By: Bethany TurnerSenior Editor

Haiti: To aid or not to aid, that is the question. I have witnessed sev-eral confl icts between my colleagues and fellow UNC Wilmington students, those who may be referred to as “the opposition.” The, shall we say, tradi-tional conservative view is that Haiti’s government is an irresponsible one that may not deserve all of the monetary aid it is receiving from the Obama admin-istration. “We’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the U.S. income tax,” responded Rush Limbaugh to a caller from Raleigh, NC on his January 13, 2010 episode of “The Rush Limbaugh Show.” Further in the transcript, which can be read on Limbaugh’s Website, the caller told Limbaugh that his mother was supposed to be leaving that morning on a missionary trip with her church. Her plane would have left at 4:30 a.m. for Haiti. This trip, I’m as-suming, had been planned long before the earthquake struck. And Limbaugh’s point made after hearing this is a valid one: “Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti…There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did, they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. No-body takes that approach down there

because this has always been a country run by dictators - and incompetent ones at that.” Democrat Ed Schultz, of “The Ed Show” on MSNBC, featured Lim-baugh on his January 15 show, in the “Psycho Talk” portion. “And in ‘Psy-cho Talk’ tonight, well, the drugster is still exploiting the tragedy in Haiti to further his hateful political agenda,” Schultz began. “Today, he went after President Obama again for not talking about the cost of sending U.S. troops to Haiti, and he topped it off with a swipe at the military.” A clip of Limbaugh from the conservative show then ran, depicting the republican furthering “his hateful political agenda.” “President Obama was quick to claim that it cost U.S. taxpayers a billion dollars for every thousand soldiers sent to Afghanistan – remember this? And he has yet to mention how much it costs to send a soldier to Haiti,” said Limbaugh. “Why is there no concern about the cost from the White House, when there was so much concern about Afghanistan? Af-ter all, isn’t the job of the U.S. Mili-tary, fi rst and foremost, to protect the national security and interest of the United States? No, it’s not. The U.S. Military is now Meals-on-Wheels.” This, my friends, is an ex-ample of the age-old battle between reason and passion. Hamlet’s “to be or not to be” soliloquy is a 400-year-old instance of the confl ict1. If one feels strongly about an issue, as Obama does about Haiti, it is probable that one may not be able to think rationally about

1Bugliani, Francesca. “‘In the mind to suffer’: Hamlet’s Soliloquy, ‘To be, or not to be.’” Hamlet Studies 17.1-2 (Summer/Winter 1995): 10-42.

it. Our president addressed the coun-try very quickly after the news of the earthquake shook our borders. “My thoughts and prayers go out to those who have been affected by this earth-quake. We are closely monitoring the situation and we stand ready to assist the people of Haiti,” Obama said short-ly after 6:00 p.m., January 12. He was notifi ed of the earthquake at 5:52 p.m., according to Fox News. On the other end of the spec-trum, Obama has received tons of criticism for taking three entire days to respond to the attempted bombing of Detroit-bound (that’s our own soil, people) Northwest Flight 253. Granted, it was Christmas Day. Our president was probably enjoying R. Seth Liston’s favorite, “A Christmas Story,” with his family. Whatever he was doing, North-west employees and terrorists alike did not have the day off. Even I was busy catering to the obnoxious movie-goers and binge-drinkers at Fox and Hound. Yes, on Christmas. So, no – President Obama most certainly does not get hol-idays off. Therefore, if Obama takes three days to respond to an issue of homeland security, but at the very least, eight minutes to make a statement about a crisis overseas, reasoning tells me that he must be more passionate about Haiti than America. Now, I’m not going to be one of those people who claim that Obama will use Haiti as a way to gain black voters. I think that’s an ignorant statement, and I think that Haiti does deserve aid, and quickly. However, I believe it is neces-sary for Obama to evaluate his presi-dential situation. Does Haiti, which is a country that has made it quite clear it cannot utilize funds in a manner that

benefi ts its citizens, deserve monetary aid from our country (which, dare I say, is also one that cannot utilize funds in a manner that benefi ts its citizens, re-gardless of which party is in power)? Our government has already elimi-nated $1.2 billion in debt for Haiti, not to mention the $100 million it is send-ing the ravaged country, but aren’t we in debt to China? Last time I checked, that’s called “Obama’s mouth writing a check that America’s ass can’t cash.” (Excuse my American). And does the president of the United States of America need to re-spond in a timelier manner to matters that primarily concern other countries than he does to the country in which he was elected to govern? Reasoning tells me, “No,” to both questions. But passion tells me that Haiti does deserve aid. Monetary, perhaps not (if the people of America want to donate, that is a completely dif-ferent story, and that we will call char-ity rather than handouts). Man-power, supplies, medicine, food and water are all things that our country should be do-nating to Haiti. Their people are suffer-ing a monstrosity that our citizens can only begin to understand by comparing it to Hurricane Katrina. They need our help. Still, do they need our tax dol-lars? I’d say not. So, President Obama, this is a plea. I am begging you, sir, to consider where your heart lies, and if your passions can be controlled by reason. Do you care for our country as much as the president should? And do you really want to do for our people the best that you can provide? If not, I beg you to fi nd a way to change all that. Otherwise, this is going to be a long couple of years.

By: Kevin KingEditor-In-Chief

As we all come back to campus from Christmas break, we probably have something new. While inevitably someone received a brand new BMW for Christmas, most of us at least received an ugly sweater or a Pepperidge Farms sausage-and-cheese gift set. Don’t worry about this inequality though; the University has it all taken care of. They have gift-wrapped a brand-new tuition increase for all of us, so no one feels left out! Isn’t that so thoughtful? The UNC Wonderful Board of Trustees has requested a two per-cent increase in tuition. This comes at a time when those outside the administration’s ivory tower are stretched fi nancially more than we have all seen in our lifetime. The last time the economy was this bad, Reagan was in his fi rst term and we were just a glimmer in our parents’ eyes. Now, we are trying to weather this economic storm by bettering ourselves through higher education, and those at the top want to make it as hard as possible. Surely, I am just being critical though; there is no possible way they would be against the student population, right? Here’s where the math proves them wrong. They claim there is no other option, and raising

tuition is the LAST thing they want to do. Well, I propose an option that is very simple, and solves ev-eryone’s problems. At UNCW, the top 153 employees make $100,000 or more. After a quick calculator session using the StarNews Online database, I found that these 153 sal-aries total $18,972,300. What does that matter, you may be asking? Well, the gem of this whole ordeal is that with the new tuition increase, they plan on increas-ing overall funding by roughly $940,000. Half of which would go toward fi nancial aid and the other half to creating three new employ-ee positions. Let me quickly touch on the fi nancial aid portion. Does it make sense to ask every student to increase their loans next semes-ter to turn around and give half of that amount back to other students? That, my friends, is redistribution of wealth, and another whole discus-sion. So, for argument’s sake, let’s say they truly need this $940,000, indisputably. This is where those 153 salaries come into place. If you take the $18,972,300 and take just 5% of that, you would have nearly $949,000. That’s odd - because that is even more than they are anticipating through the tuition increase. So, if you just decreased the salaries of those making over $100,000 by 5%, this budget short-fall would be solved. This isn’t fair,

though, right? Why should the em-ployee make sacrifi ces? It should be the burden of the student, also known as the customer. The 20-year-old student, working part-time, go-ing to school full-time, and STILL taking out loans. I mean, that’s only fair. Here are a few last num-bers for you. The poverty line for 2009 in America is $10,800 (for a single individual), according to the Department of Health and Human Services. This means that those 153 employees make 11.5 times more than the poverty level. If you de-creased their salary by just a mere 5%, they would still be making 11 times the poverty level, averaging out to $117,800 per employee. The point of all of this is that there is no responsibility be-ing placed upon the employees of our fi ne institution. In the prosper-ous years their salaries increase, yet when times are hard, they just outstretch their hand into our thin wallets. In no way is reducing sala-ries by 5% going to hurt them at all, especially our Chancellor whose salary would drop from $300,000 to a modest $285,000. With no house payment, surely she can get by. The true travesty here is how the backbone of our Universi-ty, the professors that actually edu-cate us, gets by on modest salaries. Meanwhile, Provosts, Vice-Chan-cellors, Assistants to the Chancel-lor, and other ambiguous positions draw unwarranted, extravagant sal-

aries that drain our funds dry. Yet, they are the very ones who benefi t from the hard work of those who actually give the students what they pay for, and provide such a top-rate education. UNCW will still be more than respectable with lower paid administrative cronies. After all, they don’t step out of their offi ces enough to contribute now as it is. Right now, the private sector is weathering the recession through cutbacks and salary de-creases - isn’t it time for the public sector to have to follow? After all, Cindy Lawson, a spokeswoman for the Chancellor, once said about cut-ting back in response to “The Con-servative Hawk”, “We’ve all had to do it…including the Chancellor and myself, and everyone else through-out the University.” Is that so? I’m still waiting.

By: Kevin KingEditor-In-Chief After three months of investigation, “The Conservative Hawk” has been stonewalled and refused information. After fi l-ing a formal Freedom of Information Act request, we were denied. All we want to know is how, and where, did ITSD get raises. No one seems to be able to answer us, or perhaps willing to answer us. Furthermore, after scheduling a meeting with Debra Saunders-White, the Vice Chancellor if ITSD, it was suddenly cancelled the day before. This was strange being that the time and place were selected by her. I am still waiting on her to reschedule. Why are these answers so hard to fi nd? Why are requests denied and meet-ings cancelled? In my personal experience, it means someone has something to hide. I guess we will wait and see.

ITSD Update Part II

61-80 of the Top Salaries atUNC Wilmington

We are now through the top 80 salaries at UNC Wilmington, and still haven’t broken six fi gures. Does that STILL not bother anyone? How many private sector businesses have their top 80 employees making over six fi gures? After all, the University is just trying to be more competitive with the private sector. I hope that all of you who read this will begin to ask the ne-cessity of these salaries. Furthermore, I hope you begin to ask what they are doing to help out in these tough economic times when we are all cutting back. Until then, you can fi nd these and more online at http://starnewsonline.com.

Sincerely, Kevin King, Editor-In-Chief