http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWZiZTdhNmU5NmQyNWY1YTJlOWFmZDllYzllMWVhNDY=

“In August, a man shot two people to death on a bridge near San Francisco. At the moment of the killings, two on-duty Marin County sheriff’s deputies were within 100 yards of the shooter. One was close enough to see the muzzle blast of the shotgun. The police officers, however, did not move against the culprit. One, stuck in traffic, called in a description of the killer’s vehicle as he fled. The other positioned her car to prevent traffic from entering the crime scene.”

This is even more egregious because, as the article continues to say, the shooting occurred in a county where citizens could not carry firearms unless they demonstrated a clear threat to their safety, such as the former district attorney. Instead, citizens of this particular county are at the mercy of the police force to “defend” them.

I believe all citizens should have the right to defend themselves from any act of aggression; entitlement to Life, Liberty and Property is a direct result of citizenry having the ability to maintain their rights, via violence if necessary.

On October 19th, the kickoff event for Green Week, a round-table discussion, was held in the basement of Maginnes. One quote in particular captured my ear by the end of the event.

Gary Falasca, director of facilities and services discussed what Lehigh was doing to become more “green” after receiving a “D” on our environmental report card. He disagreed with the “D” rating, and claimed that things other colleges were getting acclaim for Lehigh had done ten or fifteen years ago. These included replacing the lights in Stabler arena and an overall retrofit of HVAC (Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning) and lighting within the university as a whole.

I applaud Lehigh’s efforts at following the societal movement towards general greenery. However, one thing was absent from the discussion at large: motive. The HVAC retrofit was done at a cost of 4.7 million dollars, and while that can be considered a tremendous expense, in actuality the University saved 4.7 million dollars over the following ten years in energy expenditures. The Stabler arena lighting project cost around $50,000 and would pay for itself in only four years. Projects such as these typically fall under “Performance Contracting” and are commonplace at Schools and public buildings throughout the country.

Profit, not a newfound sense of environmental consciousness was the driving force behind these changes. I have nothing against Lehigh taking active steps to become greener where feasible. However, I object when Green-correctness begins to cost students more than it saves the University.

The Lehigh University College Republicans are sponsoring a showing of the world premiere of “Not Evil Just Wrong.” The movie provides an alternate view on the climate theories presented by Al Gore and fellow climate alarmists. The showing can be seen at:

What is a Libertarian?

Libertarianism is the political school of thought that I identify with most. It is based upon the principles our country was founded on; freedom, and by extension limiting the role of government to the roles put forth in the constitution and its subsequent amendments.

Libertarians traditionally oppose expansions of government services. My particular thoughts on Libertarianism and the role of government relegate the government to only those things that individuals are unable to do; for instance, the interstate highway system, local policemen, a system for commerce, and protection from external and internal threats to personal liberty. Furthermore, government should restrain itself from interfering in peoples lives unless it is entirely necessary.

That’s it. I fundamentally oppose things such as healthcare, which should be the role of the individual, governmental decisions on gay marriage or abortion, as that is constitutionally a role of local governments or individuals in their own home falling under the role of government.

Is my opinion on government controversial? Sure. But I want to hear your view.

Photo credits to Young Americans for Liberty
It seems that Obama still has the fan-boy crush he enjoyed while campaigning for presidency.  His latest admirers?  the Nobel Committee.  In their decision, they noted “Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given it better hope for the future.”  Obama’s broad campaign slogans of Hope and Change have become empty shells of their former meanings.

When Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prizes, he specified a peace prize, based on “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.  Despite Obama’s overtures to foreign nations, he still posts two glaring failures in the Middle East.  Despite a draw-down in forces in Iraq, Afghanistan has seen increased troop levels over the past nine months.  Furthermore, our efforts in Afghanistan are futile; replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt puppet government does little to further peace in the world.

In addition to Obama’s continued nation-building abroad, he has done little to maintain peace at home. With the Patriot Act still in full effect, Guantanamo Bay getting little more than a name change, and an escalating police state the notion of “peace” is further away than it was nine months ago. In the wake of Governmental actions such as A woman facing jail time for buying cold medicine or People being charged with Obstruction of Justice for using Twitter to communicate poilce actions during the G20 protests, America has grown from land of the free home of the brave to land of the oppressed home of the cowards.

Was the Nobel Prize a consolation to Obama for not getting the Olympics in Chicago?  Maybe not, but his actions are hardly fitting of a Nobel-Prize winner; let alone a President who has been in office for only nine months. Only after a full term in office, where Obama’s overtures have been met with success should he have been awarded such a prize. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to a nominee who has actually accomplished tangible peace; or at the very least did more than do political grandstanding to accomplish “change.”
CNN

More sensationalist take on the subject

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

Two words: Public option.  Note that this modest, hardly even progressive measure does not amount to a “government takeover” of health care.  Actually, I wish it did, but it doesn’t even come close.  Save for curbing some of the most outrageous abuses of the private insurance industry, President Obama’s health care plan will leave this market largely unchanged.

A public insurance option accomplishes two indispensible goals of reform by lowering costs and increasing coverage.  If every American had the option of a public insurance plan, private insurers would be compelled to lower their premiums in order to remain competitive.  Compared to the rising cost of premiums in the status quo, this measure would provide an effective tax cut for all Americans.  The choice of public insurance would also provide coverage for many of the 30 million Americans who currently can’t afford it.

Costs will only come down, however, if health reform includes an individual mandate – a requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance.  This rubs many libertarians the wrong way, but it shouldn’t.  Even those who are convinced of their invincibility will fall ill.  Those individuals push the cost of their care onto the rest of society, and their absence from the ranks of the insured hurts the bargaining power of individuals to demand lower premiums from their insurance providers.  Even then-Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney advocated the implementation of an individual mandate as a matter of “personal responsibility.”

If these measures bring down costs, increase choice and competition and compel Americans to exercise greater personal responsibility, why is there so much opposition on the right?  Easy.  Republicans are using the playbook from 1993 – the last time they killed health care reform.  As in the case of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare-state programs inherently undermine the GOP’s knee-jerk “no-government-is-good-government” position.  In 1993, opposition to health care reform was shrewd political strategy.  In 2009, the situation is no different.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

On the eve of Ted Kennedy’s death, after I finished a glass of my favorite brut and lit some scented candles (outside the dorms, of course…), I reflected on the life and legacy of the deceased Lion of the Senate, who is now being propped-up post-mortem, like a gangly overweight puppet and paraded about as a means to finance an ill-conceived health care “reform” package that is more agenda-ridden then, well… most of the things that Teddy ever touched.

The fact is, the liberal stronghold (a figurehead of power as they’ve recently proven, with their so-called supermajority and no way to pass anything meaningful other than flag-waiving and blame-chasing resolutions) has toted their socialization of medicine package as reform, and chastised those who don’t care to see their doctor become yet another supplicant of the state as against reform.

This is both wrong and immoral.  And, incidentally, I should address morality, as I was asked a very popular question while debating this very topic at Lehigh last year.  I was asked if I put costs or means or anything else ahead of care, and given yet another sob story on someone who was “lost in the system” and died young.

I replied that, yes, I do believe in picking “who shall live,” but it’s not with government panels and legislation, but with common sense.

At present, while I agree that the scope and nature of the term “preexisting condition” needs to be reviewed, those who smoke or are overweight, or use illegal substances are subject to additional tariffs and, in some cases, die from their disorders from a subsequent inability to pay.

I’d frankly rather see the obese or maligned die in small numbers, than face a government who (in an attempt to be brutally fair) will banish snack foods, sugar, cigarettes (I like to consider them a form of blue collar population control), and of course, the lovely glass of bubbly that I’m enjoying as I push my Matchbox cars off the surface of my desk into a pail of water, reflecting again on the life and legacy of Ted Kennedy.  And I don’t want to stop those who eat to excess or smoke from celebrating their freedom and doing it, so long as they don’t force their burden onto me.

We need reform.  We need health care providers to have certain restrictions on this “preexisting conditions” crap that is so often used to prevent paying customers from receiving care, and we need tort reform to reduce the costs of that care.  We don’t need 150% Medicare-grade cost overruns and “public health initiatives” in the form of more restrictions on our foods and habits.  After all, wasn’t it the liberals who chastised me for questioning what someone can do (or eat, or smoke, as the case may be) in the privacy of their home?

The question posed to our editorial staff was: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Read their responses below.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Last year, Greek week was a week-long period of perpetual drunkenness for some, and near perpetual drunkenness for others. Understandably, this resulted in several inappropriate acts which the administration deemed sufficient to order the cancellation of Greek Week for 2010.

Was this fair? Absolutely not. By all accounts, the inappropriate behavior was exhibited by two or three of Lehigh’s twenty-plus Greek organizations. Canceling Greek week is a sanction that punishes all of the fraternities and sororities who participated, many of whom did nothing wrong.

However, everyone can also agree that last year’s Greek week was not ideal. It is the job of the office of fraternity and sorority affairs to try to fix that. Apparently, they felt that two years was needed to do this. If that is the case, canceling Greek week could be justifiable to avoid a repeat of last year.

Was this justified though? Absolutely not. We are looking at a situation with an easy remedy. Make the punishments clear, and let everyone know that certain behavior could result in an individual’s or an organization’s immediate removal from Greek week. If necessary, ban last year’s guilty parties from participating this year. Replace events that may encourage inappropriate activity with other events. This process shouldn’t take two years, it should be done by now.

Clearly, the cancelation was designed to be a statement and indictment against the Greek community, and was excessive based on what actually happened.

Therefore, the Greek community should respond. If the Lehigh is going to continue to tie Greeks down with unnecessary regulations and punishments until the system dies off, Greek life might as well go out with a bang, and this is the year to do it.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

Before I weigh in on this topic wholeheartedly, I offer full disclosure: I’ve written about the Greeks only once before – in my piece entitled Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite, and it concerned the attitudes of the community towards the Technology in Society living program.  The tone of the article leaned towards the preservation of the system with the understanding that good expansion could come through special interest houses, which are (as the article explains) quite similar to Greek houses, without a set of letters.

Considering the circumstances, as I understand them, Greek Week was cancelled by the Fraternity Management Association, a conglomerate that is Lehigh-run with administration from each house on-board.  If this is not correct, I apologize.

If such is, in fact, accurate, then the dispute seems to center around motives and motivation, and not an undue action by the administration’s part.

I did not attend Greek Week last year.  I read the coverage, I made my biases, and I sort of left it to the wayside.  My understanding was that there were derogatory remarks made publically (derogatory as defined by The Brown & White, or some PC attendees), and someone may or may not have wet herself.

The fact is, the University’s attitude towards the behavior of its students has very much been characterized by the scolded, naughty child approach.  Guilt is often assumed before evidence, and the weight of opinion always seems to stand on the side that reads nicer in public relations reports (aka, the politically correct side).  I for one believe that political correctness is a means for control.  I believe that people do not intrinsically have the right not to be offended, because oftentimes, their offense offends me, so it’s an absurd, moot catch-22.  All this considered, while I’m sure some individuals said or did things that everyone would’ve dismissed had it been a private affair, clearly it was a public affair, and someone cried foul.

Should this constitute cancellation?  That’s a hard call.  If the Greeks really want to shed their reputation as entitled, underachieving, shallow beings that dominate the school’s social scene by force (I’m not saying that these descriptions are accurate or inaccurate – I’m merely restating a partial perception consensus culled from many articles, editorials, and other published works), then it would be in their best interests to rethink their approach.

Think back to before your freshman year. You were a senior with a life changing decision to make. Were you going to attend Lehigh or another similar school? In that decision, many aspects of student life were balanced: academics, food service, campus life, and available student services. Little facts like library building hours, newspapers in Rauch, and flexible course choices entered your mind as a whirling matrix of decision variables.

Many of these variables may not have seemed too relevant to you until recently. That is when they were taken away. Recognizing the end of the college readership program, the reduction of buildings hours including library hours, and ten percent cuts in department funding, might have raised your temper. These recent changes along with a systemic shift of the registrar to restrict student overloads and the business school’s insistent need to control every minor expenditure, have created a pattern of abstinence. That is abstinence from student based priorities and abstinence from transparency.

However, Lehigh is not alone. Universities including Dickinson, Whitman College, and even Harvard are facing harsh realities of budget cuts.¹ These universities were forced to hold “virtual swim meets”, cap student printing, and lay off a variety of student service providers including janitors.² With all of these cuts, the New York Times has even started a blog on what colleges can cut ³.

In what seems like a hopeless loss to the quality of the American university, there is still hope, but only if universities can radically shift their business models. Instead of prioritizing administrators’ salaries, professors’ job security, and blue sky research, universities have to return to their core business model. They must develop an educated work force, produce industry relevant research, and provide a productive environment for intellectuals to flourish.

Just like any other service business in the world, Universities must understand that the customer always comes first. Whether that customer is the student paying tuition, government agencies providing grants for economically effective research, or companies paying for research and development, universities must meet their needs.

At the same time, universities must remain competitive. That means using agile business models to adapt to changes immediately instead of ten years later, incentivizing professors to win more competitive grants, and reducing faculty and staff in weak economic times. Instead of begging alumni for money, Lehigh should be proving its research has value for companies. Instead of focusing on only tenured professors, Lehigh should hire more adjuncts and professors of practice as it does for its MBA programs. Finally, instead of acting as three independent silo colleges, Lehigh should integrate cross-college resources.

If Lehigh cannot revise its stale, 1950s business model, it might not be able to sustain itself for the indefinite future. Students might not be able to have the available resources and services they once had, and alumni might not give to a university that did not fully satisfy their needs as students.

Sources:

1 – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/education/19college.html?_r=2&hpw

2 – http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/slam/blog/263

3 – http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/19/what-colleges-can-cut/

Question: Should Greek Week have been canceled for 2010?

Last year, Greek week was a week-long period of perpetual drunkenness for some, and near perpetual drunkenness for others. Understandably, this resulted in several inappropriate acts which the administration deemed sufficient to order the cancellation of Greek Week for 2010.

Was this fair? Absolutely not. By all accounts, the inappropriate behavior was exhibited by two or three of Lehigh’s twenty-plus Greek organizations. Canceling Greek week is a sanction that punishes all of the fraternities and sororities who participated, many of whom did nothing wrong.

However, everyone can also agree that last year’s Greek week was not ideal. It is the job of the office of fraternity and sorority affairs to try to fix that. Apparently, they felt that two years was needed to do this. If that is the case, canceling Greek week could be justifiable to avoid a repeat of last year.

Was this justified though? Absolutely not. We are looking at a situation with an easy remedy. Make the punishments clear, and let everyone know that certain behavior could result in an individual’s or an organization’s immediate removal from Greek week. If necessary, ban last year’s guilty parties from participating this year. Replace events that may encourage inappropriate activity with other events. This process shouldn’t take two years, it should be done by now.

Clearly, the cancelation was designed to be a statement and indictment against the Greek community, and was excessive based on what actually happened.

Therefore, the Greek community should respond. If the Lehigh is going to continue to tie Greeks down with unnecessary regulations and punishments until the system dies off, Greek life might as well go out with a bang, and this is the year to do it.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.