Technology has undoubtedly brought constituents closer to their political representatives. As the world has flattened, legislation and fundraising have gone online. Politicians have addressed their supporters with text messages and YouTube videos. While citizens can more easily hear their representatives, politicians can just as easily tune out their constituents. Emails to your senator, even more so than letters, are swiftly returned with a boilerplate, “Thanks for your concern.” Despite the Internet revolution, the policy-making process remains slow, insular and opaque, an affair between lobbyists, think-tanks and politicians.

The ability for citizens to influence policy in this country is limited to their involvement in interest groups, where individual voices are drowned in a sea of ideological sameness. In Republic 2.0, Cass Sunstein argues that the advent of blogging and other online politicking has only exacerbated ideological divides. The Internet has allowed partisans to connect with other partisans and avoid opposing perspectives; though a wealth of information is available, readers will only ever access a fraction of it.

Though technology has brought news, pictures and video from around the world to our fingertips, the policies that affect us remain elusive. Bills are still hundreds of impenetrably formulaic pages; interest groups still cajole politicians behind closed doors. Our chief policymakers think that the “internets” is a “series of tubes,” while our government is facing some of the most complex and consequential policy challenges in history. Everyone should be invited to participate in the quest to find the best solution to our policy problems. Everyone has a right to know what policies are in place and what is on the table.

I propose that current policymakers (politicians, lobbyists and think-tanks) interact with citizens through an online policy catalog. The catalog will have three components.

First, it will include a database of policy briefs, short articles describing the purpose of a policy; the plan that the policy proposes to fulfill that purpose; and the resources needed to implement the plan. The database of briefs will be divided into policy that is on the books, on the table, and on our minds.

Policy on the books includes current state and federal law and practice regarding health care, education, executive power, energy and the environment, foreign affairs, the economy and so on. Policy on the table summarizes ideas that have been proposed by policy professionals: politicians, interest groups and think-tanks. These ideas are separated from the policy on our minds: the policy ideas that ordinary Americans submit to the catalog.

Op-eds will be the second component of the catalog. Each policy brief will include links to opinions in favor of and opposed to the proposed idea. Annotations may be comments submitted directly to the catalog or a piece originally published in a national newspaper, and editorial comments can include research or opinion. The comments provided by professionals will again be separated from those of lay-citizens. Editorial comments for and against each policy brief will stage a debate on the current or proposed policy. Through the discourse surrounding the idea, we will discover its strengths and weaknesses.

The third and final element of the catalog will be a system of evaluation. The catalog’s users will be able to vote for or against any policy brief and track the most popular ideas. Of course, we do not want policy-making to become a popularity contest, nor for every policymaker to develop a Clintonian addiction to poll-watching. However, the ability to rate policies affords the American public another way to share its opinions.

Through submitting their own ideas, opining on others and evaluating them all, citizens will have a new voice in the policy discourse. Furthermore, the current process for policy professionals will become more transparent and synthesized. State governments will be able to use the catalog as a resource to compare policy plans. Think-tanks can post their plans next to current policy and point out the differences in op-eds. Interest groups can submit their studies in support of, or opposition to, any policy proposal. The catalog can become a network for policy professionals to build upon each other’s work and ideas.

Of course, there are many flaws to the dream scenario as I have depicted it. The policy-making process is both competitive and fractured. Think-tanks and interest groups compete for influence and money, politicians and political parties vie for popular support and countervailing ideologies complicate it all. The existence of a catalog will remedy neither bitter partisanship nor shallow competitiveness. It is unlikely to expedite the policy-making process. But it can make the process of policy formation more accessible, transparent and interactive. It is an invitation for a more open and direct democracy fueled by innovative ideas.

Americans have learned to deplore lobbyists. Barack Obama has made his anti-lobbyist cleanliness the first bullet point on his ethics resume. He claims that the absence of lobbyists in his campaign separates it from the corrupting effects of Washington’s opaque, interest-based politics. He pledges that lobbyists “will not have a place” in his White House.

Illustration by Claire Anderson / NBN

Sure, since Little Jack became Incarcerated Jack and the snake of the GOP’s 2006 fall, corporate lobbyists have become an easy target — but also the wrong one. In constructing new ethics legislation, the Obama administration should focus on the lobbyists’ employers: corporations that require legal protection to remain obscenely profitable.

Let’s face it, lobbyists are not all bad. Lobbyists advocate for infrastructural improvements, technological innovation and environmental protection. They promote the interests of workers, teachers and consumers. Even corporate lobbyists, though they may be the loose seductresses of Congresspeople, are necessary for our quirky democracy to function. They represent interests and opinions that have a constructive place in our political dialogue.

But the public has pigeonholed lobbyists as political prostitutes, with the criminality of Nixon and the shadiness of a pot dealer. K Street has become a symbol of legalized tawdriness, the back alley of our Capital. Its streetwalkers are on the prowl for the powerful. Instead of showing skin, they flash bundles of campaign donations. Instead of accepting a bankroll for their services, they accept a supportive voting record. Since there will always be another campaign to finance, another subsidy to push through, lobbyists’ intimate rapport with Congress is not at risk of faltering.

Though anger mounts when lobbyists “game” the political system to favor their employers, we should not blame the lobbyists, but the power-hungry interests that keep them in business: largely, but not exclusively, corporations. Do not blame corporations for hiring a lobbyist to defend them in Congress; blame them for directing the lobbyists to bribe politicians. Though lobbyists often end up committing the fraud, some — according to the fictional lobbyist Nick Naylor — are just working to pay their mortgage, which now happens to be worth more than their McMansion (thanks for the deregulation, financial services lobby).

The key to reining in fraudulent corporate influence is to encourage proper corporate influence and further limit campaign finance. Proper corporate influence includes educating political officials about the issues that affect them and advocating for legislation consistent with their interests. Corporations should not be directing lobbyists to help write legislation or wine and dine congressional staffers. Corporations that do should be vilified like the pimps that they are.

Corporate bundling of campaign donations by lobbyists must also be restricted. Bundlers should not only have to declare the donations that they collect, but should also be limited in total donations collected. Though it will be nearly impossible to restrain the influence of money in American politics without publicly financing all national campaigns, monitoring and capping bundlers is a start.

Lobbyists are a different breed of Congresspeople. If you are an old, pro-choice teacher who buys consumer goods, you have at least four lobbies protecting your interests. Lobbyists are the mouthpieces for specific opinions that senators are too afraid to defend. I am glad that there are more perspectives represented in Washington than the 535 in Congress.

Lobbyists help fuel the high-powered policy discourse in Washington. Sure, money gets them in the door, but that’s where they need to be. Legislators are meant to be policy judges. Lobbyists advocate for positions and legislators weigh them, determining which solution would best benefit their constituents.

Of course, lobbyists are not the only sources of information or opinion. Congressional staffs should be relatively intelligent. Think tanks publish reports. Academics write books. Nonetheless, the interests affected by any piece of legislation, corporations or not, should have their day in court — as long as their advocates don’t seduce the judge.

For fifteen years, chaos has plagued the Horn of Africa. Equipped with speedboats and rocket launchers, pirates roam the Indian Ocean in search of fortune. On land, radicals set off improvised explosive devices. Aid workers are assassinated and dragged through the center of the city. At a rally in a soccer stadium, children and parents alike bear Soviet-era rifles and yell “Allahu Akbar”: God is great. Welcome to Somalia.

Somalia is the most pressing humanitarian and security crisis in the world. Somalia is plagued by the human suffering of Darfur and the terrorism of Afghanistan. The global community, led by the United States, must act with vigor to help repair Somalia.

Psst… the bright one is Somalia.

Somalia is no longer a state. It has no national army. It has no permanent governmental authority. The warlords govern localities, corruptly and violently improvising to make ends meet and nearly all foreign workers have fled the country after being targeted for assassination. The Somalis who remain are left with few options. Some have resorted to violence; others have tried theft; still others have embraced religion and joined the Union of Islamic Courts. Today’s Somalia is a conglomeration of pirates, warlords, Islamists (members of the Islamic Courts) and a few technocrats — a toxic mixture.

Somali pirates number in the thousands. They have attacked over fifty vessels in the past year, raking in millions in ransom money. They are an organized network with a unified mission and an official spokesperson. Think of us like a coast guard, he has said.

Most recently, the pirates spotted, attacked, and occupied a Ukrainian ship carrying $30 million worth of military equipment. The Somali pirates now possess a reservoir of tanks, grenade launchers and ammunition. However, it is hard to imagine how they will keep the 80,000 lb. tanks, for the pirates normally unload their booty with dinghy boats. Either way, the pirates aren’t stuck on details. They don’t want the weapons on the ship; they only want money. In fact, the pirates admit that the sea of weapons saturating Somalia is chiefly responsible for Somalis’ suffering over the past decade-and-a-half.

In a way, Somalia is in the throes of a never-ending civil war. Until a few years ago, Somalia was divided among warlords who led gangs that operated ad hoc local governments fueled by corruption and patronage. As the warlords struggled for power, an Islamist movement, the Union of Islamic Courts, grew to challenge the corrupt establishment in a new civil war.

The Islamists were quickly framed as a terrorist threat. The United States backed the warlords and allegedly sent them support through the CIA. In an encouraging testament to the power of our CIA, the warlords lost and the Islamists took over Mogadishu, the former capital. For several months, as the Islamists imposed a form of Shari’a law, Somalia was reasonably stable.

But that was not enough for the United States or Ethiopia. The United States was prepared to prosecute its War on Terror and Ethiopia was unprepared to deal with an Islamist neighbor. The United States supported an Ethiopian invasion of Somalia. The Ethiopians displaced the Islamists from power and occupied the country.

The Ethiopians continue to occupy Somalia and support the transitional government comprised largely of “former” warlords. In response, the Islamists have mounted an insurgent and assassination campaign to unseat the current government. They have assassinated foreign aid workers and officials from the Transitional Federal Government.

The United States has failed multiple times to stabilize Somalia. What merits another intervention, particularly when the country is more chaotic than ever?

Geographically, Somalia would be a perfect node for terrorism. Somali pirates, funded by terrorist networks, could seize oil tankers traveling through the Strait of Hormuz. With the proper support, Somali pirates could escalate an insurgent sea war that sends world oil prices skyrocketing. Somalia, like Afghanistan, could fast become a breeding ground of, and harbor for, international terrorism.

This is not to advocate a third leg of the war against terrorism. We cannot afford the financial cost and should not stomach the human cost of a third international war. However, we must do something about Somalia to promote stability and alleviate suffering.

First, the United States should convince the Ethiopian President, Meles Zenawi, to withdraw Ethiopian forces to the border between Ethiopia and Somalia. To ensure his compliance, we can offer Zenawi increased humanitarian aid as a carrot and reduced military aid as a stick.

An Ethiopian withdrawal would leave the Islamist forces to fight the warlords. Though both are bad guys, the Islamists are more likely to bring stability. Their last stint in power was the only period of stability in Mogadishu since the first Bush Presidency. Without Ethiopian opposition, the Islamists would likely win the ensuing war and again control Mogadishu, the former capital.

Before the Islamists can try to unseat the transitional government, the African Union should organize a joint summit with the Arab League (Somalia is a member of both) to orchestrate a power-sharing agreement between the technocrats in the transitional government and the Islamists. The few Somali technocrats are the only hope for a real Somali government. Warlords in the transitional government should opt into a reconciliation process or face exile.

If the power-sharing agreement succeeds, the United States should supply, with matching funds from the international community, $100 million for infrastructure reconstruction and secular education. The UN Security Council should continue to closely monitor the flow of money and arms to the new government, containing it from international terrorist influence.

Warlords amenable to reconciliation should be integrated into the new governmental system at the community level. Clan leaders should be allowed to continue overseeing local police forces, but report to a technocratic Interior Minister.

Yes, I am ultimately proposing another civil war, another political settlement and an Islamist government supported by American dollars that we currently do not have. It sounds crazy. It sounds tedious. It is both. The alternative is to do nothing and hope that the chaotic gridlock will somehow subside.

What do we lose by lobbying to have Zenawi withdraw Ethiopian troops? What do we lose by paying for infrastructure programs that cost less than .1% of our annual budget deficit? Somalia is subsumed by utter catastrophe and is headed for worse. The potential benefits include one less terrorist haven and millions more Somali children at peace for the first time.

As long as it is calibrated and limited, intervention will not burden Americans. Inshallah, it will help repair Somalia.

But the president is not a figurehead whose essence can fit in a crossword puzzle. We need a president who is mentally equipped to unpack complex problems and offer pragmatic solutions. We need a president who knows how to boldly and efficiently manage ideas, people and bureaucracy. We need a short big-city mayor who celebrates Yom Kippur. We need Michael Bloomberg.

Even Papaya King, New York’s famous hot dog joint, endorsed Bloomberg. Photo by • Eliane • on Flickr, licensed under Creative Commons.

During the primary season, rumors materialized that Bloomberg was going to invest $1 billion of his personal bankroll in an independent campaign for the presidency. Bloomberg, the current mayor of New York City, founded and built the financial information empire that bears his name. He is renowned for his effective management and innovative leadership, once summarized his strategy as “recognize what you don’t know; find people who do; and study hard.”

A Bloomberg presidency would likely focus on stabilizing the economy, reducing global carbon emissions and restoring America’s international credibility. But what makes Bloomberg more equipped to pursue these ends than McCain or Obama?

Bloomberg’s unique advantages are his independence and leadership credentials. Any race between the two American political parties risks devolving into a war centered on culture and class. Governor Hockey Mom and her fellow GOPers have argued that we need a leader who is intimately familiar with small town values. Senator Hope serenades the middle class in his attempt to justify protectionism. The debates are often recycled and frivolous. Bloomberg would shift the focus to reestablishing a strong economic foundation upon which American families can independently build.

As an independent, Bloomberg would neither need to adhere to a party dogma nor shore up a base constituency. Partisanship stands in the way of consensus-building. Pandering stands in the way of principle. Bloomberg’s wealthy independence represents a new kind of politics; it requires no fundraisers, no ideological obligation.

Though New Yorkers have reservations about abolishing term-limits to allow Mayor Bloomberg to continue his reign without inhibition, describing it as a benevolent dictatorship, a Bloomberg presidency would not be one. In fact, since no members of Congress would feel obliged to support him (and his advisers would be bipartisan), there would be significantly more checks on his actions. His proposals–this is, his ideas rather than his party–would elicit unbridled criticism from both parties, whereas party members in the House and Senate habitually feel obliged to support proposals from a president of the same party. With Bloomberg, the spheres of Congress would not feel bound to support or oppose any presidential initiative; rather, Congress would afford the initiative criticism unfettered by partisanship.

Bloomberg has the experience of running a multibillion dollar financial business. He understands international and domestic financial systems. He has led the largest city in the United States for the past seven years. His commitment to civil liberties and an equality of opportunity is coupled with a desire for efficiency.

And his accomplishments as mayor are not few and far between. In New York, Bloomberg helped lead the economy out of its post-9/11 doldrums and led a global campaign to stanch the flow of illegal arms. He promoted a ban on smoking in public places and restaurants and pushed for a carbon tax on cars entering New York City. He has also pushed for an education plan that stresses charter schools and an anti-poverty campaign that has attempted to increase the amount of public housing.

While some have criticized his egoism, others focus on Bloomberg’s benignity and pragmatism. His astoundingly high approval ratings will likely allow him to reform the New York City statute on term limits and continue serving as mayor until the next presidential election.

Bloomberg is not the messiah; his presidency will not bring an end to partisan politics. However, Bloomberg’s pragmatic approach to global cooperation is likely to restore America’s ability to exert peaceful power abroad. His economic acumen, too, is particularly important today as the world undergoes the first global crisis of the 21st century.

His candidacy would mean more electoral options and a more vibrant democratic fabric. It would extend the political debate beyond historical partisan issues in order to address the true purpose of the presidency. The novelty of Bloomberg’s independent approach could inspire a new faith in those who have become so disenchanted by partisan politics. He can appeal to voters looking for a more efficient, less divided government. If nothing else, a Bloomberg candidacy would challenge historical political institutions and reshape our political discussions. Wait until 2012.

My sister’s limbs twist to the rhythm,
  Dance to the deadly beat of the bloody drum.

No destination but devastation,
Slug after slug viciously whizzes.

To our streets they bring their epic fight,
Their thirst for power, their fear of oblivion,
  Unquenchable,

Their teeth into cigars,
Their daggers into flesh,
  Sinking,

Their shots no target but catharsis,
Their war no aim but fantasy,
  Brains washed, people cleansed,

One silver bullet sprayed,
  Pierced my impervious heart,
Guiltless,

Limbs folding neatly upon the dirt road,
  I writhed from the impact.

A bloody tear scales my bony cheek,
The beating continues.

My life fading,
  Hidden from God.
Free at last?

7. Collapsed and collapsing: Summer meltdowns

Heat waves struck in more ways than one this summer, as states and leaders began to stumble and crumble. Though seemingly unrelated, the following meltdowns signaled intensifying instability across economic and political borders, and could be the first waves of the credit, food and energy crises.

In Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf resigned as the Pakistani economy imploded and a vociferous opposition threatened him with impeachment. The historical divides in Pakistani politics were exacerbated by militant extremism in the country’s western region, widespread corruption and the wobbly stock market.

Other political casualties of the summer included Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. The U.K.’s Gordon Brown — tarnished by his lack of charisma and economic woes — may be the next prominent leader to fall.

6. Confucius laid the golden egg: Superstardom and the outpouring of Chinese cosmopolitanism

The Chinese won 100 medals and put on a lavish show at the 2008 Olympic Games, showcasing remarkable human coordination and material extravagance. China spent $43 billion not just to host the Olympics, but also to tell the world: “China is a superpower.”

China’s continued ascent is marked by more progressive policies, compassionate leadership and magnificent architecture. Despite their ostensible liberalization, the Chinese haven’t lost their flair for squelching free expression, arresting those who applied to protest in government-designated Olympic protest zones.

5.The Axis of Evil becomes the Circle of Friends

We used to snub those countries that we did not like or agree with. We claimed that we “do not negotiate with terrorists.” This summer, that changed. Though North Korea has not fully cooperated in taking apart its nuclear facilities, the United States began normalizing its relationship with the former member of the Axis of Evil.

Libya received even kinder treatment for abandoning its nuclear pursuit, earning a visit from Condoleezza Rice. In return, Libyan autocrat Muammar El-Qaddafi said, of Rice, “I support my darling black African woman” and that he “[loves] her very much.” Though the same love was not shared with Iran, the United States did engage in direct negotiations with the Iranians addressing their nuclear program.

Iraq, the center of the axis of evil that the United States has worked so hard to tame, strayed from its Bush-whipped path this summer. Nuri al-Maliki, Iraq’s Shi’a Prime Minister, refused to allow American troops to stay in Iraq any longer without a timetable for American troop withdrawal.

But behind the veneer of progress, the Middle East is still as fractured as it was at the beginning of the summer. Iraq is still without basic political accommodations for its next election. The political uncertainty surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stalled peace talks. Though intentions were good this summer, it will take more than photos of diplomats shaking hands to change the dynamic in the Middle East.

4. The Red Army’s humanitarian mission

A war raged this summer between Russia and Georgia. The basic plot: Georgia claimed that two territories – South Ossetia and Abkhazia – are part of the Georgian state. Russia claimed that they are independent. In response to Russia’s support of South Ossetian secessionists, the Georgian army occupied the capital with ground troops and performed airstrikes. Treating the occupation as an all-out invasion, the Russians claimed that they needed to invade Georgia for humanitarian reasons. Russia launched strikes on the Georgian capital, Tbilisi, and expelled the Georgian Army from the separatist regions.

Though the Georgians consider the United States a close ally – they named a street in Tbilisi after George W. Bush – the United States chose to condemn the affair from afar. According to some, Russia’s motivations hark back to the United States’ recognition and defense of Kosovo, a small “separatist enclave.” It seems that Russia is once again engaging the United States in a game of “anything you can do, I can do better.”

3. That other war is still going on?: The shift from Iraq to Afghanistan and Pakistan

If the troop surge in Iraq was intended to reduce violence in the short term, it worked, as military progress in Iraq increased over the summer. In Anbar province, the United States “handed over” official control over security to the Iraqi army and police forces.

Meanwhile, insurgent attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan increased. As the Taliban became more comfortable in the border region between Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Bush administration discussed transferring troops from Iraq to Afghanistan.

Others argued that the war in Afghanistan does not just need new resources, but new tactics as well. Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, expressed anger toward American troops for continuing to inflict enormous civilian casualties with air strikes.

2. The global economy is screwed

The costs of fuel and food pushed developing countries to the brink of physical and economic catastrophe. Banks tightened their grip on liquid capital for corporations and developed countries. Energy prices remained exorbitantly high, while many in the U.S. argued over the feasibility of off-shore drilling.

The “credit crisis” started with corporate irresponsibility. Banks offered risky loans to borrowers who ended up defaulting on their agreements. Though politicians like John McCain blamed Wall Street’s “corruption” for the country’s financial turmoil, the American people are to blame as well. Individual credit card debt and imprudent borrowing only fueled fiscal extravagance.

Over the summer, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury actively intervened in the market to allow companies to access capital with relative ease. The United States Treasury is currently creating a conservatorship for the mortgage-backing corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure that they do not falter in the face of economic tumult. The Federal Reserve helped some while ignoring others, buying an 80 percent stake in the American International Group (AIG) for $85 billion, but allowing the investment bank Lehman Brothers to fold and Bank of America to buy out Merrill Lynch. Congress and the Executive branch are planning more extensive intervention (potentially $700 billion worth) to cushion the imploding financial sector.

1. Change first, country second

For months, Barack Obama has called for Americans to support “change we can believe in.” This summer, John McCain began to believe in it so much that he changed his campaign’s theme: from experience to change; from geriatric to maverick. Obama and McCain traded punches all summer, providing daily entertainment for political junkies.

In late July, Obama toured Europe and the Middle East. He appeared so confident on his trip that many accused him of being presumptuous. A McCain ad belittled Obama’s stardom, comparing it to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears.

At the Democratic National Convention, the Clintons and Sen. Joseph R. Biden (Obama’s running mate) provided full-throated endorsements of Obama. To wrap up the convention, Obama addressed more than 80,000 supporters gathered in a football stadium. His speech was forceful, if not combative.

The day after Obama’s speech, McCain announced his choice of Sarah Palin, the sitting governor of Alaska, as his running mate. Governor for less than two years, Palin was initially pigeonholed as a neophyte and the subject of a transparent political stunt. Nonetheless, her selection attracted inescapable media attention. She spent the majority of the Republican convention address introducing herself and attacking the Obama campaign. McCain followed her speech with a much softer address that stressed his biography and grabbed fewer headlines than Palin’s.

This summer showcased the world’s instability and fragility. The economy is damaged and in danger of becoming more so; leaders of countries both rich and poor are mismanaging their power; wars rage without conceivable end. New rivalries and conflicts are stretching global relations to a frightening tension. In a sense, the world is as excited and active as (but more sober than) a Barack Obama rally: we want change, but we aren’t sure what change we need.

Economic malaise will not only likely lead to a longer job search for recent graduates, it will also increase the poor college student’s cost of buying groceries. Wait until Jewel becomes Whole Foods — without anything organic. Global food markets are preparing to sucker-punch our wallets with domestic protectionism — an “iron rice bowl,” perhaps.

But how much will the economic downturn infiltrate the Northwestern bubble? Most expenses seem tiny next to the biggest college expense: our huge tuition. Will another fifty cents on a Burger King tab really make a difference? Will more-expensive meal plans bring you to the streets?

The winds of economic unrest are real and they are blowing. There is a distinct possibility that they will pass through the Arch sooner than we expect.

Global food prices have risen 57 percent in the last year, according to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization. The World Food Programme predicts that more than ten million additional people could fall victim to malnutrition if inflation does not abate. More recently, the food crisis has incited riots in Mexico, Argentina, the Philippines, Myanmar, Haiti and elsewhere. Today, domestic food prices are rising alongside fuel prices, boding gloomily for inflation numbers.

The seeds of crisis were sown in Iowa. In what seems to have been a sneaky attempt to increase corn prices, and profits, Iowa politicians lobbied to make it cheaper to refine corn into ethanol. This way, drivers filling up their Ford F-150s on ethanol or biodiesel can pretend to be eco-friendly. Subsidies passed through Congress, and Iowans began to refine their corn into a not-so-cheap, not-so-clean alternative to oil. The slick political maneuver decreased the supply of edible corn, increasing the cost of livestock feed, July 4 barbecues and cornbread.

As the price of corn has gone up, farmers around the world have begun to plant more. But prices have continued to rise. That’s because newly planted corn is turned into fuel, not food. Farmers, using their fields for lucrative biofuel production rather than agricultural staples, are reducing world supplies of wheat, rice and other crops, increasing the prices of nearly all agricultural commodities.

Dominique Strauss-Kahn, chairman of the International Monetary Fund, has said that prioritizing fuel over food is “a crime against humanity.” Essentially, Iowa should be on trial at The Hague.

George W. Bush disagrees. He claims that it is in our national interest to “grow energy.” George, Newton declared centuries ago that you cannot “grow energy.” Plus, it would be in our national interest to do a lot of things (cough, be nice to the rest of the world, cough), but we are not doing them. In sum, Iowa is screwing the world, but they’re not the only ones.

China and India are becoming richer. Some say this is because they are stealing our jobs; others say it is because they have wicked-good economic policy. The answer: wicked-good economic policy — along with nearly complete neglect of the environment — has brought them jobs that they perform much more effectively than unionized Americans. As a result, the Chinese and Indian populations have more money to buy food. The global demand for food has thus gone up, increasing food prices even more.

But Asia’s growth and Iowa’s politicking have been going on for years. Why is expensive food a crisis now?

Much of it is politics. As food prices began to rise, people in Vietnam, Cambodia and elsewhere became angry. Presumably to prevent a coup led by angry, hungry folks, those governments and others slapped export taxes on major agricultural commodities to keep food in the country and at lower prices. The taxes worked, temporarily keeping domestic prices down and domestic politics calm. However, domestic pandering burned international markets. Export taxes decreased international supply, leaving those in food-importing countries with a higher grocery bill than ever.

The long-term problem is that countries that import food pay for it by exporting other goods, particularly consumer goods. Because the cost of living for the laborers that make consumer goods rise with food prices, the wages in food-importing countries may increase due to political pressures. With increased costs of production, the price of consumer goods will increase, leaving your wallet much hungrier than your stomach.

The true villains in this bleak saga are the agricultural lobby and politicians who don’t have the spine to stand up to trade barriers or angry voters. As for India and China, it’s difficult to point a finger at people for earning more money and using it to feed their families. If we want to blame a group of people, the French are always available.

In the end, everyone seems to be a victim — the soon-to-be-malnourished more than others. The solution would involve hopefully eliminating most, if not all, commercial agricultural subsidies, abandoning biofuels as the inevitable energy solution, destroying international export taxes, creating regional agricultural cooperatives and expanding the World Food Programme’s emergency storage operations to avoid famine.

Though Evanston is not on the brink of famine, rising prices will affect Northwestern too. As the university’s costs increase (fuel for shuttles to chemically induced oblivion is not cheap), so will tuition. The solution is simple: go to meetings and talks with free food, practice all religious holidays that include fasting, go to munchies, and take your significant other on a romantic excursion to the nearest dining hall. Your wallet — if it still has a voice — will thank you.

As it happens, students often avoid working with ASG unless they need cash. In doing so, students often forget that ASG has much more to offer. Though it has faults, ASG works tirelessly and in good faith to make sure that students get what they want. It needs concrete reforms, but nothing can be done without the will and participation of the student body.

Established in 1969, ASG’s mission was — and still is — to communicate Northwestern students’ wishes to those in power using Senate legislation and committee proposals. Ultimately, committees propose specific ideas to the Senate, which deliberates and votes on them. ASG’s goal is to help frustrated students lobby for the changes that they desire.

The committee with the greatest clout is the Student Activities Finance Board (SAFB). SAFB controls the purse strings of $1.2 million. However, student groups must jump through multiple rings of fire – naked – in order to see more than a few dimes. To be recognized as an ASG group at all, you must send two members to a six-hour training session that James D’Angelo, the ASG clerk, described in an e-mail as “this big long process that teaches nothing, and makes groups waste a lot of time without getting anything for it.” There is also the long, arduous journey from T-Status (temporary) to A-Status (fully-recognized) that takes multiple applications, the same number of approvals and at least four quarters.

Here is where most students get turned off. They see the serpentine bureaucracy and they see the formality, but they don’t see how working with ASG can really effect change.

“ASG has a lot of red tape that must be followed, and groups basically just get frustrated and start to hate ASG,” D’Angelo said.

The Senate, which was designed to be the ultimate stage for students’ reform measures, has become the epitome of ASG’s malaise. The Senate’s speaker, sophomore Jesse Garfinkel, admits that students often aren’t engaged in meetings if they don’t have specific interests on the docket. Who would think that college students, who think that they know everything, would miss an opportunity to tell others what they think should be done?

Senior Julian Hill, last year’s opposition presidential candidate, offered exciting reforms to the currently entrenched system. The differences between Hill’s view of ASG and that of Senior Jonathan Webber, its current president, highlights the disconnect between ASG and its constituents. While Julian is an Obama-esque grassroots leader, Webber is more a Clinton-type — the Hillary version.

What can ASG do about these issues? Hill’s approach encourages the involvement of more students, both directly and indirectly. Senior Aneesa Arshad, the SAFB chair, echoes this opinion. She suggests that ASG could take out a weekly advertisement in The Daily Northwestern or post bulletins on NULink to communicate with the student body.

“We say we’re in touch with 8,000 students,” she said. “But we’re not.”

D’Angelo thinks that the substance rather than the form of communication with the administration should change. He says that ASG has spent too much time looking to assist the administration and not enough time advocating student interests. They both recognize that if ASG is to prove to students a legitimate and forceful actor on campus, it must link the students to those atop NU’s food chain.

Here’s five concrete reforms that could improve ASG:

1. ASG should launch an assertive and wide-reaching marketing campaign, focusing on rebuilding its image (as D’Angelo advocates) and identifying opportunities to participate (Arshad’s idea).
2. Senators should have to follow policies that make them more available and visible. If you are a senator, make it a point to meet your constituents and ask them questions.
3. Senators and committee members directly affiliated with the subject group of a proposed measure should be allowed to debate the measure, but be barred from voting on it.
4. Before the mundane orders of business start, the Senate should hold an open forum where students can present their opinions before senators, engage in debate and aggressively question their representatives. Think of it as “Prime Minister’s Questions” without the bitter British folks.
5. Finally, a meeting each month between Vice President of Student Affairs Dr. William Banis and the ASG executive board should be open to the public, allowing students to comment on current discussions and inquire into progress being made.

These measures would address the perceived banality, slowness and insularity of ASG, but would not force students to become involved.

We have to realize what a great resource ASG really is. It controls $1.2 million independently of the administration; it meets on a weekly basis with a vice president of the University to discuss students’ qualms; it allows any student to propose legislation. It is nice to have people who genuinely want to solve our problems. It is unfortunate, however, that we have not taken advantage of our opportunities.

We are all frustrated about something. Instead of shaking your head and muttering something about the imperfections of ASG, air out your concerns at the next Senate or committee meeting.