia Spears. The details of the email are discussed inside in an article by Ben Turner ‘13.

Most people thought the message was a bit mysterious if not downright confusing. Perhaps you were not aware that there have will have been three acting deans in four years who left in a similarly mysterious fashion.

If anyone were to help achieve President Kim’s goal of Dartmouth’s becoming the national leader in sexual assault policy, it was Sylvia Spears. It was in large part her idea to create a late night shuttle to prevent sexual assault, and while The Dartmouth Editorial Board recently claimed that the shuttle runs too early to have any effect, a recent crime alert on campus for an attempted rape at 10 pm has proven otherwise. Dean Spears may not have had the final solutions, but she certainly knew where to start on issues like these.

Most importantly, students appreciated her unbiased advocacy in the administration and her personal mentorship. So why would she leave the College without any subsequent job offer? And why did Dean Crady, former Dean of the College, supposedly “resign” from his position only to become the Vice President of Enrollment Management at Gustavus Adolhpus College?

We do not know whether there is a good reason for the capriciousness of our administration over the past four years, or whether there are some deeper problems afoot. Perhaps there is nothing we can do to keep Dean Spears and perhaps she is truly moving on to greater things. That is exactly the point: we are all in the dark and there is nothing we can do but use our voices. Even if it is too late to preserve Sylvia Spears’ deanship, we need to demand the record be set straight by college officials.

As Anise Vance, one of the authors of the letter, explained to me, the people who care most about the problem are seniors, as it has taken them a full four years to recognize the fact that they are not properly represented by the administration. Like a disease that kills an organism after it has already passed it on to the next generation, this is a problem the Dartmouth Bureaucracy can not fix on its own. It may not affect you until your senior year, but if you don’t ask questions now, future generations of Dartmouth students will never get answers.

Any administration or government that does not pay heed to a large fraction of its constituents is a broken one. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. believed and why I am confident that the College will make the correct decision and begin to explain its decisions publicly. That is why we celebrate the birthday of MLK.

Recently, a new campus organization called Atheists, Humanists, and Agnostics (AHA) has been working to get approval by the Tucker Foundation as an “affiliated religious group” as you will see in Sora Ryu’s article on the group this issue. Despite the large number of students at Dartmouth who self-identify as atheists, AHA would be the first non-theistic organization to be officially recognized by COSO in Dartmouth’s history. In a recent article in The Dartmouth entitled “AHA’s Moment”, the author, Brendan Woods, said that as a Christian, he believes that all people should be permitted to join in religious discourse, no matter their faith. I agree wholeheartedly with his position of acceptance, and I think the recognition of an atheist group on campus is long overdue.

To my surprise, many students at Dartmouth are of a different opinion. The most common response of Dartmouth students, when asked about the approval of a new non-theistic group on campus was “Why would anyone want to join that group?” The real question here is why would an atheist—a person who does not believe in miracles or fate—be impassioned by the absence of faith? What would they talk about?

We all know the stereotype of the disillusioned atheist who has become alienated from religion and regressed into apathy. Many people who hear phrases like “The First Atheist Church”—which does actually exist and has ordained 2523 ministers—would consider it an oxymoron and assume that no such thing would exist.

All stereotypes aside, there are still those impassioned atheists who may not believe in God but who nonetheless believe in some higher purpose, whether it be achieving enlightenment or protecting the health of the planet. They can change their beliefs no more easily than religious people can change theirs. Although atheism is not technically, a religion, the fact that the Tucker Foundation has already adopted 25 affiliated religious groups and yet has not included the non-theists in their debate seems incongruous with their stance on diversity. Why is it that we have overcome the days of shunning “non-believers” as with people of different faiths, but we have not yet overcome our fear of allowing theist and non-theists to sit down next to each other?

I remember when I was in third grade, I would argue with a girl in my class over the existence of God. My parents had not yet explained to me that the subject was “taboo,” especially coming from seven-year-old. I would ask her over and over, “why do you believe in God if you have never seen him, if you have no proof?” And she would simply respond, “At least I believe in God!” To say the least, the conversation didn’t get very far. After having turned this poor girl’s face beet red numerous times, she finally offered one justification that made some sense to me: she needed no proof, and that was why it would always be true. They were simply people of faith and I was not.

Alas, I discovered that as an immature atheist, conversing with a religious person about morals and religion was nearly inconceivable. There is simply no way to hold a worthwhile conversation about religion, I thought, when you are missing the key ingredient: faith. Soon however, as I met people who practiced religions other than Christianity and Judaism, such as Daoism in East Asia or Santeria in Cuba, I realized that despite vast cultural and geographical differences most religious people obey many of the same basic principles. Though every faith may believe in a slightly different version of our creator and the afterlife, we all face virtually the same consequences for our actions here on Earth such as guilt, physical harm, or imprisonment. As many atheists have argued before—and Siyue Liu ’13 reiterates in her interview inside—you don’t have to have faith in a certain deity in order to have morals or even to consider yourself “religious” by a loose definition. By now, I would hope that this fact has become widely accepted amongst educated people if not a platitude.

Yet the reason that so many people are uncomfortable talking about religion with non-theists is not that they see them as immoral, but rather precisely because they do not have faith, at least in the traditional sense of the word. So we are back to the old wall of faith (or lack thereof). Having an honest, level discussion with others about religious issues, especially if they do not subscribe to the same religion, takes some mutual understanding of faith, and what it means to defend your beliefs instead of merely rejecting the beliefs of others. But this has to work both ways, and ignoring the voice of non-theists is no different than dismissing the faith of religious groups.

The idea that atheism is about disagreement is a misconception that has stunted ethical and moral discourse at Dartmouth for years. Something tells me that the members of AHA are not merely out there to start arguments. If this were the case, then why would the members participate so enthusiastically for years without official recognition? Even non-theists have beliefs of their own. Ultimately we are all searching for answers to the same basic questions, and whether we choose to believe that the universe began 15 billion years ago or a few thousand years ago is irrelevant. What matters is that if there are people out there who share a common system of beliefs, they should be permitted to hold a civilized discussion with each other and bring their discussion to a public forum.

Last week I visited my hometown of Burlington, VT to conduct an interview with Senator Bernie Sanders (I -VT). Seeing as he is the longest standing independent congressman in American history, and that I also consider myself independent on most political issues, I was excited to ask him about what I consider the most important progressive issues in politics right now.

His office stood on the second floor of the largest building at the top of Church Street. I couldn’t picture the bustling cobblestone avenue in the years before Sen. Sanders took office as mayor of Burlington in 1981, when the paved Church Street had no pedestrians, no national chains, and no fancy restaurants to speak of.

My first impression of Sen. Sanders was not what I had expected from a seasoned United States Congressman: His rapid-fire Brooklyn accent had a rugged intensity, and his wispy white hair spilled over his forehead irregularly, more like an edgy professor than a politician. I couldn’t tell whether his unadulterated appearance was authentic or just a well-crafted persona. Either way, he conveyed a genuine interest in our conversation. In order for the reader to experience some of his presence, the interview below is unchanged from its original form.

DFP: How did you develop your “no bullshit” persona? A lot of people view your persona as being very straightforward. Is there a specific reason why honesty is so important to you?

Senator Sanders: Thank you for the compliment. It’s just kind of the way I am. I sometimes think things aren’t as complicated as people make them out to be. You have to be straightforward and tell people what you think. Even if people disagree with you, they appreciate you if you’re being forthright with them. Now we don’t have a lot of time, so let’s get down to the questions.

DFP: OK. One thing that seems to be on your mind a lot is how you think the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank, Ben Bernanke, appointed during the Bush Administration, needs to be replaced. Why do you think that and what kind of person do you think should replace him?

Senator Sanders: Well, it isn’t my job to come up with a name but I do think that the chairman of the Fed is a very powerful position. The primary function of the Fed is to protect the safety and soundness of our financial system. It is very clear almost by definition, because under Bernanke’s watch we came very near to a financial collapse. The second goal of the Fed, an important goal, is to try to provide as close to a full-employment economy as we can. Obviously, we are very far away from that—we’re in the midst of a major recession. So I think what you need at the Fed is somebody whose main interest is protecting the interest of the middle class and the working families of the country, rather than just the powerful interests on Wall Street. That is what I believe Bernanke’s record has been. You need to use the tools of the Fed—which are very many—to help ordinary people rather than just large banks.

DFP: Do you think the Goldman Sach’s fraud issue speaks to Bernanke’s failing policies?

Senator Sanders: Yes, I do. I mean, that is precisely what the job of the Fed is. The Fed is there to protect the safety and soundness—well, you’re not going to have safety and you’re not going to have soundness when major, major financial institutions are, according to the SEC [Security and Exchange Commission], engaged in fraud. In this case, they worked with a hedge fund manager to put together securities which are designed to fail, so that the hedge fund managers can place the bet that they’re going to fail, while investors are buying thinking that they think they’re going to make money because of the value of that security. So that’s fraud, if the SEC charge is correct. And frankly, I think you will see that charge leveled against a number of other financial institutions as well; I don’t think Goldman Sachs is unique. But, to answer your question, where was the Fed during all of this? Clearly they were not doing their job.

DFP: So you’re saying this might open up a whole new slew of fraud issues?

Senator Sanders: I think what people have been talking about now is mostly the recklessness and irresponsibility of Wall Street. This is the first major charge where there is not only recklessness and irresponsibility, but there is fraud as well. What I’m saying is I think this will not be the last major charge against financial institutions. My own guess is that fraud was probably rampant.

DFP: I know you serve on the Congressional Committee of Energy and Natural Resources. You also just received a grant of $3.2 Billion for alternative energies.

Senator Sanders: Right. What that was about was that I helped write legislature with Sen. Menendez (D-NJ) which is called the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program. It’s a national program, and what it does is to provide money to cities, states, and towns to help them move to energy efficiency and sustainable energy. In the stimulus package, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the president put $3.2 billion into that program, and that brought $12 million dollars into the state of Vermont, and billions around the country. I think it’s going to help us transform our energy system, and in the process involve people at the local level to think about how they could best go forward in terms of energy sustainability and efficiency.

DFP: Is that related to “Smartgrid”?

Senator Sanders: Well, there’s a lot of money coming down the pike, and there are a lot of programs. This is a separate program. What it has funded, for example, in the state of Vermont, is promoting energy efficiency. You’ll have older buildings that will be able to use this money to be able to add new insulation, new windows, a new heating system, new roofs, when necessary. Also, communities can use it for photovoltaic, geothermal, and wind, biomass, and so forth. So it gives communities a wide range of opportunities to move in the right direction. On top of that, there’s another large grant coming into the state for $79 million which is called “Smartgrid”, which will allow some 90 percent of buildings in the state of Vermont to have meters, which will allow them to identify how their energy is being used. We know that can help in a significant way in making energy use more efficient.

DFP: In some ways, your ideas on energy are against the current in Washington. For example, Obama just funded loan guarantees to build two nuclear reactors in Georgia. Do you think the Obama administration’s energy policy is headed in the right direction?

Senator Sanders: Well, what you have to understand is that the answer is yes and no. The Bush administration’s policies on energy were a disaster and refused even to acknowledge the reality of global warming. [On the other hand] President Obama understands that global warming is real and it is a very serious problem for the planet. He has, in the last year and a half, invested far, far, far more than we have seen almost forever in energy efficiency and sustainable energy, so that’s the good news. For example, generally speaking we spent $200 million a year as a nation on weatherization, which is helping lower income people retrofit their homes to make them more energy efficient and save fuel. In the stimulus package, we put $25 billion. It was a huge increase in the amount of money we spent on weatherization, and that is a positive step forward. It’s cutting down on greenhouse gas emissions; it is saving consumers money; it is bringing us to energy independence. The president is also appointing Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, who is very good on energy issues and very good on global warming issues. I disagree with the president when he provides loan guarantees for nuclear. We still haven’t solved the issues of how to get rid of nuclear waste, not to mention that nuclear construction is a very expensive proposition. I’m also disagreeing with the president on his view on coal sequestration. But, having said that, in terms of sustainable energy and energy efficiency, they are making some very significant steps forward.

DFP: Do you think Obama really is pro-nuclear—because I know he has come out against it before—or do you think he is just pandering to the Republican Party?

Senator Sanders: No, I think he really is pro-nuclear. Energy is a big word. I think he can take credit for moving the country forward in some very progressive ways. I mean, all of the money that is coming in to the State of Vermont is a result of his initiatives, and support from those of us in Congress who are moving in this direction. That’s a positive. On the other hand, I think there are areas in which he’s moving in the wrong direction.

DFP: Some people are still saying that the healthcare reform bill is a socialist development. As an Independent Senator and self-proclaimed Socialist, do you find the Healthcare Reform Bill to be leaning towards some Socialist ideas by your standards?

Senator Sanders: No. It’s a pretty conservative idea. It’s using primarily private insurance companies to expand health care to many people who do not have health insurance. It is raising Medicaid by raising the level by which people can qualify for Medicaid. So you’ll have another 15 or 16 million people getting Medicaid, which is a government run health insurance program. But the other people are going to come in the subsidies or private insurance companies. I voted for the bill. It is not a particularly strong bill, but it will provide health insurance to some 30 billion people who don’t have it today. I think it has to be improved over the years, but I support it. Socialism has nothing to do with it.

DFP: Yes, I don’t really see why it would, but there are still people out there who call it that.

Senator Sanders: Yes, it has been called that by Republicans to scare people. But what people don’t know that there are countries around world who have socialized or national health insurance programs which are much more cost effective than our system. We are the only country in the industrialized world that does not provide health care to all people as a right of citizenship.

DFP: Do you think if we open up trade to Cuba, it will stay a socialist country in the future, or do you think that it will open up to capitalism and go back to the way it was.

Senator Sanders: A few weeks ago we had the Ambassador from Denmark, which would not consider itself a socialist country, but which has very progressive social programs. It provides health care to all people without virtually any out of pocket expenses, college education there is free, every worker there has six weeks paid vacation, they are very strong on the environment, workers are overwhelmingly in unions, and so on and so forth. So I look to countries like Denmark, Finland, Sweden as models we can use as models and learn from. Cuba is obviously a small, developing country, which is an authoritarian Communist country which has done some good things in terms of health care. I haven’t studied it lately but I think their education system is pretty good. I think what you will see on votes in the House and the Senate in recent years is a desire to establish a more normal relation with Cuba and ending the embargo. What I think American businesses understand is that countries all over the world are investing in Cuba, and businesses in the U.S. can’t do that. So there is pressure to open up to allow businesses to invest in Cuba, to have Americans to freely visit Cuba in a normal way. The question is, if you can’t have normalized relations with Cuba, then how can you have normalized relations with a country like China, which is of course a Communist country and is also much more powerful.

DFP: Do you think there is ever going to be a time when the progressive voice on issues like these—financial regulation, energy policy, health care reform, and US-Cuba relations—can have a strong voice, not just as a third party, or the “other,” but truly included in the dialogue?

Senator Sanders: Well, you’ve seen that take place in a number of countries around the world. For example, if you go up to Canada, which is just an hour away from here, and you go up to the most conservative person in parliament up there and you say ‘do you think you should abolish your health care system,’ which is a single-payer health care system, and in fact they have a conservative government up there, none of the conservatives think they should abolish it. So the idea of saying, so in Canada, the idea that health care is a human right is a part of their culture. I think that’s what you’re asking; whether progressive values become a part of people’s culture. That’s certainly true all over Scandinavia and many European countries. We have a long way to go. There are millions of Americans and, you know, many people in Congress who do not believe health care is a human right, that quality education should be a right regardless of their income. So we are behind many other countries in achieving a culture in which progressive values are accepted. We have a long way to go.

Winter is over, and the Green is green once again. The Olympians are back in their homes, and the tapping season has come to an end. Our pallid complexions are reverting to their tanner states, and our windows are left open so that our musty, dusty rooms can finally breathe in the aromas of Hanover. We at the DFP, with a new Editorial board and a cleansed critical palette, are excited for and committed to another term of keeping our eyes, ears, and noses open, following leads, and voicing our opinions. Whether or not you agree with us, we hope you, too, will share your voice with us and remain open to change.

Yes, it’s the season of renewal: by the time you read this issue, new members of the Board of Trustees will have been elected and the Student Assembly elections will be underway (the latter will be covered in a special DFP “SA Elections” issue).

Some of the new changes are a little hard to grasp. For the first time in decades, we may no longer be sending “blitzes”. Instead, as Parker Phinney explains in his article on email server change, we are most likely going to be sending, well, emails. Though for many of us, the idea wrenches the heart at its very mention—we will all miss that iconic dog-attacking-the-pixilated-mailman—we can rest assured that the change is all for good reason. It will make communication more efficient and reliable, and hopefully our Darmouth Experience will be purer: the more memory we can store in our email server, the more we space we can clear in our minds.

As Liz Klinger notes in her article, this summer Thayer Dining Hall will be closed for demolition and renovation. But before you storm the steps of Parkhurst, look on the bright side—at least Collis will be open. What’s more, if things go according to plan, the construction of “The Class of 1953 Commons” will provide a whole array of new-age common spaces to complement those already in nearby Robo and Collis. Who knows, it might even have a catchy nickname.

Meanwhile, in national news, magic mushrooms can cure depression, The Census is going gay (hopefully) and the healthcare Bill was passed over spring break. Zach De covers the census in his article, and some of the Health Care Bill’s more exact dimensions are clearly enumerated for our readers in Sora Ryu’s article on Health Care Reform.

Universal Health Care is one of those ideological shifts that for many seems overly technical, like the email server change, and so is reduced and boiled down until it is no longer a debate of Health Care Reform vs. no Health Care Reform but instead Socialism vs. Capitalism, or even charity vs. responsibility. This is simply not case—the two paradigms simply are not that different. There is no inherent reason why health care cannot share properties of both, and meet the needs of all parties.

Turning this idea on its head, as Sora Ryu writes in her article on Dambisa Moyo, helping the less fortunate is not—indeed, should not—be a matter of charity. It is hard for us, sitting around our coffee tables, eating our delicious Novak food, talking on our cell phones, to ever take the stance that helping starving children is not the right decision. We can’t see where our money is going or how it is being used; all we know is that we can’t stand for doing nothing. The problem with this mindset is that we are at the center, and once we drop our money through the slot or send our check in the mail, we have already achieved that feeling of moral satisfaction, whether or not it has benefitted anyone. Exploring this principle on the ground in Ghana, James Wang explains that the correct way to approach poverty in Africa is with investment and microfinance. If we can trust the people of Africa with the ability to repay small loans, new monetary freedom will stimulate the economy.

While the new Editorial Board at the DFP is looking forward to investigating these topics in the coming term, it is important to remember that even at a time like this (looking outside), not everything is like bunnies and sunshine.

The SEIU and staff cuts seem to have faded into the background, and the six-figure success of our Haiti relief effort is certainly a cause for celebration. Ethan Wang ’13, in a recent opinion article in “The Dartmouth,” chirped a familiar tune, writing “These two causes [Haiti and the staff] have generated a lot of attention on campus — but perhaps a little too much”. These “buzzwords”, as Wang writes, have become obsolete fashion statements, and the programs the college has enacted to address these issues “do little more than unnecessarily drain resources.”

Ethan Wang argues that we should not have taken in two Haitian immigrants for term at Dartmouth, because such an experience “will give them a fleeting taste of our privileged academic environment before returning to their impoverished country”. Wang concludes that they are not “Making the most of their experience.” But how can Wang make claims like this without having spoken to the students himself? I am sure you would find they are far from disappointed or bitter with their experiences here. As leaders in the Haiti relief effort, it is also the College’s obligation to uphold its, and our, image in the academic sphere by showing that we are willing to do more than publish photographs of our experts getting off of planes with fancy equipment. We are embracing the problem here as our own.

Labeling words like “Haiti” and “Staff” as buzzwords so that we can feel more comfortable about dismissing them does not show any well-formulated opinion. When there are no better alternatives, sometimes the most meaningful thing to do is to offer “a kind gesture” rather than embrace a colder, more financially “efficient,” logic.

One of the themes of this issue is that we have to know when charity is productive and when it becomes “the soft bigotry of low expectations.” In both cases, of course, the intentions are good, but the difference (or, perhaps, the devil) is in the details. Whose hands touch the money before it reaches its destination? When we choose to help one group of people, what more needy groups are we ignoring? Are we really making a difference?

As we prepare for a new term and the discussions to come, we have to make sure we keep in mind the consequences of our decisions in the future. We do not make decisions just to win or lose in the moment of disagreement, just as we cannot forget the struggle that got us here on issues like Haiti and the Staff. In the same way, we must consider how we look back on things like Blitzmail and Thayer Dining Hall as different people. If we remain open to change now, we will thank ourselves later.

As Barack Obama continues to massage the “Recovery Act” in an attempt to bridge the disparate demands of Republicans and Democrats over health care, the economy, and the government, energy has once again gained his focus—albeit with a more pro-nuclear tone than before.

Lying somewhere between the low-carbon diets of the donkeys and the insatiable appetites of the elephants, nuclear power appeals to many as a panacea for our rampant energy crisis, especially when this panacea comes from the mouth of our Fearless Leader.

The carbon emissions generated by nuclear power are minimal, and with enough money we can construct power behemoths that will each survive for over forty years. Obama recently stated—to the uproarious applause of both Democrats and Republicans (but mostly Republicans)—that he plans to “triple loan guarantees required … to finance safe, clean nuclear facilities” in order to “revive the nuclear industry in the United States”. Sounds like a squeaky-clean plan, right?

Wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as “safe, clean nuclear power.” Although nuclear power is safe in the sense that it won’t have you choking on smog every time you walk past the local reactor, the fact remains that there is no existing long-term way to dispose of radioactive nuclear waste systematically. Even the fact that Barack Obama describes it as “safe” suggests an intrinsic fear of the poorly studied dangers of nuclear power: we don’t hear people saying that coal mining is “safe” because we assume that it will not precipitate an explosion or permit the construction of a nuclear warhead.

As of now, our methods of nuclear waste disposal are temporary solutions at best and economic and environmental catastrophes at worst. In order to find out exactly what these “solutions” for disposing of waste are, I went to Steele Hall to interview professor Anthony Faiia, professor of Isotopic Chemistry.

DFP: ““How do nuclear power plants normally dispose of waste?”

Professor Faiia: “After a Uranium fuel rod is spent, they will typically put it in a pool inside the power plant until it cools down a little. Then they will seal it in a cement or iron cask, which they then put outside on the premises of the plants… Some of those isotopes will last millions of years, some of them will last hundreds of thousands of years.”

DFP: “Is there any more centralized way of storing the radioactive waste that would be better?”

Professor Faiia: “The truth is that putting nuclear waste all in one place is not the best way to store it. There is too much risk concentrated in one area. People have suggested storing the waste in places like Yucca Mountain, or even sending it into space. But then there is the [problem of] transportation: what happens if the spacecraft full of Uranium 238 explodes before it reaches space, as a handful of spacecraft have in the past? And all those semi trailers making the pilgrimage to Yucca Mountain or wherever would have to drive on the same roads as many civilians.”

DFP: “Yeah, I probably wouldn’t feel comfortable driving next to an 18-wheeler full of radiation.”

Though there have been no additions to our 104 nuclear facilities in America in over thirty years, Obama’s proposal wants to increase this number to 106 with the construction of two new reactors in Georgia. It seems that political inertia has proven to be no obstacle for Obama’s “Recovery Act”.

Unfortunately for nuclear supporters, a group of anti-nuclear progressives has made itself known just across the river in Vermont. Last week, in the state’s Senate chamber, the long, storied life of one such nuclear reactor was cut short. Since Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Plant’s (VY) first day of operation in 1972, it has provided over a third of Vermont’s electrical power.

If that seems like a long time, it’s even longer when you consider the 70-year half-life of uranium, or the virtually infinite amount of time before it’s completely gone. For what it’s worth, it appears that our nation’s energy schema has taken two steps back and one important step forward.

In front of an audience of over 100 anti-nuclear citizens, who had been staying in hotels in the capitol over the course of the 3-day hearing, a vote of 26-4 overruled Vermont Yankee’s license to operate, effective in 2012. The event was covered in the New York Times, The Boston Globe, ABC, and even The Guardian in the UK. A public ruling to decommission a power plant has not taken place in the US in over 20 years, as such legislation is usually considered by members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

A loophole opened up in 2002 when VY accepted a contract according to which it deferred to the authority of the Public Service Board of Vermont (PSB) in exchange for an increase in power output by 20%. This loophole was further exploited when lobbyists helped to pass Act 160 in 2006, which stated that all nuclear power plants in Vermont needed a “certificate of public good” from the PSB in order to renew their licenses, making it even harder for VY to extend its operation.

And now, what appeared to Vermont Yankee as an understandable bargain seems to have derailed the future of the plant. Thanks to the incremental progress of so many anti-nuclear activists, a slew of once-futile testimonies against the plant made adequate ammunition to take down the giant in a battle akin to David and Goliath.

Citing a water tower collapse and a transformer fire in the last decade—and, more recently, evidence that Yankee not only denied the presence of underground drainage pipes, but also denied tests that found that these pipes had leaked traces of radioactive tritium into our very own Connecticut river—the lobbyists were able to corner Vermont Yankee defendants.

Despite the attempts of VY and Entergy (VY’s parent organization, whose slogan, ironically enough, is “the power of the people”) at corporate coercion, the chances of turning over the Vermont Legislature’s vote are slim.

Bob Walker, director of the Sustainable Energy Resource Group (SERG), reiterated in a phone interview with the DFP that “the Senate’s decision was not dependent on the economics of the situation so much as the issue of trust, or a lack thereof, in Vermont Yankee.”

Other activist groups are not so confident. One of the main groups responsible for the long-standing battle against VY is the Vermont Public Interest Research Group (VPIRG). In order to look deeper into the fears and ambitions of the activists, I interviewed James Moore, the Director of the Clean Energy Program at VPIRG.

DFP: “Will you be expecting any amount of “corporate coercion” on the part of Vermont Yankee and Entergy to reverse the Senate’s decision?”

J.M.: “Yes, absolutely. The main problem that we’re facing is that we have a [senate] election in November. [In order to renew its contract], Entergy needs permission from the state legislature, and the concern is that they could try to buy votes in the next legislature and overturn what has been accomplished.”

DFP: “What can we do to prevent that from happening?”

J.M.: “Well, we can work to make sure that the people who vote for legislators are educated. If we can expose what is going on enough, I am sure the voters will support closure [of VY].”

DFP: “I heard the figure for decommissioning VY is over $1 billion. Why is it that decommissioning costs so much?”

J.M.: “Well, in that billion-dollar number there are two things. The first is cleaning up the building, getting rid of contamination, digging up foundations, etc. The second part is keeping the radioactive waste on the premises until the federal government comes in and takes it away. That could be decades, since we have no standardized solution for getting rid of that waste in this country.”

DFP: “But Vermont’s annual budget is only about $1 billion, and the state is already in debt. Who is going to pay that cost?”

J.M.: “That is actually a highly debated question. When Entergy bought VY in 2002, it promised to be responsible for the full decommissioning of the plant, and all the clean-up costs. Now they are trying to go back on their promise by deferring the cost to their limited-liability subsidiaries, which presumably would not pay the full price. We don’t want the big parent corporation in Louisiana to take all the profits and then walk away from the liability.”

Although Vermont Yankee has its fair share of problems, it is neither the oldest nor the most decrepit of the 104 nuclear reactors in our country. There is a rising trend of similar management and infrastructure problems in nuclear power plants in the US: 27 of them are still currently leaking radioactive waste.

Even if these leaks have not yet been connected to any widespread health concerns, as is the case with VY, this is no proof that nuclear power is safe. The effects of radiation are long term and sometimes unknown for decades, as was the case after Russia’s Chernobyl incident.

Nor does this take into account the latent potential for weaponizing nuclear material at any nuclear plant. In addition, we must remember that uranium is by no means an unlimited or cheap resource.

In the face of such daunting odds, the success of progressives in Vermont should serve as a model for energy legislation in all states. On our side of the Connecticut River, for example, is Seabrook Nuclear power plant.

Although Seabrook is one of the newest plants in the country, New Hampshire may look to what is happening in Vermont and decide that as Seabrook gets older, New Hampshire must be sure to have a voice in its fate.

Hopefully, President Obama will hear the cries of Vermonters and begin to change his energy policies. There is simply no getting around it: nuclear power is dangerous, unsafe, and an unsustainable long-term energy source.

If Barack Obama must continue to build new plants, we progressives need to make sure to resist by shutting down old plants, exposing corporations like Entergy for their lies, and looking for alternative sources of energy.

Last week, just days after a State of the Union address that was reassuringly reformative, President Obama was invited to speak at a Baltimore GOP retreat, where he pressed upon Republicans the necessity of closing the partisan gap in Congress. Although the hour of question-and-answer that followed may have been more controversial and certainly more entertaining than the address itself, Obama’s speech to House Republicans was more significant: it was the greatest triumph of the First Amendment since Stephen Colbert’s scathing routine at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in 2006.

But perhaps the Republican’s self-opposing stance that authorizing national media coverage as a “mistake” is only fair. Though it is true that Obama’s remarks were “chastising” and “confrontational”, these incivilities should not be allowed to preclude the point. What we should take away from this historical moment is not how well (or poorly) our politicians defend their rhetoric, but rather what Obama’s 20-minute “in-tele-promptu” offensive reveals about the success (or failure) of his presidency.

“These are serious times,” he declared after a brief introduction to the members of the Grand Ol’ Party. “What is required by all of us— Democrats and the Republicans — is to do what’s right for our country, even if it’s not always what’s best for our politics. I know it may be heresy for me to say this, but there are things more important than poll numbers, and on this, no one can accuse me of not living by my principles.”

Or can we? Just because Obama’s approval ratings have fallen to 47% in the past few months doesn’t mean this is a result of his political steadfastness, as this quote seems to suggest. Is Obama’s rhetoric of taking on the plight of bi-partisanship, ending war in Afghanistan (remember that?) and curbing the deficit reflective of reality, or is Obama really an ideologue, contrary to his denials?

Obama noted that he had already enlisted many of the Republicans standing before him to cross party lines. He mentioned working with Sen. McCain to make the largest increase in the Veteran’s Association budget in 30 years and dissolve state lines for insurance companies. He implemented Rep. Eric Cantor’s idea to make the website “Recovery.gov” and incorporated the ideas of Republicans Mike Enzy and Victoria Snow to create affordable “catastrophic insurance” for young people. This makes it hard to deny Obama’s willingness to work with lawmakers regardless of their political affiliation.

While Obama has followed through on his promises of bipartisanship, those on the left might argue that he is making too many compromises. Have his personal liberal views begun to gravitate towards centrist ones in order to achieve success as President? Perhaps. But while I, as a progressive, am aware of his diplomatic elasticity, I am also aware of the current state of our politics. Right now the most critical issue is not that our politicians lack good ideas; it is simply that we don’t trust them and they don’t trust each other – all with good reason.

Is Obama succeeding in using his position as President to its fullest capacity? Both his proposal to the GOP of a “modest fee on the nation’s banks and financial institutions to fully recover the taxpayers’ money” and his decree for all congressional earmarks to be made public before they came to a vote reinforced his seriousness in reigning in the national debt. Even after the senate rejected his idea just a day earlier for a “bi-partisan fiscal commission to confront the deficits in the long-term,” Obama made it clear that he would nonetheless establish such a commission by Executive Order. Having placed all his cards on the table, it seems rather obvious that Obama is not prepared to go on playing political games, and that he is indeed living by his principles.

It is interesting to note one of the many disarming claims made in his speech. Obama cited a recent CNN poll which stated that “while most Americans disapprove of the 2009 economic stimulus bill, they like each individual policy in it. When you break it down into its component parts, 80 percent approved of the tax cuts, 80 percent approved of the infrastructure, and 80 percent approved of assistance to the unemployed.” A more recent article on CNN clarified that while “Obama’s summary was largely correct,” the poll stated only 70% of Americans approved of the tax cuts.

Despite this interesting paradox, neither CNN nor Obama has offered a deconstruction or explanation. Obama’s economic stimulus package seems to be obscured by an air of blind disapproval—even distrust—despite the fact the individual policies are transparent, and most American citizens support specific mandates wholeheartedly. This suggests that the viability of the stimulus bill amounts to more than the total viability of its parts. We must imagine, then, that the American people are having some collective hallucination that up and vanishes upon closer inspection.

Obama may value principle over his popularity for the time being, but he will inevitably face re-election and be forced to worry about public opinion. Perhaps the best way for Obama to transform his stimulus bill from a failure to a success is to allow the American people to get closer to the political process. If they are exposed to and continue to see the political discourse inside Congressional chambers and witness the ideological crossfire, then perhaps the American public will be rid of this illusion. Obama successfully promoted transparency by airing the speech on national television last week. Subsequently, it should be no surprise that since the convention, Obama’s polls have begun climbing again for the first time in months.