Student Loan Interest Rates

Lots of interest (ha ha) in student loan interest rates in the last few days--or at least so it seems to me as I have come across at least one article per day in each of the four wire services I check daily for the last three days.  The short story is, student loan interest rates are at an all time low and are set to double if the U.S. govt does not figure out how to fund the lower interest rate.  Both major parties agree that they want to keep the rates low, but they do not agree on how to fund the rates. 

Folks, get something straight in your heads, subsidized student loans are loans not grants, the current interest rate is kept artificially low by the federal government paying directly for the defaults instead of charging higher interest on the current loans.  8% interest was normal until the last few years and thus the program did not cost the government as much to fund as it does now.  And by the way, the government pays these default bills by taking money we pay in taxes (income, medicare, social security) and reallocating it to student loan programs.  So, we can either have low interest student loans or we can have other programs--money is not available for everything. 

And then, of course, we complain about the educational debt load.  Well, check out the following graphics from an article published today.

  Somehow, for my own two cents, I think it might just be possible for most people who have student loans to pay their student loan debt.  I have mine, I do not blame the cost of education for my debt, in fact I blame no one for my debt.  I have a job I love, a home, a family, and I pay my debts and will for the next 20 years to come.

Sexism and Superheroes

Ok, I know it is not Friday, but this is only partly frivolatry.  The other part of this post is the question of whether or not there a) should be female superheroes?, and b) if there are female superheroes, why do we pose them for posters and pictures in sexually provocative manner?  Think of what it looks like if we juxtapose the normal posing...

Friday Frivolatry

Today is Star Wars Day.  So, I thought what do all Star Wars geeks and fans alike need.  I am sure tehre will be lots of articles today where you can look at all of these gadgets, but for my two cents, the following are the best.

First there is the R2-D2 USB hub.  Then there is the Han Solo in carbonite USB flash drive


And best yet, the actual laser light saber



Go here for more details.

If Realists Were in Charge

Kudos to Stephen Walt (again) for pointing out that realists are not NeoCons and hardly can be considered as interventionists.  Kudos to Walt for pointing out that NeoCons and liberal internationalists have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the end of the Cold War.  Personally I would go further and say that these factions have controlled U.S. foreign policy since the downfall of Nixon.  So what would U.S. Foreign Policy look like if realists were in charge?  Walt addresses this in his Foreign Policy blog. 

Not sure if I fully agree with his commentary on off-shore balancing or with what Walt considers a "normal" relationship with Israel.  For my two cents I do agree with his assessment on war with Iraq, the "War on Terror" (whatever the heck that means), and the lack of adventuristic, interventionist behavior that would be the norm if realists were still listened to in foreign policy decision-making circles. 

The U.S. would not be worrying about lost sons and daughters in Iraq and Afghanistan to the extent made possible by 8 years of Bush and 4 of Obama.  We certainly wouldn't be worrying about whether Putin is upset or not by silliness like missile shields and NATO expansion.  As a realist is there really any reason for NATO to still exist?  Plus, we wouldn't be in the business of making everyone else's business our business.  Realism is not about adventures in intervention, realism is about maintaining your own position in the hierarchy of power through pursuit of security or pursuit of power.  Of course, we can make arguments about type of realism on display, I would argue that Walt's comments are particularly forceful if one accepts a defensive realism as preferable to other potential realisms.

But, thanks again Stephen Walt for pointing out that the hacks in Washington, D.C. on both sides of the political aisle are not to be confused with realists.

To Interrogate or To Kill

My thoughts were once again drawn to the question of whether Bush or Obama is more contemptible in regard to prosecution of efforts to deal with terrorists by a short blurb in the Atlantic Wire.  The piece is actually about a book by a former CIA guy claiming there is real benefit to enhanced interrogation techniques and that this benefit was that American lives were saved.  I find this claim hard to really accept given recent reports to just the opposite, but am willing to look at the argument and as always to compel my fellow man to provide empirical proof in some form (In God I Trust, the rest of you better bring proof). 

But, in the midst of considering the merits of his book, "The former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service Jose Rodriguez says President Obama is waging the nation's war against radical Islam in a far more brutal manner than his predecessor President George W. Bush," (Atlantic Wire 4/30/2012).  What is at the core of this statement?  Well, it really is simple, is it worse to kill them all and let God sort out the innocents, or is it worse to capture, harshly question (torture for those who can't read into the words), eventually adjudicate, illegally wiretap,  eavesdrop, etc.?  The Obama plan is marked by the former, while the Bush plan was marked by the latter.  Personally, I detest them both.  Of course, for my two cents, people can be taught to withstand torture, people will tell you anything to be relieved of pain, and killing people without first even thinking about capture is wrong--There never was even a single thought about capturing Al-Awlaki, just a decision by Obama to have him executed without trial. 

U.S. Presidential Scandals

The news that Chuck Colson died recently made me start thinking about U.S. Presidential scandals.  Was Watergate the worst?  What other scandals might have been the worst if they happened at a turbulent time in U.S. history or in a digital communication media age? 

GeneralStudiesDegree.net has compiled a list that they call the 10 Biggest Presidential Scandals.  I do not agree with their ordering/ranking.  I do concur, however, that these are the 10 biggest U.S. Presidential scandals.

In ordering and for my two cents, I cannot help but believe that The Whiskey Ring (#5) and Credit Mobilier (#4) would have been much bigger scandals than either Watergate (#1) or Monica Lewinsky (#2) if these had happened in an era of digital communications.  I personally also find Truman's Freezer (#9) to be more heinous than Sally Hemings (#5--so Jefferson messing around outside of wedlock is #5, but Clinton having an affair is #2?).  Personally Warrantless Wiretapping (#8) is overstated--while it is true they govt. is able to listen without a warrant, the material collected cannot be acted upon without a warrant--but were it not overstated this scandal(?) would be number 1 in my book. 

So, I guess my top 10:

1.   Teapot Dome
2.   Truman's Freezer
3.   Credit Mobilier 
4.   Iran-Contra
5.   The Whiskey Ring
6.   Watergate
7.   Monica Lewinsky
8.   The Plame Affair
9.   Sally Hemings
10. Warrantless Wiretapping (which could alternately be number 1, given specific circumstances) 

Women and Combat Arms Positions

In an article in the Marine Corps Times on April 18th, the Corps and the world is informed that as part of the extensive review of jobs women can do in the USMC a test run will be held of placing female officers in the USMC Infantry Officers Course and allowing some enlisted women to also attend infantry training.  I was asked by an officer in the USMC what my two cents is on this particular issue.  Well, I thought in typical two cents fashion I would respond generally with consideration about women in combat arms roles.

First, why shouldn't women get the opportunity to engage in combat arms professions?  Conventions of modern western society have placed women on the pedestal, not capabilities.  Should we forget Amazons, Boudica, Joan of Arc?  The Soviets regularly placed women in combat roles (they fought effectively in WWII, not so much indicated about their performances elsewhere).  The Israelis have women in combat arms today in the IDF. 

Ok, so historically and in terms of capability women do prove themselves capable of handling combat situations.  Don't give me arguments about a weaker sex, I know just as many men as women who can't handle carrying the ruck for long distances.  My biggest concern is how men react to women in combat--biologically, psychologically?  For instance, the Israelis found that men's combat effectiveness drops because they are too worried about protecting the females in the unit.  The answer in most armed forces using women has been to have gender separate units that are trained to do the same job.  The biggest problem is society--we do not react very well when our husbands, fathers, sons, brothers, uncles, nephews, cousins, friends either don't come home or come home permanently scarred and/or disabled.  How will society react when we are talking about their wives, mothers, daughters, sisters, aunts, nieces, cousins, friends come home scarred and/or disabled or simply don't come home? 

So, my two cents, I am not sure I have one.  I am torn on the issue: gender neutrality does not bother me,  gender neutrality does bother me.  I would not, however, want my own daughter to take up the honorable profession of combat arms and my son better be absolutely certain that taking up the profession is his calling in life.