Yesterday’s vote was, indeed, as President Barack Obama put it, answering ‘the Call of History.’ Unfortunately for him, it was, in the eyes of every House Republican and a significant portion of House Democrats, the wrong answer.

The run up to the vote, complete with suspense and drama, was well covered by the New York Times, culminating in an article today¹ which provides a wealth of pundit-fodder on both sides. Democrats, basking in their victory, sling hyperbole left and right: the bill heralds “a new day in America”² (yes, today is called Monday); the program will “improve the quality of life for millions of American families”³ (ok, maybe that’s not hyperbole; we’ll ask these families again in ten years); “the Civil Rights Act of the 21st Century”⁴ (I have yet to see people in the same numbers marching around Washington claiming “I have a dream” about Health Care); the bill is “liberating legislation”⁵ (liberation from what? Responsibility?).

Of course, several Republicans got in their unhelpful jabs at the bill, calling it “a fiscal Frankenstein,”⁶ “a decisive step in the weakening of the United States,”⁷ and “one of the most offensive pieces of social engineering legislation in the history of the United States.”⁸ While these descriptions may be accurate, they aren’t going to help clean up the mess created by President Obama and the Democratic majorities in Congress.

But, what of the bill? What is so utterly revolting that not a single Republican voted in favor of the bill? For one, it promises to increase spending, such that the Congressional Budget Office projects it will cost the government $938 billion dollars over 10 years. It will also place the burden of health care coverage on employers and the government, as opposed to on the individual.

Many hail this as a good thing, becoming distracted from the fact that everybody can receive Health Care, but not everybody can pay for it. They fail to remember that Health Care is, like most things in the United States of America, a capitalist enterprise. Doctors are in practice to help people get better, but they also have to make a living off of what they do. Insurance companies with their (sometimes necessarily, sometimes unnecessarily) complicated procedures and tactics for delaying payment provide enough inconvenience to the average doctor; the government’s involvement in matters can only make things worse.

In fact, the biggest criticism of the Health Care bill from people who would like to see Health Care reform is that it doesn’t do enough in the right places, for example in regulating the activity of insurance companies so that they don’t ultimately fall into the same traps as the financial industry of a year and a half ago.

However, Republicans are less infuriated with the content of the bill and the measures it would introduce than they are with the politics employed to get it passed. From a completely objective standpoint, it looks suspicious that Democratic legislators have had a burning desire to reform the Health Care system for several years through a primarily Republican Congress and, when they finally gain a majority, force the reform through without a single Republican vote, meanwhile alienating several conservative Democrats (34, to be exact). The result of the vote yesterday was 219 in favor, with 212 against, a mere 3 more than the requisite “greater than 50 percent” to claim a majority.

The fact that no Republicans voted for the bill is a rather telling indication (that Democrats are busy ignoring in their victory celebrations) that bipartisan and nonpartisan politics are out the window, thanks in no small part to President Obama and the Democrat-controlled Congress. The failure to and apparent lack of interest in involving Republicans in the legislation process is an action that has the potential to bring an abrupt end to Democrats’ majorities come November.

When all is said and done, this bill looks more and more like a small victory that Democrats can pat themselves on the back for, while ignoring the real problems and alienating almost half of the House of Representatives (and possibly their constituents). John A. Boehner, R-Ohio and the House Republican leader, noted, “The American people are angry. This body moves forward against their will. Shame on us.” Honorable Senators and Representatives of Congress Assembled, shame on you. You have, once again, failed the American people.

1 – “Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History.’ http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/health/policy/23health.html?hp

2 – Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio

3 – Doris Matsui, D-California

4 – James E. Clyburn, D-South Carolina

5 – Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

6 – Paul D. Ryan, R-Wisconsin

7 – Lincoln Diaz-Balart, R-Florida

8 – Virginia Foxx, R-North Carolina

People get angry at something they see on TV or read in the newspaper. Maybe they even write a letter or show up to a meeting. When the issue is decided one way or the other, these people go back to their usual routine. In other words, people only get involved in politics when it directly affects them.

This phenomenon is known as the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) effect and it has taken young minds by storm of late. Lehigh’s campus provides no shortage of examples.

(more…)

It’s entirely possible that you’re reading this before November 4, 2008, but the likelihood is that you’re reading this after. Regardless, you will vote in an election sometime in the future, so the message is the same. The electoral system — nay, the whole political system — in the United States is broken. (more…)

This is an important time, for the United States of America and Lehigh University alike. In fact, it is so important a time that I had difficulty deciding what topic to choose as the focal point of this issue’s article. Ultimately, I chose a topic that has affected Lehigh recently, and forms a central issue within today’s politics: conservation of resources (water in particular).

Water is used for everything in our daily lives. Water is used for washing, drinking, hydroelectric power, and other such crucial aspects of our daily lives. As such, it is a resource that must be conserved, lest it suffer a similar fate that, according to liberals, will befall many other resources.

Lehigh University Dining Services saw this problem and acted quickly and without prejudice to do what they could to help conserve the valuable resource that is water. By removing trays from the Dining Halls, they not only cut costs, but also reduced the amount of water used for dishwashing, leaving it available for other more significant uses.

Worldwide, we see that conservation of water is rapidly becoming more and more critical. Polar ice caps are melting and Antarctic ice shelves are breaking free of the Antarctic landmass. Skies are becoming cloudier and cloudier, reducing the amount of water that is available for us to use. However, the biggest culprits of all are animals.

75% of the human body is water and the percentage is comparable for other animals. As the largest animals on earth, whales have the highest water content per body. That water is essentially inaccessible for human consumption, which leaves only one question: what can we do to liberate the water?

The answer is simple: kill the whales. Aside from containing an outrageously large amount of water, dead whales serve many other practical purposes. Many whales are an excellent source of oil (not petroleum-based, but still oil and still quite useful) and the meat off a good-sized whale could feed a village for several days.

The hunting and chase of the whales would also provide a much-needed catalyst to help out a struggling economy. For certain, there might be Jonah-style experiences and situations akin to that related in the Decemberists’ Mariner’s Revenge, but all-in-all it would be a benefit to society.

While still important, all this talk about the usefulness of dead whales has strayed from the topic at hand. Water is in danger, and is a valuable resource that must be conserved. Lehigh University Dining Services sees this as a major issue; as such, this is an issue that we should not ignore. Regardless of party, regardless of race, regardless of age, we need to stand up for the rights of Water.

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.

Recently, we have heard names such as Green Action, Green House, the Lehigh Environmental Advisory Group (LEAG), and the Environmental Coalition (ECo). These groups have a variety of goals dealing with environmental issues on campus, one of the most successful and evident of which is the advocacy of recycling.

Certain student groups have taken it upon themselves to provide methods for students on campus to recycle. Others have placed well-marked recycling bins in their own residence halls to encourage recycling as well. Green Action sponsors a recycling drive in the Upper UC on Mondays and Thursdays from 12 to 1 PM. Everything collected is then brought to Green House and taken, by bicycle, to the recycling center.

Green Action also was responsible for analyzing the recyclable content of UC trash bins just a few months ago. While this action may have been intended to cause a reaction (which it undoubtedly did), it threw into perspective the extent to which the university and the campus participate in recycling.

However, these clubs and organizations do not have the capacity to provide recycling services to the entire campus at nearly the level that they feel is optimal. Natalie Smith, a proponent of a University-sponsored recycling program and a member of Green Action, mentioned that what the environmentally-centered clubs have been doing is meant primarily as a temporary solution, in the hopes that the University will adopt a more widespread policy.

In addition, Leadership Lehigh recently attempted to measure the recycling done in Ulrich Student Center and Linderman Library, finding (to their disbelief) that Linderman was severely lacking in the number of recycling bins. In fact, the only place available to dispose of the glass bottles served in Lucy’s Cafe is the trash beside the door.

One new organization, the Environmental Coalition, has been actively involved in discussing how a University-sponsored program would manifest itself. The Environmental Coalition was formed as a student umbrella organization encompassing the goals of all the environmentally-focused clubs. As one of their first actions, ECo took an inventory of the recycling done in the Academic buildings, locating bins and determining the extent to which people were actually recycling. ECo also recently met with the administration with a plan to expand on the current distribution of recycling facilities.

One of the major issues with placing bins in certain buildings was the aesthetic character of the bins. It seems unanimous among the advocates of recycling programs that bins for the various types of recyclable material should be color-coded, and uniform around campus. For example, a bin for glass in E. W. Fairchild Martindale Library should be the same size, shape, color, and carry the same signage as the equivalent bin in Packard Lab.

Tony Corallo, Vice President of Facilities Services, supports the placement of recycling bins around campus, but disagrees with the uniformity of the bins. From an architectural standpoint, he feels that the type of container that would fit with the color scheme and layout of a building like Brodhead would not fit well with that of a building like Linderman Library. Instead, he proposes that the signs used to indicate the various receptacles be uniform in color, design, and message, though the bins to which they refer may be different to fit the surrounding areas.

In addition to ECo, the President’s Office recently created LEAG as a committee of students and faculty to, among other things, “ratify and carry forward the importance of environment as an obligation of the university to not only be a responsible steward of our own role in the common good, but also to educate, and ‘teach by doing,’ future generations of citizens,” as set forth in President Gast’s official goals. According to Alice Kodama, student representative from the Class of 2009, LEAG has approved ECo’s efforts in reviewing and revising the University recycling program with help from Facilities Services.

Kodama also said she believes that “the University should begin implementing the recycling plans that the Environmental Coalition has come up with as quickly and efficiently as possible.” She feels that although initial costs may be expensive, the efforts will decrease contamination and potentially reduce trash removal costs.

“I am hoping that the recycling system will change in the near future and that trust will be brought back into the system.” Kodama noted that, as LEAG has only had two meetings since its inception, the committee is still defining themselves.

Jessica Engle, the Senior Class representative to LEAG, added that there are four main focuses in the recycling issue. One is the concern over what locations currently have recycling bins and which buildings need them. Another is that of informing the students about the recycling program and creating appropriate signage. Also, LEAG is focusing on reducing the amount of waste that is generated and working toward purchasing only plastics 1 and 2 (the types Lehigh currently is able to recycle). Finally, they are concerned with providing accountability and training for OneSource, the company charged with taking care of recycling.

On Monday, January 21st, at 1:26 PM, I received an email in my Inbox “from” President Alice Gast, informing me of the University’s Martin Luther King, Jr. celebrations. Amongst the festivities were a website, the creation of a Council for Equity and Community, and a performance dubbed “Rap Sessions” brought to our attention by Calvin-John Smiley.

The website’s URL is http://www.lehigh.edu/~inking/, enjoying a position next to other administrative websites such as the Registrar’s Office (~inrgs) and the Bursar’s Office (~inburs). In other words, a day is almost as important in the day-to-day functioning as the offices that deal with the financial and academic records of the University’s student body. I’m still waiting for the Columbus Day website.

The Council for Equity and Community “encourages the Lehigh community to move toward a deeper understanding of the world around them, recognizing and promoting activities such as research and scholarship, community service and co-curricular programming,” according to the hurriedly put-together site at http://www.lehigh.edu/~indiv/. An infinitude of points can be made about efforts such as these.

One such argument is the “reverse racism” argument. By singling out members of other races as being different, and thus recognizing that they need to be better included, it implies first that members of other races are different and that they are excluded for that reason. Most of the efforts to reduce this issue focus on the exclusion and create policy intended to specifically include such people, in effect singling them out even more. The real issue is the assumption that members of other races are different. While this is undoubtedly true, there is a distinction that needs to be made between “different” and “inferior.”

The “Rap Sessions” promoted and scheduled by Calvin-John Smiley and coordinated in conjunction with the Office of Multicultural Affairs are an interesting twist on the King Day themes. Traditionally, King Day is intended as a day to remember Martin Luther King, Jr. (in whatever way you choose) for what he did for the African American community in the 1960s. “Rap Sessions,” however, was simply one more performance in a series of several rap artists sponsored by the same group of individuals, departments, and offices, all of which have been funded extensively by the Visiting Lecturers Committee and the President’s Office.

This unorthodox set of festivities in celebration of King brings into consideration what we are really celebrating. There are those of us who look further into King’s history than the short narrative we are given in elementary school and judge his character based on other less-honorable moments in his life and ask why we are told only the “good parts.” The answer is quite simple: Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated.

This phenomenon is by no means new. The assassination of John F. Kennedy immediately martyred him. Abraham Lincoln was never intended to become President, but his assassination made him nearly as legendary as George Washington. Even Franz Ferdinand, the Austrian prince whose assassination started World War I, is primarily remembered simply because he was shot.

Thus, is it really necessary to celebrate Martin Luther King Day? He did bring to light the situation African Americans were enduring; he did “have a dream.” He should certainly be remembered, but does a day need to be named in his memory, or is it enough to mention him in his place in American history? After all, we don’t celebrate John F. Kennedy Day or Franz Ferdinand Day.

While the answer to the above question is not very clear-cut, I think we can agree that spending an egregious amount of money on all the events mentioned above, in addition to bringing Jonathan Kozol to campus as the keynote speaker, specifically for a single day in the middle of January, is unnecessary.

In early September, the University announced its plans to construct a new building on what is currently the lawn just South and West of Maginnes. Dubbed the STEPS (Science, Technology, Environment, Policy, and Society) Initiative, this building is intended to augment the facilities currently in use by the College of Arts and Sciences.

As it stands, the College of Arts and Sciences has recently expanded to include two new buildings. The Smith Family Center for Optical Technologies was opened in 2005 and another facility for research in the biosciences was built in 2003. This throws into sharp contrast the facilities enjoyed by the P. C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science. In particular, research in some of the most rapidly changing engineering fields (Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Mechanical Engineering) is located in the one of the oldest academic buildings on campus (Packard Lab).

According to Dork Sahagian, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Director of the Environmental Initiative, “enabling multidisciplinary research and teaching is the main driving force behind [the project].” He claims that, “by housing all the Chemistry, Biology, and Earth and Environmental Sciences teaching labs there, it will bring in students from many disciplines.”

In addition, Dr. Sahagian expects that the $85 million dollar colossus will help students “improve their understanding and awareness of the environment.”

Lehigh is an engineering college and always has been, though the 1995 mascot change from “engineer” to the fictitious bird dubbed the “mountain hawk” might fool the casual observer. As such, the University should be concerned first and foremost with the Engineering College. Without doubt, the biological, chemical, earth, and environmental sciences are an important component of certain engineering disciplines, but it is with their relevance to engineering in mind that we should consider additions to our campus.

Interdisciplinary work is of paramount importance of making engineering advances relevant to the world as a whole; however, the way in which the STEPS initiative intends to do so is, more or less, backwards. President Alice Gast states that “this new program will allow collaborative teams of engineers and natural and social scientists to work easily together across disciplinary boundaries,” providing a framework within which “scientists, engineers, and social scientists can debate and help shape environmental policy in productive and constructive ways.”

Between President Gast and Dr. Sahagian, it seems as if this project intends to infuse the engineering paradigm (that has been the college’s focus since its 1865 founding) with a smattering of the liberal arts. Viewed in the context of the other recent changes around Lehigh in both policy and practice, this is a frightening possibility.

Interdisciplinary efforts are a noble goal; however, the University seems to have ignored the largest potential for such interaction in their plans. The three most rapidly changing fields in the Engineering College, and possibly in the University as a whole, are (in no particular order) Materials Science and Engineering, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, and Mechanical Engineering. The extent to which these departments could benefit from increased interdisciplinary research is mind-boggling. Focusing on certain departments from the Arts and Sciences College seems to be an indication that the Engineering College has, once again, been “left out.”

In addition to the purely political issues with the STEPS Initiative, the building itself poses problems. It will be situated on one of the last flat, treeless fields on campus. This makes it a perfect field for playing Frisbee, provided a building doesn’t cover a large portion of it. The architects intended to ease this problem by putting grass on top of part of the building, but (as those of us familiar with the movie Clerks can attest) the roof of a building is a far-from-optimal location on which to play sports.

The STEPS building will also be the second of two buildings constructed in the same area of South Bethlehem. Currently, the replacement Broughal Middle School is still being framed on the corner of West Morton and Vine Streets. The $48 million, 186,600 square-foot project is set to be completed in August of 2009. Groundbreaking for the STEPS project is set for late spring 2008, with completion expected in June 2010. This means that, for at least a year, construction will be occurring in adjacent sites between Brodhead, Campus Square, and Packard Lab.

This project is a large investment that will change the face of Lehigh’s campus. The University has set forth noble goals, as outlined by President Gast and Dr. Sahagian. However, these initiatives are not as beneficial to the Engineering College, even to the University as a whole, as other investments promise to be. There are several examples where various departments in the P. C. Rossin College of Engineering and Applied Science could do with a little extra funding, especially when this building marks the third in a recent string of new facilities for the traditionally secondary College of Arts and Sciences.