Tuesday night's "The Politics of Lady Gaga" event, sponsored by the Columbia Political Union, brought out a sizeable crowd for a rainy weeknight. Judging by attendance throughout the entire event, free food wasn't the only draw to the event. We were all there for our Gaga fix.

The event was a discussion of Gaga's video "Telephone" with the panelists Bryan Lowder, Jason Bell, Lauren Herold, and the audience. The night started off with opening remarks by each of the panelists, within which each of them outlined what they thought the greater significance of the video/Gaga was, if there was any, and how they would frame that within politics.

Once, a Taiwanese friend of mine told me that here were two types of Taiwanese people, smart ones who co-operated with the Mainland government and those who further insist that Taiwan is an independent country. Of Taiwanese descent myself, it was hard to see the logic of Taiwanese politics over the years. Straining to manage its own domestic affairs (see: Chen Shui-bian), never mind what China consider a rebellious stance against a much bigger power, Taiwan has been quietly pushed aside in the media in exchange for a focus on China.

Last week the MEAI hosted a talk by Amelie Le Renard who discussed how consumerism was affecting the social culture of young women in Riyadh in terms of changes in dress that are considered transgressions in Islam. She also went into detail over how these transgressions are much more complicated and have much more effect on the modern urban Muslim society than simple adolescent rebellion against strict rules.

Susan Eisenhower, an expert on United States - Russia relations and granddaughter of former Columbia President and United States President Dwight Eisenhower, spoke on a range of issues in Roone Arledge Cinema on Monday night in an event sponsored by the Columbia University International Relations Forum.  Joining her was Lincoln Mitchell, Arnold A. Saltzman Assistant Professor in the Practice of International Politics from the Columbia School of International and Public Affairs.

College Republicans and College Democrats debated the ins and outs of health care reform for two hours in the Roone Arledge Cinema on Wednesday night. The debate, hosted by the Columbia Political Union, touched on issues from the financial potential of a public option to the regulation of private insurance companies and occasionally broke down into a raucous audience free for all.

The Republicans opened by acknowledging that America’s health care system is broken, but framed its problems around government interference and over regulation in the private insurance market. Among their favorite arguments was the idea that the requirement that private insurance companies run separate businesses in each state causes inefficiency. According to college Republicans, if health insurance were deregulated to the point at which companies could operate nationally, the private insurance industry could compete with Medicare and eliminate the need for a government health care system. Such a system, they fear, would encourage companies to drop health insurance for full time employees. While the Republicans presented a consistently solid argument, they at times vilified Democrats as desiring a totalitarian control of health in America. As Republican Jon Hollander said, “the liberal Democrats in Congress are hell bent on using a public health insurance option to achieve a government takeover of the American health care industry”.

The Democrats sought to undercut their opponents’ argument by championing the benefits of preventive treatment. They argued that if we catch serious disease early, it will be less expensive to treat. Armed with numbers and statistics to substantiate his argument, College Democrat Jake Grumbacher told the audience, “it is actually cheaper to insure everyone than to not insure everyone… the cost of emergency room care for those without insurance costs every person $2200 per year, $100 billion total. That is ridiculous”. One of the Democrats’ strongest moments came when they responded that the deregulation of the private insurance market will lead to private insurers setting up shop in states with laws that allow them to drop the sickest and most costly patients. Their argument was significantly undermined though, by brash declarations about the evil nature of corporate America. At one point, Grumbacher sought to drive his argument home declaring, “The insurance companies do not have our interests at heart. Making a profit literally means not giving us care. Okay?”. The over reliance on percentages and statistics from both sides, especially the quote that over 40,000 people die each year from a lack of proper coverage, tried to shock the audience to one side more than it engaged the argument.

While the groups were able to deliberate on the major talking points of the issue, discussion rarely progressed beyond one or two responses to a question. Numbers were hurled faster than anyone could comprehend and it was often assumed that the audience had a strong background on the debate. All hell broke loose at one point when the audience started a shouting match about the interpretation of a Congressional Budget Office report that had been released that day. Even so, the high points of the debate provided a sense of hope for this immense web of problems. Both sides managed to agree that insurance companies must offer coverage to those with preexisting conditions. In the end, the event was worthwhile, even if it was a little disorganized.

On Saturday Oct, 3, Columbia hosted a panel talk with three specialists on the upcoming Copenhagen Conference where the UN will attempt to formulate an agreement and plan for how to deal with the world's ever increasing global warming problem.

The talk was essentially two talks, given by Mr. Schelling and  Mr. Pachauri. Mr. Schelling is the recipient of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Environmental Sciences. He speech mostly outlined how he sees the problem with arriving at a conclusion among many nations, especially the US and China (as well as a number of other countries like Brazil and India which are now increasing emissions rates and energy consumption).

The problem, he states, stems from the fact that global warming hurts countries unequally. Richer countries are affected less because they do not have large agricultural sectors which are vulnerable to things like floods or droughts, in addition to not being able to better aid against other problems stemming from or connected to global warming, like energy crisis (and the consequential need to turn to alternative sources of energy) and diseases like parasitic diseases spread in warm areas. He argued that the best way developing nations can help themselves, is not to agree to an emissions cut down regulation, but rather to become rich themselves and be able to use their economic advantage to protect their citizens from the adverse side effects of global warming.

On Tuesday, October 13, the Columbia Political Union will be hosting the West Wing Speechwriters. The West Wing Speechwriters is a DC based speech writing firm whose founders worked mostly during the Clinton era and now has diversified to Capitol Hill, the United Nations, National Press Club, and the Council on Foreign Relations. The panel discussion will focus on political speech writing and will let you know how you can pursue speech writing and how you can get involved.The event will be at 8:00 in Lerner 569. Also, check out the organization's website at http://westwingwriters.com/

America, still reeling from our financial meltdown and climbing unemployment rates, has tried its best to place the blame on someone. Most peple blame Bush for deregulation of the financial industry and exploding deficits. Others look back to Alan Greenspan's excessive trust in the power of the market. Still others lay the blame on greedy investment bankers and loan officers for gambling with money they didn't actually have and preying on prospective home owners.

Last night, however, Columbia University professor and renowned economist Bruce Greenwald told a rather stunned audience of Columbia students that none of these are to blame. Rather, the forces of global capitalism have finally brought a longstanding global economic crisis to America.

Next Wednesday, October 7th in Roone Arledge Cinema, the Columbia Political Union is kicking off the start of the CPU Debate series with an impassioned debate on health care!  The College Republicans and Democrats will be presenting their own views on the issue, and CPU will moderate.  The debate will be followed by a question and answer session from audience members.  If you would like to e-mail your question in advance, please e-mail them to board@cupolitics.org by Monday, October 5th at 11:59 PM. The debate starts at 8:00 PM. Come see the College Democrats and Republicans give their two cents on healthcare reform!

Check out the event's Facebook page here.

Culture, Identity, and Politics are terms that have suffered from rampant usage over the years, and the average college student, in hopes of sounding well informed, probably uses them like one would arbitrarily choose words in Mad Libs (discussions in Contemporary Civilization class come to mind). Therefore, one wouldn’t know what to expect from the vaguely titled “Culture, Identity, and Politics” lecture hosted by the Heyman Center for the Humanities last night. Like other similarly conceptual speeches from the Heyman Center, this lecture inevitably left one expecting more from its esteemed speakers and all-encompassing topic, but the problems raised by the three speakers were interesting enough to engage the diverse audience in an event that lasted slightly over two hours.