“On a scale from one to seven, to what degree do the following words apply to you? The first word is: Kind.”

“Is a one high or low?”

“One is low and seven is high.”

“So if I say six or seven, then I’m really kind and if I say one or two, then I’m a real crud.”

“Sounds right.”

“OK, let’s say four.”

“FOUR, oh, that’s not true, you’re much kinder than that.”

“I think four is about right, it’s in the middle. And besides, I don’t want to sound conceited.”

“No, I refuse to put down anything lower than six, unless you absolutely insist.”

“OK, six then.”

“Good, the next word is Generous.”

My dear friend Patricia was on what Dr. John Gray of “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” fame calls a “home improvement project.” She wanted to improve my home by adding people to it — or at least one more person — and she decided that the best way to do this was to have me sign up for eHarmony while I was visiting one Sunday afternoon a few weeks ago.

Now, Pat is certainly a kind soul, but when she gets an idea in her head, she’s like the Borg from Star Trek: “RESISTANCE IS FUTILE.” I insisted that there was no way this was going to happen unless she filled out the online questionnaire. To this she happily acquiesced, and so the ordeal began.

I’m sprawled out on what appropriately looks like a psychiatrist’s couch and Pat is sitting at the computer reading the questions from the eHarmony web site. First she reads the question. Then we argue over what the question really means. Then we argue over what my answer should be. Sometimes this involves second-guessing the program: “if we put down a six, then that’s going to mean…”

Finally we agree on a number and move on to the next question. And the next. And the next. There seems to be an endless list of questions divided up into innumerable pages. After taking forever to fill out the first page, we discover that there must be a time limit for each page, because when Pat clicks “Save and Continue,” the web site coughs up an error and we have to redo the page. Uggh. Occasionally we try to correct a mistake but the unforgiving program marches relentlessly on, mistakes and all. I figure that, with enough mistakes, I’m going to get matched up with a turnip.

This goes on for hours and hours. Pat’s husband, Phillip, wants to use the computer, but eventually gives up and goes to bed. Same for her orphaned children.

After the first zillion questions I make my move to escape and suggest we continue this some other day, but the Borg are not so easily put off. Onward and upward we go, until, sometime after midnight, we finally get to the last page. This is where they start asking the really uncomfortable personal questions about your finances and if you have any tattoos (OK, just kidding about the tattoos). “Tell us one thing about yourself that only your best friends know.” None of your business!!

Finally, we’re done. I feel like Hilary and Norgay at the Everest summit. I figure that I’m safe as long as I haven’t given them a credit card number and officially “subscribed.”

Big mistake.

Pat clicks the last “Save and Continue” button and in about half a second seven “matches” appear on the screen. I guess those 29 areas of deep compatibility don’t take very long to calculate. The next morning, seven more matches appear in my Gmail inbox. And seven more. And seven more.

At first I was surprised to be receiving official eHarmony lists with dozens of highly compatible women, having only filled out a profile, but then it started to sink in. These eHarmony folks are marketing geniuses. I’m receiving all these matches (I think I’m up to 150 at the latest count), but I can’t communicate with any of them until…. yes, you guessed it, until I pull out the credit card and subscribe to the eHarmony service — around sixty bucks for one month all the way down to twenty-one bucks a month if you subscribe for a whole year. Cheap! Just to add a little to the pressure, many of these women are already requesting to communicate with me (I guess they didn’t read my last article in the Patriot). Pure marketing genius.

For those of you who would like to find that special someone, but don’t have the cash to shell out for the online solution, don’t despair.

I have a friend in Iowa named Sonya, who signed up for eHarmony some years ago. Her sister cajoled her into filling out the questionnaire (are you noticing a pattern here?) and they both agreed that the answers given were truthful. She told the program that there was no limit on how far away they could go to find her matches. Outer Mongolia was just fine. So she clicked the fateful last button and waited for her matches to start pouring in. And waited and waited. After about a month, the eHarmony site produced one match, to a Lutheran pastor in Minnesota. That was it.

I can’t imagine what possible combination of ones, fives, and sevens you could type into those pages that could possibly produce only one match in the entire eHarmony world, but apparently it’s possible.

So what happened to Sonya? She found a husband on her own and is now happily married and helping to run the family bookstore.

So much for high tech solutions to age-old problems. Sometimes the old-fashioned way works best.

I guess you’re wondering what happened to those hundred and fifty matches on eHarmony — that’ll have to wait for another issue…

In my short time writing for this magazine, I have learned a lot about the Lehigh student body and faculty, and, from what I gather, Academia nationwide. My writings have touched on three sensitive subjects: one focused on race, one on American history and culture, and the final, probably most controversial, addressed gender roles. Needless to say, there were those who didn’t agree with my outlook on these issues, and they made that quite evident. Before I go on, and attempting to minimize any digression, I would like to point out that I understand some of the opposition to my article about gender roles, and I admit it strayed from its original focus: women serve an irreplaceable imperative role in child rearing and the family in general, and these roles certainly trump any other. Therefore, any mention of gender roles will center simply on this point, and I consider opposition to my view as those who contest this particular position and not my article in general. With that said, the purpose of this piece is to analyze the opposition to my perspectives, point out its dangers, and ultimately show just how one-sided and close-minded these so-called “tolerant” campuses have become.

My writing often represents a traditionally conservative, Republican perspective. Therefore, it is only natural that my strongest critics are those of the exact opposite philosophy: progressive, liberal Democrats. Each adjective pushes its subject further and further to the left. Consider the political, left-right spectrum; Democrat places you somewhat left of center, liberal Democrat sends you about halfway toward Barack Obama, and if you’re a progressive liberal Democrat, you either work for NBC or in a liberal arts department of a college or university. From here on out, the far, far left will simply be referred to as progressives, and, unfortunately, their views are heard louder, relative to their numbers, than any others on campuses. In relation to the three subjects of my articles, America, gender, and race, progressives tend to hold the following views: 1.) America is not necessarily a great country; we have an evil history; we use our brute force to pillage the world of its resources while controlling foreign peoples (most notably Africans, South Americans, and Middle Easterners); and finally, if you aren’t rich, America is a terrible place to live. 2.) America is inherently racist in every nook and cranny of society; our white-controlled prisons, economic system, school programs, and governments have been intentionally used to hold minorities down. 3.) Men look to “control” women; it was men who placed the emphasis on outward beauty in women; there are very few physiological differences between men and women; and gender roles were put in place by powerful men to hold women back. All three views are undeniably interconnected, have repetitive themes, and are mostly fabrications created with a foreseeable purpose.

Due to exaggerations of racism being so widely used by progressives to attack America, I will deal with these two issues, race and America, together. I would never suggest that there are no longer racist people (of all creeds) in our country; but to deny that America has made incredible strides on an almost yearly base of alleviating racism is just as preposterous a claim. After seeing the reaction to my article dealing with race, I began to understand just why progressives hold the views they do. I realized that they arrived at their stances over a long and self-deceiving process, and as with most malevolent final realities, they had just and worthy beginnings (Stalin thought he was helping the Soviet people). Many of these racial progressives probably idolized the great civil rights leaders and activists, and rightfully so. Human beings naturally look to emulate the people that we most admire. However, instead of focusing on the message of the great civil rights leaders, such as Martin Luther King Jr., they focus on the life and actions of the man himself. What I mean is that instead of striving to achieve MLK Jr.’s ultimate goal, racial equality, they got caught up in the incredible acts of bravery and activism he performed over his lifetime. But progressives fail to understand just how different the times were during the civil rights era; and to truly imitate the lives of their heroes, they feel the need to overcome immense obstacles that the MLK’s, Malcolm X’s, and Rosa Parks’s had to. If there was never slavery, no one would know the name Frederick Douglas. If there was never racism, Martin Luther King Jr. would have been just another preacher. The incredible adversity these heroic figures conquered is what made them the legends they are today. Thankfully, because of men and women during the civil rights era, this adversity has been overcome; racism in America is a shadow of what it once was. This leaves racial progressives in a confusing state. They can acknowledge the truth: that the evil of our past has all but been eradicated; but that would make them warriors without an enemy. Therefore, they create their “obstacles,” and that is where people like me come in. (I strive to be the next Ronald Reagan, but I’m not rooting for a communist takeover of Russia).

Have you ever read a student newspaper dealing with racism, or heard multi-cultural organizations’ rhetoric and wondered, “Where’s the meat?” They preach of racism, and the heroic efforts of multicultural organizations, but concrete examples are never given. Even with progressives’ pitchfork and torch searches for racism on campuses, actual instances are extremely rare; so the next best thing is my article. Any mention of race, besides when talking of America’s racist ways, is like a drop of blood in the ocean, and the progressives come swimming like sharks. Unfortunately, like my article, there was only the scent of the meal; actual racism was nowhere to be found. To put this in perspective, people like me who claim America isn’t inherently racist are treated like the open racists during the civil rights movement.

Allegations of sexism are probably even more absurd than many allegations of racism. The root of most racism is lack of interaction between different cultures, when the only opinions of a different race are generated from common stereotypes and what we see on T.V. Normal interaction among races in schools is probably the greatest attribute toward integrating races, which makes it seem counterproductive for multi-cultural organizations to segregate themselves from the rest of the college community in any way, shape, or form. This leads me to the progressive obsession with male-domination. Every single one of us has a mother and many of us have sisters (I won’t be able to say this in a few months, when the transgender man/woman on the Oprah show gives birth). Is it really feasible that we could build up actual contempt for the woman we came from, who we shared a body with for 9 months? If you’ve read my articles, you surely understand my view on the importance of the family; I want nothing more than my own sister to live a happy and fulfilled life, which is why I never shy away from expressing my opinions on how I can help her, and all girls, achieve this. If I truly was a chauvinist, and cared nothing for women except to fulfill my own personal needs, I would gladly join hands with progressive feminists in their mission to pull women down from the pedestal on which men have traditionally placed the fairer sex. The thing with radical feminists is that they have an easier time recruiting from their ranks than radical minority activists. Whereas almost all minorities simply ignore radicals who happen to share their skin color and develop their views on other races from the men and women they live, work, and play with, radical progressive feminists have successfully manipulated many non-progressives to join their causes. Even more so than other progressive causes, progressive feminists have succeeded in convincing generations of perfectly happy, family-oriented women that they were, indeed, miserable. As the saying goes, misery loves company.

Just as with the civil rights movement, feminism had incredibly honorable beginnings. The first wave of feminism attacked the law, whereas the next waves attacked the mind. What I mean by this is that early feminist leaders, like Susan B. Anthony, attacked actual inequality under the law (it was no surprise she would do this, prior to her feminist fight she fought for abolition). While people like Anthony fought for justice, progressive feminists that came much later attacked anyone, like me, who understood there were clear physiological differences between men and women, and that any drastic change to our gender roles would have to be done over time, so as to not offset the delicate balance of our family structures.

Another distinct feature of the progressive feminist movement is that it has actually recently regressed, and I say this in a good way. The movement has picked up upon the fact that earlier feminist progress had been quite detrimental to women as a whole. Feminists fought to have women looked at and treated exactly as men do each other; and they’re starting to realize that, well, men don’t treat each other that well. Who is responsible for the objectification of women? Men are the people doing it, but it was undeniably the progressive feminists who enabled them. Now, very modern feminists are fighting to stop this trend, and it is unknown how exactly they can do this without going back on some of their earlier stances.

Imagine how you would feel after listening to a lecture on the negatives of DVD technology, once you found out it was given by a person specializing in VHS sales. Obviously, knowing the source would change the way you perceived the information. Quite possibly, by the end of the lecture, you were thoroughly convinced that DVD players were, in fact, inferior to VHS. This is true with almost all topics in society; given very limited information, hand selected to suggest one particular view, we can be convinced of almost anything. Many times, radical feminists and race hustlers are presented in front of a class (as Ewuare X. Osayande unfortunately was here at Lehigh), and are given free reign to convince students of their message. Students need to understand that these people are salesmen, who stay in business preaching VHS to a DVD world. (Osayande literally was a salesman. After his lecture, which included bashing capitalism, was over, he pitched his books to the class and actually brought copies to sell right there in that very room.)

This is why a one-sided perspective is so dangerous, and I felt it my duty to explain just how preposterous his theories were, and, more importantly, let the student body know what kind of guest lecturers our tuition dollars were going towards. Just as race hustlers want anything but eradication of racism, radical progressive feminists hate to see women happy (when everyone is happy, no one buys tickets to see people explain why we aren’t). These are not the voices that should be overpowering here at Lehigh and at campuses in general. Students need to speak up to offer both sides of every argument. If you are in the majority of minorities (no pun intended) who doesn’t feel that Lehigh is a racist institution, make sure your voice is heard, because the other side most definitely is. If you fit into the overwhelming majority of women who don’t feel oppressed, then let that be known as well. And finally, can we please get over the strategy of labeling our opposition. I was immediately called racist, nativist, and sexist after the release of each of my articles. I listen to the other side, I disagree, but I don’t resort to slander. If we differ in perspectives, it is certainly not because I have some preconception or innate dislike of you, your race, or your gender; what you say violates a principle or belief of mine (which is open to change), so I disagree. I would encourage you to write a letter to the editor if you strongly disagree with something I’ve said.

“I found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race,” states Senator Barack Obama in his book, Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. Contrary to what the media will have you believe, contrary to what your fellow students may tell you, and contrary to the pervasive attitude that has swept the country like muggings in a fog, Barack Obama represents the collective embodiment of radical left ideas, and his ascension to power representative of underlying currents of American racism.

Americans, sadly, have little hope for Black America. This is a double-edged sword, covered extensively throughout many other works, some of which I have authored. Thanks to the discussion dementia caused by the so-called political correctness revolution that former President Jimmy Carter began, and furthered throughout the Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton administrations, people fear one another. Black Americans and White Americans continue to harbor discussions of race in closed, contained spaces — a family table, a local bar, a union meeting, or a church festival. These spaces remain segregated, such that the development of ideas only polarizes the respective demographics further from any reconciliation of 150 years of name-calling and mutually terroristic treatment of one another.

The climate for true discussion of true change, something that will be built upon in later statements in this article, has created a situation that is far from calm. This article does not concern itself with this phenomenon in its entirety, however. This article intends to place Senator Obama in a fair light, one that is untainted by racial expectations, and bolstered by facts about colorless issues, such as voting records, truthfulness of campaign themes and statements made, and projections about where a presupposed Obama administration could potentially position the great American global machine.

Hope & Change — a volatile pair of buzzwords that Senator Obama has tossed about like confetti in a ticker-tape parade. Obama claims that he represents a fresh departure from Washingtonian institutions such as lobbyist influence, corporate interest groups, and soft money. Unfortunately, much of this rhetoric is baseless.

Obama has a long-standing relationship with FBI-indicted extortionist Antonin Rezko, who has raised more than $168,000 for Senator Obama’s campaign. Rezko also successfully petitioned Obama to obtain more than $14 million dollars in federal funding for apartments for senior citizens, himself receiving $855,000 in “development fees.” Obama falsely claims he has no knowledge of Rezko, though the Chicago Sun-Times has stacks of paperwork detailing the aforementioned claims, in addition to hundreds of others demonstrating a long-term you-scratch-my-back sort of relationship between Rezko and Senator Obama.1

Obama claimed, during a taping of Meet the Press on Jan. 22, 2006 that he believed the root of all evil in politics is the money of lobbyists.

I think the problem of money in politics is bipartisan. I think that all of us who are involved in the political process have to be concerned about the enormous sums of money that have to be raised in order to run campaigns, how that money’s raised, and at least the appearance of impropriety and the potential access that’s given to those who are contributing. That’s a general problem with our politics. The specific problem of inviting lobbyists in who have bundled huge sums of money to write legislation, having the oil and gas companies come in to write energy legislation, having drug companies come in and write the Medicare prescription drug bill-which we now see is not working for our seniors-those are very particular problems of this administration and this Congress. And I think Jack Abramoff and the K Street Project, that whole thing is a very particular Republican sin. 2

Yet Obama is no stranger to sketchy contributions. The Capital Eye reported that, “[a]ccording to the Center for Responsive Politics, 14 of Obama’s top 20 contributors employed lobbyists this year, spending a total of $16.2 million to influence the federal government in the first six months of 2007.” Likewise, Obama’s top three campaign contributors spent more than $8 million dollars lobbying congress in 2007.3

It would seem that the “sins” of the Republican Party have rubbed off on the Senator. However, he seems to be in a league of his own when it comes to his voting record. In January of 2008, The National Journal ranked legislators by their voting records, and taking the #1 spot as most liberal senator was none other than Sen. Obama.4 Interesting, considering that Obama remarked that:

“There is not a liberal America and a conservative America – there is the United States of America. There is not a Black America and a White America and Latino America and Asian America – there’s the United States of America.”5

Despite these rather dubious claims to bipartisanship, it is striking that the Senator’s voting record is so far left, considering that he rarely votes at all. Throughout February, Obama abstained from 25 of 30 votes.6 Overall, on key votes concerning welfare and healthcare, Obama abstained from 4 of 6 key issues. On issues concerning Foreign Intelligence Surveillance, or FISA courts, Obama abstained on 50% of the key votes.7

On seven key votes for healthcare, Obama voted aye for multiple amendments to the Medicare program for senior citizens.7 Despite this alarming turnout for an otherwise often-absent Senator, Obama has outright waffled on the issue of socialized medicine. (Note that single-payer healthcare is a Washington euphemism for socialized medicine.) Observe two quotes:

“I happen to be a proponent of single-payer universal healthcare coverage. That’s what I’d like to see.”

Five Years Later:

“I never said that we should try to go ahead and get single-payer (healthcare).8

In 2004, Senator Obama told a group of reporters in Boston that the United States had an “absolute obligation to remain in Iraq,” and he furthered this point of view by telling the Christian Science Monitor that same year that “the failure of the Iraqi state would be a disaster, and that it would dishonor those who have died serving, to bring the military out of Iraq abruptly.” Yet, only weeks ago, he claimed that he would have left Iraq, “yesterday.”10

In light of the bevy of evidence extant to discredit the junior Senator, whose record demonstrates an oscillatory commitment to liberal ideals, with no tolerance for more conservative ones (Obama voted nay on the Protection of Marriage Act, and several spending caps, along with nay on a proposal to prevent riders, or extra legislation commonly known as pork), Obama is a risk to the general welfare of a free, capitalistic state. His inability to set his mind to anything is offset in the public domain by his ability to leverage speechwriter Jon Favreau’s remarkably transparent and vague voice of old-line reason and undeniable tenets of how America should be, despite how Obama plans to shape it.

The audacity of hope, indeed. And, if Barack Obama represents the reincarnation of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, then I suppose that his brother will be acquitted of second-degree murder after drunkenly driving a female aide off of a bridge. Vacations will be spent with cousins who bludgeon to death a fifteen-year-old girl, using only a six-iron. He will appoint the next Robert McNamera, who will begin a war more complicated and deadly than Iraq could ever be, open a World’s Fair without European Sanction because, of course, we must restore international credibility, and he may attempt to invade Cuba. He will then die young enough for people to forget about his affairs and poor decision-making, and he will forever be enshrined in the public eye.10

Barack Obama is no Kennedy — one can only hope that his relatively clean personal life, which has primarily been marred by the affair concerning Pastor Jeremiah Wright (which I will not build upon, in my commitment to remove race from the equation), will not ever reach that of a Ted Kennedy or a Robert Skakel. However, Obama shares a tie with the late President: a thin veil of popularity overshadows his missteps, and his political career is peppered with contradictions. Obama’s presidential candidacy is built on the idea that he can transcend partisan politics, yet the evidence clearly cites the contrary. He is neither less liberal nor less corrupt, than John Edwards (with the blood of thousands of dead mothers on his hands, thanks to his cesarean-section lawsuits, which largely funded his campaign for President) or Hillary Clinton (with her sketchy real-estate dealings, long-rumored plot to overthrow private medicine, and scads of personal hypocrisy of her own).

Now, we return to my initial postulation concerning race. I have attempted to evaluate Obama without regard to his race or religion (whatever it may be, today). However, the clear logical conclusions that I have drawn have not yet descended upon the American body politick, critically due to media inattention. Barack is relatively untouchable, because White America believes that his eloquence is special; a Black man who speaks without the gritty racism of the late Jesse Jackson, or the call to action of former Black Panthers, Bobby Seale, or all-around crackpot Maulana Karenga — individuals that Americans are used to experiencing. It is true that Black America needs a role model (just as White America needs some new role models) and Barack fits the bill.

My point of contention here is that Obama is running for the highest office in the free world, on a far-left platform marked by the same conflicts of interest and same sins of his fellow candidates, making him both equally corrupt and outlandishly liberal — a dangerous combination. I personally would have liked to see Condoleezza Rice seek the oval office on the Republican ticket, though not because of her gender or race. America needs a qualified, restrained individual, who won’t redistribute my income, appoint judges who interpret constitutionality of things never meant to be debated, or attend church with a racist Marxist who may influence his opinion. This is something that I believe Barack H. Obama does not, nor cannot espouse, when it comes to the future of America.

References

(1)     Free Republic Online: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1960154/replies?c=98

(2)     Notable Quotes: http://www.notable-quotes.com/o/obama_barack_iii.html

(3)     Democrats for Hillary-Stop Obama: http://www.stop-obama.org/?p=449

(4)     http://nj.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/

(5)     Quotes Online: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/barack_obama.html

(6)     Open Congress: http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/400629_barack_obama

(7)     VoteSmart.org: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

(8)     Freedom’s Enemies citations to AFL/CIO debate & Jan 21st Democratic Debate

(9)     New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/fashion/20speechwriter.html

(10)     Talk given by Trevor J. Drummond on April 7, 2008

Recently, I had the pleasure of dining with two students who live or have lived in another country for a significant period of time; one in Pakistan, and the other in Ukraine. As we discussed the corruption that is rampant in the governments of third world countries, one of my new friends aptly pointed out that there is corruption in the United States as well. It is not as visible to us, he reasoned, because it occurs in the higher echelons of government circles, where we are not at liberty to witness it. At the time, I was confused as to what he was talking about – what with our checks and balances between the branches of government. In the days since our conversation, I have spent a good deal of time thinking about the effects of lobbying before legislation, and the temptation of lobbyists to use more convincing measures than spreadsheets and pie charts. Whether or not that is what my friend meant by his comment, we would still be naive to think that corruption is not possible in a developed country like our own. After eight years of an administration that strove to make the federal government less transparent and, at the same time, more powerful, it is no wonder that many Americans are questioning what exactly our leaders have been doing behind closed doors.

It is my contention, however, that we should not stop at questioning. And luckily, we don’t have to. We can do something about it. We have a candidate in the running who also feels that this country has been headed in the wrong direction, and has promised to turn things around: to make the government transparent, and to take lobbyists out of the equation. In fact, that is the very platform that Barack Obama is campaigning on. I also do not think the importance of it can be overstated. In the past, lobbyists have had a very strong effect on legislation that was put before Congress, and if we continue in the direction our country is headed, we could see America being run by big business and various advocacy groups instead of the elected officials whom we thought we voted for. While complete eradication of lobbying is probably impossible and would also be a violation of the first amendment, Senator Obama has stated that he would “close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops.” This would restore the power of the checks and balances that were put in place by our founding fathers. Anyone who would doubt the sincerity of his platform should note that his entire campaign has been funded without a single dollar from lobbying groups or other politicians.

Another reason I support Senator Obama is his policy regarding the war we are waging with Iraq. He has been opposed to the war since the time it was first suggested, saying that our occupation of Iraq would be “an occupation of undetermined length, with undetermined costs, and undetermined consequences.” Senator, I applaud your foresight. As a nation, we have watched the Bush administration’s claims unravel; the war has dragged on, the budget threatens to dismantle our economy, and the death toll rises almost daily. Despite all this, troops continue to be sent overseas to fight against Iraqis. At this stage in the game, I am at a loss for why. It feels like every other day someone says to me, “Yes, the war was a mistake, but now that we’re there, we have to finish the job.” Well, what constitutes finishing the job? When every Iraqi insurgent is dead? When we have restored “peace” between two groups, whose motives we can neither relate to nor understand? When we have shoved democracy down the throats of people who may abhor it? Are we so arrogant as to march around the world telling countries that we can govern them better than they can govern themselves? Whether or not democracy is the “best” form of government in our experience, we have no basis for – or right to – parade across the globe installing it everywhere. The conclusion to my digression is that there is no good answer for what constitutes “finishing the job”, and we should, therefore, be mournful of the damage we have already caused, but cause no more. Senator Obama has promised to systematically remove troops at a rate of “one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months.” While he has asserted that there will be no permanent base in Iraq, he would leave enough troops to protect our embassy and diplomats.

Senator McCain, I think, would spend a lot more time in Iraq – perhaps his entire tenure – if elected. Let me say before going on that McCain is a strong candidate and has some admirable policies (especially on immigration). The only problem is that he would take office as George Bush III. He and the president are nearly identical: in speech, in policy, and in attitude towards the war. It is as if Bush Jr. split his soul and implanted a piece of it in the proverbial Horcrux of McCain to preserve his administration’s life in the oval office (I sincerely apologize to anyone reading this who is not a Harry Potter fan). Back to the muggle world – er – reality. If, after the past 8 years, you can still find cause to support the current administration, then, by all means, vote for McCain. Surely, if four more years of Bush is what you want, you won’t be disappointed. On the other hand, if you mistrust the claims coming from the White House; if you are questioning whether or not Washington is really as uncorrupted as you once thought; if the lobbying of big business and advocacy groups is causing those around you to lose jobs, or you have become disenfranchised by your representatives’ votes cast for various legislation; if you are tired of a war that never seems to end; if you think “finishing the job” might just not be the right thing to do after all; if you think foreign policy could be handled a lot better by a new administration; or if for any other reason you think this country could use a breath of fresh air in the form of a changing of the guard: cast your vote for Barack Obama on November 4.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This past weekend the College Republicans celebrated 2nd Amendment Day. We learned about gun safety and tried our hand at target shooting. The M16 was really cool. More importantly, however, we learned why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why it specifically protects an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms. Now, I have to be honest: this event was not an official College Republicans event because Lehigh University would not sanction it. We therefore were not allowed to use any club funds for the event. Apparently, certain administrators did not think this activity was in keeping with the standards of this fine institution. I was amazed to hear that learning to exercise one’s Constitutional right safely and responsibly could pose such a problem. We can offer free HIV tests at the Health Center, but a gun safety course and target shooting? Now that is out of line. I actually thought colleges were supposed to foster a productive and open learning environment. Imagine my shock when I found out that only applies to liberal, hippie ideals such as promiscuous sex and drinking. Of course, with the drug-using, Summer of Love crowd from the 1960s now running our institutions of higher learning, I should have expected this. Here is why the 2nd Amendment is so important and why the Lehigh administration was so close-minded in his denial of this activity.

Just like the 1st Amendment, the 2nd Amendment did not grant a right. This Amendment simply preserved a right that already existed. That right is the right of each person in the United States to bear arms in order to defend him or herself. The framers of our Constitution clearly intended the 2nd Amendment to apply to the individual, not a militia or such. James Madison said: “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” Thomas Jefferson stated, “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” In fact, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the individual’s right to bear arms as an individual right multiple times. Out of the 23 state constitutions adopted before 1845, 20 of them explicitly affirm the individual’s right to bear arms. The other three mention a “collective right.” James Madison, considered to be the author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that the Bill of Rights was “calculated to secure the personal rights of the people.” The framers clearly wanted an individual right.

Another point of contention with the 2nd Amendment is that the Amendment applies to the National Guard, not the individual citizen. The first and most obvious counter to this argument is that the National Guard was not formed until a hundred years after the 2nd Amendment was written. Unless our Founding Fathers had better foresight than we even give them credit for, they would not have written an amendment for something that did not yet exist. The more concrete reason why this argument is bogus comes from the Dick Act in 1903. The Dick Act specified that the National Guard is the “organized militia” and that all other citizens are the “unorganized militia.” Therefore, by federal law, all members of the population are part of the militia, thus giving each citizen the individual right to bear arms. Also, the National Guard was not part of the militia at all before 1903. Clearly the 2nd Amendment does not apply to the National Guard.

The next reason the Amendment supports an individual right comes from the text of the 2nd Amendment itself. If you look at the text, the Amendment has two separate clauses in it. The first clause is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.” This is the justification clause, that is, it tells us why the Amendment is there. The Founding Fathers recognized that the armed citizen was necessary to maintain a free society, and told us so in this Amendment. The second clause: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the preservation clause. It guarantees the right based on the justification clause. I ask: would we be able to deny free speech based on the justification for the right?

Next, let us address the issue of assault weapons. Assault weapons are, aside from not being dangerous to the general public, essential in keeping the people free. First, the 1994 assault weapons ban did not reduce crime at all. The ban failed to reduce homicides and only reduced homicides by “assault weapons” a very small amount. Criminals were just using other weapons to commit their crimes. That begs the question: shouldn’t we ban the other guns they are using? I would counter with this: After we ban those guns, shouldn’t we ban the Louisville Slugger they might use after that or the steak knife which would be the next weapon of choice? Charles Krauthammer said it best: “Passing a law like the assault weapons ban is a symbolic, purely symbolic move… Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation.” Criminals will not surrender their assault weapons, guns, baseball bats, or knives, so when you take guns from the public who does that benefit? Assault weapons are also needed for legitimate purposes. During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, many storeowners protected their property and families with so-called “assault weapons.” Those shop owners were the ones who did not get robbed or dragged into the streets and beaten. The police had vacated that part of town; there was no one else there to protect the innocent but the innocent themselves. When civilization breaks down, the only defense we have is that which we can provide ourselves. Adequate weaponry is essential to providing that defense. What if the Jews back in Germany had had weapons for their defense? Can you think of a better way to get the Gestapo off your doorstep than an M16?

The bottom line is that the 2nd Amendment is the right that preserves all the others. Once the people are disarmed, it would not be very hard to take away any other right guaranteed by our Constitution. Freedom of speech cannot be defended without the Right to Bear Arms. Those that would deny or limit the 2nd Amendment are not only violating the Constitution, they are acting with extreme irresponsibility and putting all our other freedoms in jeopardy. To try to deny a group of adults the opportunity to learn how to use these weapons responsibly and effectively is incredibly shortsighted and downright stupid. To try to deny college students the opportunity to learn about the history and significance of the 2nd Amendment is corrupt. Someone who would try this has no business at an institution of higher learning. The Lehigh College Republicans would like to offer their sincere thanks to Bob Bajor and the Easton Fish and Game Club for giving us an education Lehigh tried to prevent.

Joe Sterrett is probably the most distinguished member of the Lehigh family, but you’d never know it from his unpretentious and accessible manner…nor, of course, from the location of his office – in the Lehigh Athletic Department.

But consider what he has accomplished. Joe has been Lehigh’s Athletic Director for 19 years, a visible and competitive position, during which time Lehigh’s teams have consistently posted winning records – for men and women. Lehigh has won eight Patriot League football titles, more than any other school. In addition, our coaches are regularly recruited away for more senior jobs at schools with more money and bigger programs – Stanford, Princeton, and Cornell are building wrestling reputations with ex-Lehigh coaches.

Joe is widely respected in NCAA circles, and Lehigh athletes have always been recognized for their academic achievements and high graduation rates. He’s hustled enough to get seven of his coaches endowed chairs, and – quite appropriately–three years ago Lehigh’s trustees gave him a boost, honoring him as the Murray H. Goodman Dean of Athletics. He has raised enough money to build or renovate virtually all of Lehigh’s athletic facilities.

When he was an undergraduate in the 1970s, Joe suffered through his sophomore and junior years as an over-qualified back-up quarterback, but in his senior year he exploded. Finally put in charge of the Lehigh offense, his team set school records for total yards gained (5,037), total points (409), and he personally set a school record of 22 touchdown passes. Lehigh finished 9-3, beating Penn, Rutgers, Delaware, and Lafayette in the regular season, and then advancing to the NCAA Division II playoffs.

Joe began his professional career here at the bottom, serving as assistant football coach for seven years and then moving on to the admissions department.

He earned his Doctorate in Education from Temple and he still teaches (with Vince Munley of the Economics Department) a course for undergraduates on the economics of the sports industry.

Even better, all of his four children attended Lehigh.

This is a tough resume to beat.

Joe took time out of a busy day to talk with The Lehigh Patriot about his job, the school, and his ideas about education. This is what he thinks.

What are the main priorities of your job as Lehigh’s Athletic Director?

A. First, there is always a need to affirm the value of sports programming, even organized recreational programming, within the structure of higher education. There are always people who will probably forever believe that sports aren’t central, that they are not important.

There is always stress around the question of funding. We are constantly being reexamined, because no one wants to fund superfluous activities. I wouldn’t call it a battle, but there is tension. There is a need to constantly reaffirm that we are doing the right things and that we belong, that we matter a great deal in the development of young people – in their intellectual development as well as with the obvious physical development.

What’s mission number two?

A. Another is the financial model. We fund about 20 positions ourselves, not all through fundraising, but also from external events, rents from facilities, and things like that. We run a bunch of different businesses, and the purpose of those businesses is to deliver the resources that will allow us to have the kind of programming that is necessary here. We have to create the right model which can be sustained.

Number three?

A. Then there is the human challenge of dealing with bunches of kids in an environment today in which a lot of them feel a good deal of stress. So we must manage the professional lives of coaches and the educational lives of kids – that’s a challenge.

Talk about the stresses on coaches and staff? What is that all about?

A. Well, first of all, they are their own strongest critics. What they do is on a stage that is much more measurable than other endeavors, so there is an inherent insecurity about whether or not they are good enough. They are always asking, are we winning enough games? Am I reaching the kids as effectively as I should?

On the other hand, part of their job is recognizing that part of their educational responsibility requires being challenged, being measured, and achieving outcomes. Our programs are not all about winning and losing, but, like any teacher, if you don’t have enough success to sustain your credibility, students won’t take your course. Kids won’t come to the institution to play for a coach that doesn’t have credibility. Like it or not, it is the reality of the world that you have to achieve good results.

How do you manage the stress between departments like yours…and perhaps theater and music…and the rest of the school where there is no clear measure, there is no exit testing, there is no real measure of achievement?

A. I hope that’s not true, but I hear you. But let me say this: number one, this is a fundamental characteristic of our world and we accept it. It is what it is. We have scoreboards. Frankly, we like scoreboards because there is clarity about them. Often in society we are unwilling to admit the there is a winner and a loser. We’ve created this whole middle ground where it’s about just being a part of something.

That’s all warm and fuzzy, and that’s fine, but most of the things that matter in life have more clarity than that. You don’t have relationships that have real meaning and value unless there is clarity about the importance of those relationships and the sacrifices that have to be made. Many people don’t get that.

Of course we can’t let the scoreboard become so consuming that we only measure ourselves in that way. But we’re not afraid of scoreboards.

Tell me more about what goes on, what you do, when you have a losing season.

A. First of all you analyze the heck out of why these results occurred. Did you have the passion? Did you have the conviction? You have to aspire to get good results, so you must make a commitment. We might be tempted to say, “Well, if we could just take some more marginal students we could get better results.” We know that results matter. But we want to be successful with kids that meet our parameters.

We want kids that are not distinguishable from other students academically.

Our all-athlete GPA is within a couple of hundredths of the all-university average. Our women do better than our all-student average and just a bit below the all-women average, and we are actually better than the school average when you measure the percentage of students on academic probation.

We also look at values that are important to this department and that are presumed to be important to the institution, like the commitment to serve others. There are many things that our kids do on their own, like raising money for charities.

We also try to evaluate the experience of being an athlete at Lehigh. We conduct exit interviews with our graduating seniors so they can tell us where we can do a better job. I think they would like to have better academic advisors, not only with courses but with their careers. Also, they’d like the social life to be a little bit more diversified.

What do you mean by that?

A. I think they’d like to see less focus on alcohol. You know, athletes generally do what the pack does because so much of what they do with varsity athletics requires so much time that they don’t want to put a lot of energy into their social lives. I know they’re not all angels, but they do understand the negative impact of alcohol.

What specifically do you do with losing teams? What do you say to the players so that they don’t feel the whole business was a mess?

A. Well, we begin by asking of everyone, “what could you have done to make your experience more successful?” It is human nature for a kid of this age to point the finger elsewhere, that if we are not successful it’s because of my coach, or because I don’t have the facilities, or the other guy is doing more than we are. What we try to do is to say, that may be true–we cannot absolve ourselves of our responsibilities here–but we want to find out what you could have done. Is there a level of commitment that was not as high as it should have been? This is a real analytical process. But if you accept that where you are is all you are ever going to be you have relegated yourself to an unsuccessful program.

My aspiration is to have every kid graduate and to have every team win all the time. These are not expectations, but it is what we shoot for.

Most people are afraid of being beaten, afraid of failing. It is a hard experience. But in your world, and perhaps in life in general, it seems that brittleness is not possible. If you are never subjected to this kind of risk of humiliation you don’t understand that a person can gain a strength knowing that he has been through the worst and “hey, I’m still here.”

A. Of course. But then you must ask yourself, did we get our butts kicked because they were just flat out better than we were? But still, you’ve got to ask, Could we have been more focused? Could we have executed better than we did? And this likely outcome is that, yes, we could have done better. And if we could have, we should aspire to do better. You’ve got to develop the resilience to get up after you’ve been knocked down.

Is there a fundamental difference between an athletic and an academic culture?

A. There is but I’m not sure that there should be. At the core they are both educational cultures. Our classrooms happen to be outdoors, or in water, or on mats, but they are all learning environments. The culture of learning here should not be different from the culture of learning in the classrooms. Good learning should be based on personal integrity, discipline, commitment to doing your best. If you build your life on your pretensions, you are going to struggle in life.

What, then, does it take to be a successful Athletic Director?

A. I don’t know. I wouldn’t presume to say that I am successful. But in the end the only real measures are long-term outcomes, even though we are measured by shorter-term results. What matters is that we had a meaningful and significant impact on the development of young people, and do they look back on this experience and say, “It mattered to me. It influenced who I am.” We’d like this to be crystal clear when they walk out of here with their diploma.

Is there any disconnect between college sports and the world these students will encounter when they leave here?

A. There is an obvious disconnect because you are no longer doing the same things. Rarely are you training in the same way that you did before. But life is competitive, relationships are competitive, raising children is challenging, actually competitive – that is, if you establish in your mind that you want to do it as well as it can be done, then you will have many days when you realize you are not doing it all that well. You will always get knocked down. You are not being beaten by someone else, but you are not reaching your own aspirations.

Should freshmen be forced to get into the athletic program in some way, so that it becomes part of their life at Lehigh?

A. It does make sense to have a physical education component to a Lehigh education. But there is no obligation for kids who come here to take advantage of these facilities, and unfortunately, people who don’t learn to balance their physical care with their jobs and intellectual efforts will realize this.

There is also a spiritual element here too. That’s part of inner balance of self and wellness. People who are spiritually grounded, physically active, and intellectually active have a peace about them that is healthy. All those elements are ultimately important in life, particularly because the collegiate experience is supposed to be preparing students for the rest of their lives. It is an old and grave supposition that we are doing that, and we certainly ought to be keeping this as an aspiration.

Is the spiritual component an obligation of the university, like a physical or intellectual component is?

A. I believe it is. I don’t mean this necessarily as religion, although that is one way to address it. There is an awful lot about human kind that we do not understand; there are things that we do have to take on faith. Once we acknowledge that we are not in control of all of that, it will give us a level of peace that allows us to achieve what we can.

Is this addressed anywhere here?

A. In a formal way? No, I don’t think so. Informally, I think it is happening.

Doesn’t physical training force you to face and deal with your limits? And isn’t this itself a spiritual activity, or something approaching it?

A. You’re right, but at the same time you are doing that, we are always trying to realistically stretch that. You are capable of more than you think you are.

If we had a team that won all the time, it would be my obligation to challenge them at a higher level, to change their schedule so that the odds would be that they would not be so successful. Losing tells you something about yourself. It gives you an opportunity to do better.

What do sports automatically teach people that they are unlikely to learn anywhere else?

A. This clarity about self. You are constantly measuring effort as well as output. How do you measure against external competition? Also, with our teams, there is a fundamental dependence on others. One of the problems with living in a fraternity or sorority is the question, “what is the common objective that we all share?” There is an ambiguity there.

In sports, all we want to do is win. Then we have to figure out how to make this happen. This is even true in individual sports. You have people to work out with, people to run against, people to push you into training.

Athletics also require courage. There is no place for a wrestler to hide out on the mat. There is only one other person out there. In a race, in a swim meet, that is true too.

Is there anything special we owe to scholarship athletes, to kids who come here to play for Lehigh?

A. I don’t view it that way. I think we owe every kid that is here our very best. Some are here with scholarship assistance that may not be related to their talents, but we owe the same thing to everyone.

How do you deal with the African-American athletes that are so much a part of your varsity program?

A. We are blessed because we have clarity of shared purpose over here that may not exist all over campus. People join us because they want to be part of a successful program, and it doesn’t matter if you are black or white or rich or poor. You must contribute to that clearly stated collective objective. We are in it together. Broadly defined educational objectives will vary. Some have social agendas, some have financial agendas…

What sports are you most fond of yourself?

A. I’ve never been asked that question. I have an emotional attachment to football because I have played here and coached here. And I’m interested in softball because I have a daughter (Julie) who played here. I enjoy basketball too. But I have a deep appreciation of what these kids go through.

Are women’s sports doing as well as men’s sports, in terms of enthusiasm and results?

A. Oh yes. If anything, there is a natural enthusiasm in women’s sports that men’s sports may lack. They are less concerned about appearances, they don’t mind having fun. Too many guys approach it as a job.

One last question: Will there ever be a university president selected from an athletic department?

A. I don’t think here. But it would be a good idea and it might happen. When people begin to look at it and say running an athletic department is really a management challenge, a visionary challenge, and not an academic job, the slate of candidates can get much more open–it could include anybody.

Apocalypses have always been cool. It’s just a fact of life. Would Will Smith be as cool as he is without his many apocalyptic thrillers, such as “Independence Day,” “Men In Black,” and “I Am Legend?” I think not. The point is, if you are a group of people desperately in need of some popularity and attention, the best way to fix that is to start an apocalypse theory. It is with this fact in mind that our journey begins.

We will start with two groups of people that no one ever really paid attention to: climatologists and environmentalists. Climatologists have the difficult job of modeling and predicting the results of a system with no controllable variables. Environmentalists have the equally difficult job of convincing everyone around them to act with regard to possible future effects as opposed to definite immediate effects. Looking at what both groups are trying to do, it’s no wonder they’ve both been shunned in the past.

Environmentalists and climatologists are smart people and they didn’t like the fact that no one was paying attention to them. Far off, in a remote forest in Oregon, they decided to team up and hatch their world domination plan. They collaborated for hours, pondering the best way to make sure that the world would listen to what they had to say. The two groups seemed to be a perfect match and, about nine months later, Global Warming was born.

Global Warming, GW for short, was a great kid. He was much cuter and warmer than all the other celebrity babies, and he was universally loved. But with Global Warming’s fame and fortune came the inevitable rise of its parents into the mainstream media spotlight. Climatologists shouted out the news that GW was the fulfillment of a prophecy, which stated that, as soon as a child was born out of two androgynous entities, a great heat wave would melt all ice and force everyone to drink warm lemonade. Oh, all that ice melting would also flood the costal regions of the world, where 90 percent of the world’s population resides. Then, the environmentalists appeared with their well-crafted answer to what everyone could do to prevent this prophecy that GW had brought with him. Finally, the whole world would be compelled to heed the predictions of the climatologists and follow the environmentalists’ Ten Commandments. Their diabolical plan had worked.

The preceding story is obviously not real, but it does serve a very important purpose. The essence of the story is that the motives of the architects behind global warming need to be examined. Sure, science is supposed to be above this. Science ought to be impartial and unbiased. But scientists are human beings, and, just like the rest of us, they are prone to pushing agendas without regard to the integrity of the claims behind them. A perfect example of the attitude that is held by not all, but not just a handful, of people in the global warming arena can be seen in the following quote of Stephen Schneider, the lead author of the 2007 UN IPCC report on climate change:

“To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.”

Look at it this way. If climatologists predicted that the world would be in good shape over the next 100 years and that everything would remain relatively stable, what do you think would happen to their funding? My guess is that their work would continue of course, but some funding would very likely be directed to many other branches of research. The problem with climatology is that it is not as precise, testable, or as promising as most other fields in science.

All three presidential candidates have talked about curbing emissions to reduce the warming, and a vast majority of the scientific community treats global warming as a fact. Sadly, nothing in science is a fact. All throughout history, science has had to update its theories. There was a time when spontaneous generation was an accepted scientific principle. The world was flat. The sun rotated around the earth. Light in space traveled through the ether. Just as we are sure that all of those ideas are wrong, we can be sure that there are scientific theories today that are blatantly false. This is why open discourse is needed on subjects, and those who challenge established ideas must be heard.

My rationale for questioning global warming hinges mainly upon how precise a science such as climatology can be. The main problem with climatology is that it is not testable. By that I mean that climatologists do not have, at their disposal, a way to control inputs and predict the results. Climate change models on computers rely mainly on historical data to predict future results. While this definitely has merits, it is impossible to test and verify data and relationships. One cannot state ideas as scientific fact when the only evidence is historical trends. History holds thousands of variables, so, while there may be a correlation, it does not necessarily mean dependence. Both variables could be dependent on a third variable, or on both a third and a fourth variable, and so on. That is why science designs experiments with only two variables.

Obviously, there is a scientific connection between emissions and the greenhouse effect. But in a system such as the earth where there are, again, thousands of variables, predicting the future is very difficult. In an article in 21st Century Science and Technology in 2004, Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski asserts that solar cycles are the main factor in determining climate. This makes sense to me. Surely no one can assert that solar cycles don’t have any effect on our climate. Dr. Jaworowski’s conclusion is that we are heading into the next ice age, and that “This disaster will be incomparably more calamitous than all the doomsday prophecies of the proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis.” He cites a fair number of other scientific articles which also speak of another ice age approaching. Read his article, and then read a piece on global warming and you will have no idea what the temperature change will be over the next 100 years.

The conflict between these two ideas is what brings me to my final point. If we don’t know for sure which way we are headed, then why are we looking to radically curtail economic growth in the name of preventing global warming? Should we waste less, recycle more, and provide incentives to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through innovation? Absolutely. The problem is, environmental activists don’t just want that. They want us to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, and even take more drastic measures. According to a 1999 study by two Yale economists, ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would result in an economic loss of $400,000,000,000 for the United States alone.

That’s a lot of money for us to simply give up on in the name of preventing something that may or may not happen. Furthermore, we don’t even know what climate would be best for earth. Warmer weather could result in longer growing seasons, allowing for more food to be produced. More importantly though, eventually we will have another ice age like the one we had 14,000 years ago, which covered all of modern day New York in ice. Such an ice age will devastate food production, and will, as Dr. Jaworowski concluded, be much more dangerous than whatever humans can do through emissions. We may need some extra food saved up from a few years of very warm weather.

My point, basically, is this: global warming should not be blindly accepted as completely truthful, apocalyptic, and a cause for action. Indeed, if it is true, and the most dangerous change in climate that we may face, then we should act. But, for the reasons outlined here, as well as others that won’t quite fit into this article, I don’t believe that global warming is. Is the current warming trend going to continue? If it is, is this a bad thing? If it is, can we even hope to reverse it? If we can, is the damage prevented worth the costs? My answer to all of these questions is no, but I can understand the rationale behind answering yes to any of these. Look through these questions, do some research to find both sides of the issue, and then answer these four questions for yourself. But think about it – if you answer no to any one of these questions, then you should not support the radical actions of all the remaining presidential candidates. We should care for the environment, but we cannot do this at the great expense posed by the current options. Giving Americans the time to come up with an innovative solution is a much more appropriate action given everything we truly know at this point. It is a shame that our next leader as President will not share this point of view.

Sources

Schneider quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

Jaworoski article: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles%202004/Winter2003-4/global_warming.pdf

Kyoto Economic article: http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf

Since 1912, approximately 1.7 million Boy Scouts have earned the rank of Eagle Scout, the highest rank in the organization. According to the web site of Boy Scouts of America, this figure represents only 5 percent of all Boy Scouts, although the number of boys attaining the rank during my scouting career seems to have increased while the qualifications for the award and the extent to which those boys receiving the award have greatly diminished.

I am, myself, an Eagle Scout and it disheartens me to see that, standing among the ranks of such distinguished Eagle Scouts as Gerald Ford, Ross Perot, and Donald Rumsfeld are so many boys who were simply rushed through the ranks of Boy Scouting so that a troop could pin an award on yet another unqualified boy.

This is not to say there are no qualified Eagle Scouts anymore. In fact, it couldn’t be further from the truth. There are several recently inducted Eagle Scouts who have demonstrated the leadership, responsibility, moral stability, and other qualities expected of them. However, I feel the award’s focus and significance has shifted from being an indication of the qualities within a person to the status of a troop in terms of how many Eagle Scouts can be produced.

This phenomenon has caused certain troops to be considered “factories,” simply producing Eagle Scouts by sending them through the ranks. As evidenced by the set of requirements that each Boy Scout must fulfill while advancing through the ranks, fulfilling these requirements is really all they must do. However, the rank of Eagle Scout is intended to indicate more than simply this fulfillment of requirements.

When Robert Baden-Powell started the Scouting Movement in 1907, he drew upon his experience as a Lieutenant General in the British Army in creating a program focused on informal education in the area of practical outdoor activities, including camping, hiking, backpacking, woodcraft, aquatics, and sports. Since then, the Boy Scouts of America has adapted his ideals to the program that has evolved over the years into what Americans know as the Scouting program.

Today, many troops and councils have begun to focus nearly exclusively on the requirements aspect of Boy Scouts, losing sight of Baden-Powell’s vision. Summer camps emphasize the completion of Merit Badges, accelerating the Scout’s path toward Eagle with only the bare minimum effort required. Trips to the outdoors are no longer an integral part of the scouting journey, because only a certain number of camping trips are actually required. Instead, requirements and doing only what is needed to advance seems to be increasingly the focus of many boys’ scouting experience.

There are several explanations for why this may be the case. The first might be the most obvious: we live in a changing society. Over the past century, technology has advanced at an unprecedented rate, leaving hiking and backpacking in the dust and giving kids such things as television and Nintendo. Kids seem to be less interested in outdoor activities when they can shoot things on a TV screen without leaving the safety of their own home.

Another explanation is the lack of enthusiasm from volunteer leaders. As a non-profit organization, Boy Scouts of America relies heavily on volunteers at the lower levels (those that specifically deal with the kids). If these leaders are not enthusiastic or don’t have the time to devote to the outdoor activities that Baden-Powell advocated, the scouting experience will suffer.

More and more, Boy Scouts of America is sacrificing the outdoor program originally started by Robert Baden-Powell in England for what is convenient, at the expense of depriving today’s youth the practical education that has given historically important Eagle Scouts the tools they needed to fill leadership roles.

Inside Higher Ed recently had an interesting article, written by Lindsay Waters, called “A Call for Slow Writing.” The article is an adaptation from a talk so, ironically, it is terribly written. However, the message it presents is important.

Mr. Waters is the executive editor for the humanities at the Harvard University Press and a member of the editorial board of the Duke University Press journal boundary 2. He calls for the university to return to the essay as the criterion for tenure acceptance. He says that the modern university has bucked historical precedent and has accepted the book over the essay as the gold standard for tenure.

The book became the accepted form of academic scholarship because scholars lost the art of constructing good sentences, Mr. Waters argues. The publishing world tried to make up for this lack of quality with a higher quantity of that poor writing. Slowly this form of scholarly work became the norm and then the expectation. We are now at the point where the bad writers are the ones judging the writing of potential journal contributors and the ones who are deciding to which professors to give tenure.

Mr. Waters has made it his goal to turn this sinking academic ship around. Logically, he plans to start with the rediscovery of the proper sentence. He says, “What I’m saying is that the first step to re-establishing the essay as the standard in humanistic writing is to reinvigorate the sentences we write, so that, when one reads an essay, one feels it.” Later, he continues, saying, “As we prepare for the next thirty years, we need to refind our foundations to re-establish learning on the best foundations, and the best one of all is the sentence that the Renaissance reinvigorated. A sentence is not like a laundry line on which we pin words so they can flap in the wind. No, a sentence ‘is a sound in itself on which other sounds called words may be strung.’” The art of writing has declined because the fundamental tool has been stripped of its usefulness. Just as an exquisite painting is impossible to produce with a damaged brush, so an eloquent book is impossible to write with a denuded sentence.

Mr. Waters never explains why the return to the sentence is important, but the context of the article as a whole suggests an answer. He seems to say that by focusing on the sentence rather than the larger paragraph or even the work as a whole, the writers are forced to write slower. This slower writing produces smaller, better thought out works.

Mr. Waters presents the procedure of the editorial staff of boundary 2 for making the return to slow essay writing a reality. He says, “We decided to serve our readers more than our contributors.” This is being done in four ways: first, “ordinary language, not jargon” is demanded from all writers; second, all works must be “essays first, [and] scholarly articles second;” third, is the requirement of the “application of the ‘cui bono?’ test to all submissions;” and, fourth, the “contents of [the] journal must educate the readers and serve the audience, not the careers of the writers.”

He alludes to the danger in this approach, saying, “We need to do what we might fear will be dumbing down our publications by insisting upon clearer language set forth in rhythmical sentence.” However, he feels this is a risk worth taking for two reasons. First, the insistence upon clearer writing will produce better thinking. He elaborates, saying, “The reason for the persistence of gobbledy-gook is that it’s a lot easier to hide mediocre thinking under the cloak of gobbledy-gook.” By removing the “gobbledy-gook” scholars will be forced to produce better scholarship. The second benefit of works that are more accessible to the layperson is that the writing, and the corresponding ideas presented in the writing, will be read by more people and will have a greater impact on the world.

At its core, Mr. Waters’ concerns are legitimate. One of my professors is apt to say that professors are the worst writers of us all. He says that their books should be journal articles and their journal articles should not be written at all. His point is that the more words professors use to express an idea the worse writers they become. Further, the more they string out their ideas the more those ideas get lost.

There is a lot of truth to that sentiment. Many of the academic books I have read in college could have very easily been compacted into an essay of article length. Two influential works of recent years quickly come to mind that illustrate the opposite of this process. Francis Fukuyama produced an article version of “The End of History” before the book was published, and Samuel Huntington penned “The Clash of Civilizations” as a scholarly article before writing a larger tome. These and other examples prove that important ideas can be expressed in an essay.

Oftentimes, these ideas can be better expressed in essays. In the writing of my own undergraduate thesis, I am finding it much more helpful to read scholarly journal entries than the books written by the same experts on the same topics as those essays. The articles provide all the meat in a fraction of the reading time. Additionally, in the book versions the main thesis tends to get lost in all the verbiage. Sometimes forced brevity will compel a change in the writing style of some of the thickest academicians and would, hopefully, make their works more readable.

Forcing that brevity is not an easy task. Professors often enjoy the competitive shield that comes with erudition. It is infinitely harder to attack a theory you cannot quite grasp due to the inane amount of technical jargon and ill written sentences it contains. As Mr. Waters says, bad writing can create an illusion of superior intelligence, so many professors will resist the removal of the lax literary clothing that hides their pseudo-academic nakedness underneath.

Mr. Waters makes another valid point: professors should be disseminating ideas that actually encourage positive change in the real world. When most of their academic work spends years collecting dust on library shelves and is only accessible to the twelve other experts of that same particularly narrow field of scholarship, then there is a problem. Unfortunately, this is the sad state of much of the collegiate writing of today.

On the other hand, there is the danger of dumbing down the writing. Part of the job of the educated is to create a tide that lifts all the boats of a society. If the most educated of our society are not pushing the vocabulary envelope, then who will? If the professors of the world are not prodding us to expand the literacy of our minds, then who will? If the scholars of today do not encourage us to step out of our instant gratification, microwave world and enjoy the struggle of a 500 page tome, then who will?

Mr. Waters’ intentionally provocative suggestion “that anyone who publishes a book within six years of earning a Ph.D. should be denied tenure” is taking things too far. There is still a place for good books, and there is still a place for good academic books.

The key, though, is that they be good academic books. There is no such thing as content without form. Or, as my professor would say, your ideas do not matter if they are not communicated well. Maybe Mr. Waters’ suggestion that professors write slower and return to the era of essay writing is the way to accomplish the proper synthesis of thought and word. Maybe writing smaller is the way to thinking bigger, for the teacher and the learner both. It is an interesting thought for the collegiate world to ponder.

Originally published by Campus Magazine Online. Slightly revised version republished with permission.

On April 24, former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft will visit Lehigh to give a talk entitled “Leadership in Challenging Times.” In preparation for his arrival, it is important to understand what qualifies him to speak on this topic and what defined his tenure in the Department of Justice.

Prior to his work under the Bush Administration, Ashcroft spent a number of years rising in rank as a government official. He began his career in public service in 1973 as state auditor of Missouri. Not long after, he served two terms as the state’s Attorney General. In 1984, Ashcroft was elected Governor of Missouri. Until the end of his post as Governor in 1993, he demonstrated fiscal responsibility and excellence in education reform. He balanced eight consecutive state budgets and established a $120 million surplus, in addition to being ranked as one of the top ten education Governors by Fortune magazine. He also lead an effort to reduce illegal drug use and trafficking in his state. From 1995-2001, Ashcroft served in the U.S. Senate, where he tackled, on a national level, many of the same issues confronted in his time as Governor.

Of course, the period during which John Ashcroft gained much of his notoriety began in 2001 when President George W. Bush nominated him for the position of U.S. Attorney General. During his Senate confirmation hearings, Ashcroft’s record was scrutinized, setting the tone for the controversy that would inevitably surround his tenure. Among a number of issues that concerned many Democrats at the time were Ashcroft’s attitudes toward the death penalty, abortion, gay marriage, and gun control. Despite the opposition, Ashcroft was eventually confirmed by a vote of 58-42.

Shortly after assuming the position, Ashcroft’s place in history was defined in his response to the September 11 terrorist attacks. Consequently, he reprioritized the Justice Department to focus heavily on preventing another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, he played a key role in advocating the USA PATRIOT Act. He promoted the Patriot Act as a tool that would enable law enforcement officials to respond more quickly to potential terrorist plots by eliminating some of the red tape. Furthermore, he touted that the Act would improve communication and information-sharing between the various governmental intelligence agencies.

Controversy enveloped the passage of the Patriot Act, as many accused it of infringing on personal liberties and affording too much power to the government. Ashcroft’s steadfast support of the Patriot Act was an important factor in its initial enactment, as well as subsequent legislation that ensured its effectiveness. Under Ashcroft’s leadership, and with the help of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Department of Justice successfully disrupted over 150 terrorist plots worldwide and convicted nearly 200 individuals on terrorism-related charges.

While Ashcroft’s work was focused on national security, he also spearheaded a number of other issues. Employing the experience gained while approaching similar problems as both a Governor and a Senator, Ashcroft confronted issues such as drug use, gun crime, and racial profiling. During his time as Attorney General, violent crime dropped to its lowest point in thirty years and student drug use reached record lows. Moreover, the Justice Department enacted the first ban on racial profiling by federal law enforcement.

After serving one full term, Ashcroft resigned from his position as Attorney General, describing his own journey, and that of his colleagues at the Department of Justice, as, “one of courage, sacrifice and, ultimately, triumph against long odds.” His leadership may have been widely criticized, but he left in his wake a country that was more secure from threats, both at home and abroad. He was succeeded by former White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales.

John Ashcroft’s April 24 lecture is free and open to the public. It will be held in Packard Auditorium at 7:30pm.