A BRIEF HISTORY OF WHERE YOU WILL BE RESIDING FOR THE NEXT 4 PLUS YEARS

I made my first trip to Lehigh as a high school junior. I was traveling with my parents and we arrived on campus from the road that goes over the mountain. It’s the way that the website encourages, probably to prevent parents and potential students from getting lost on some scary street in South Bethlehem, and because it’s a nice view. Although, I can remember thinking that it didn’t look very nice to me at the time. My first glimpse of Bethlehem was of the old dilapidated steel mill. I remember thinking that it looked like a dump and that it made the town look like a dump. I couldn’t imagine why anyone would be drawn to an environment of post-industrial waste. That was my first impression of the place.

Judging from my own ignorance I had as a first-year, I assume many of you freshman have no real idea of what kind of town Bethlehem is, or where it’s been and where it’s going. I’m certain many of you have heard stories from friends and relatives who have gone here, but to truly understand a place is to live there. Rising and sleeping every day and night in the same locale gives one a sense of home that many at Lehigh soon come to appreciate and feel for themselves. There’s plenty to know, see, and visit in this city of the Lehigh Valley.

(more…)

It is sad that a country that claims to offer religious freedom would be so prejudicial in its application of that ideal. There is a serious disconnect in what many Americans see as a fair implementation of the First Amendment. Citizens of this country enjoy their freedoms and like to promote the benefit of those freedoms. But when it comes down to it, many of those same citizens don’t actually want to follow through on granting Constitutional rights to groups or individuals they find distasteful. This unfortunate phenomenon was made painfully clear this summer with the legally baseless and unfounded disparagement of the so called ‘Ground Zero Mosque’- which is actually two blocks away from Ground Zero in a restaurant district.
It has been said that it was in poor taste for an Islamic group to plan for the construction of a religious center near the site of terrorist attack orchestrated by Muslim radicals. That may be true, at least in the minds of some, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that they have the fundamental right to be there and to build whatever they wish there. Part of the difficultly of living in a functioning democratic state is that it can be hard sometimes to adhere to the principles that our Founding Father’s laid out for us. Justice Kennedy said it best in a concurring opinion in the brief for the Texas vs. Johnson flag burning case. “The hard fact is that sometime we must make decisions we do not like. We make them because they are right, right in the sense that the law and the Constitution, as we see them, compel the result.”
I have heard the argument that certain Muslim countries would not allow for Christian centers of worship to be built anywhere. This makes it even more important for us to show them that we do not hold ourselves to a similar standard, and we should not. Our victory is made in the point that we stand by what we preach, even in the faces of those that see it as a weakness.

New Jersey recently passed a law known as Kyleigh’s Law.  (Politicians enjoy having poster boys- -or in this case, girls, for their initiatives) This law is named after Kyleigh D’Alessio, a 16-year old who was killed in 2006 in an automobile crash in Washington Township, NJ, involving another teen driver.  This new law makes it illegal for any driver under the age of 21, with a provisional license, to drive between the hours of 11:01 PM and 5:00 AM and to have more than one non-household passenger in the car.  It also requires these drivers to have an orange sticker on their license plates to mark them as teenage drivers.

This bill is the brainchild of former New Jersey Governor John Corzine.  It was pushed through Trenton without the backing of the people of New Jersey.  It is quite obviously a very controversial and unpopular bill.  Not only does it create an aura of criminality around younger drivers, it also creates unnecessary inconveniences for families with younger drivers.  Many of these people will have to risk a $100 fine in order to travel anywhere in New Jersey after 11 PM.  Teenage drivers will now be marked, making them clear targets for whoever wants to interfere with someone who is underage and clearly not with an adult.

Many Lehigh students will soon fall into the bracket of people directly affected by this law, significant because of its lack of popular support.  Trenton is essentially legislating to the people of New Jersey without their feedback.  There are over 8,000 protestors to the bill on Facebook alone, and many of those aren’t teenagers.  There exist numerous protest websites that have been receiving a great deal of traffic lately.  The largest and most well organized is http://stopkyleighslaw.org, a professional-looking site with a well organized layout that has links to important information including the lawyer in charge of the work to overturn the legislation.  There is firepower behind this cause.  On the other end, there are currently fewer than 800 signatures on the official petition to uphold Kyleigh’s Law and many of those are actually people who have voiced disparaging remarks about the measure and question its degree of constitutionality.

New Jersey’s Kyleigh’s Law gives Lehigh students an intimate sense of how overburdening legislation can directly impact our lives.  However, a much more ubiquitous and powerful example of American governing bodies trying to rule over rather than for is seen on Capitol Hill in Washington D.C. right now.  The health care legislation recently passed in Washington will be remembered for years as sloppy legislation.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the President should direct legislation?  In the last ten years, the office of the Presidency has grown far more powerful than this nation has ever seen.  New heights were reached by President Bush with his curious penchant for signing statements.  It is commonly known that Bush only vetoed two bills during his tenure.  A far less known fact is that he signed hundreds of bills into law with pseudo-legal documents known as signing statements.  These are essentially legal statements explaining how the President plans to enact the legislation.  This could mean that the President plans not to enact the legislation.  Word of this underhanded yet powerful legal technique became known after Bush’s usage of the bill against John McCain’s anti-torture bill.  President Obama has also made use of signing statements, although before taking office he had promised not to do so.

Obama has taken a different approach in advancing the authoritarian nature of the Presidency.  He took it upon himself to personally direct the health care reform legislation.  Perhaps it is old-fashioned or antiquated thinking, but maybe Americans should keep the separated parts of government separate?  It is the President’s job to veto or sign a bill, not help it along especially when there is so much opposition to it.  It discredits the President’s authority to get knee-deep in the legislative process.  If most of Americans are opposed to a bill — which, with the health care bill, they are — then the Congress shouldn’t pass it.  The theory behind our representative system is that our delegates and representatives present and fight for our interests in Washington.  By following the word of the President rather than the American people, our legislatures are failing to uphold their part of the contract.

The passage of this latest health care reform bill is a bodes poorly for all Americans, not only because of an increasing tendency toward socialist institutions, but also because of the way the bill was forced through.  It is no accident that the Attorney Generals of 14 states are currently suing the federal government over the constitutionality of the bill.

It is sad to witness, but it is increasingly apparent, that our governing institutions are straying from a traditional democratic model.  Legislatures should fight for what their constituents want.  This practice of enforcing unpopular laws will breed resentment and will lead to a system curiously resembling that of a dictatorship.

Sources:

http://stopkyleighslaw.org/

http://www.trautmann.com/gdt.htm

http://news12.com/articleDetail.jsp?articleId=245274&position=2&news_type=news&rand=73317905

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/03/19/james-p-pinkerton-deem-pass-democrats-congress/

Title IX does it again. In a misguided attempt to make college sports more accessible to female student athletes, legislatures in Congress passed this bill that made it mandatory for schools to spend equally on both men’s and women’s sports. Seton Hall University, which HAD a reputable track team just announced that both the men’s and women’s indoor and outdoor track teams would be dissolved in order to make way for women’s golf. This was done as a cost-saving measure, but really Seton Hall? You are leaving numerous students who once had track scholarships out to dry all for the sake of establishing a women’s golf program. Title IX’s irrationality can be seen on our own campus where the men’s crew team is literally given money by the women’s team because of unequal and misappropriated funding. Why go through this hassle? Why not simply provide the right teams with the right funds? I am all for women’s athletics. They are an indelible part of any university system. Why should they be at the expense of men’s sports, though?

Read the article here.

The recent senatorial election in Massachusetts resulted in what some have described as the most important political upset of the century. The revered seat of Ted Kennedy, the so-called Lion of the Senate, fell into Republican hands on January 19, 2010. Senator Kennedy held a prominent position in the Senate for decades before succumbing to brain cancer on August 25, 2009. Ironically, the law mandating a special election to fill a vacant Senate seat in Massachusetts was established to prevent then-governor Mitt Romney from replacing Senator John Kerry with a Republican in the event that Kerry won the 2004 presidential election. An extremely influential Senate seat that was in Democratic hands since 1953 fell to the Republicans with a resounding victory for Scott Brown.

The significance of this issue cannot be overstated. The race itself received a tremendous amount of attention from political leaders on both sides of the aisle. President Obama campaigned for Martha Coakley, the Democratic candidate, and Mayor Giuliani threw his support behind Brown by campaigning in Boston for the Republican cause. A climactic moment of the election occurred during a debate when moderator Devid Gergen asked Brown why he would oppose health care reform while holding the “Kennedy seat.” Brown replied, “It’s not the Kennedy seat and it’s not the Democrats’ seat. It’s the people’s seat.” This notion of an election for the ‘people’s seat’ became a rallying cry for the Brown campaign. An election that the Democrats initially thought would be a proverbial walk in the park turned into a major upset that will seriously change the political climate and focus in Washington.

The reaction from some major political leaders is clear evidence of the effect of this historic election. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D – N.Y.) declared, “I think you can make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.” When Democratic representatives are openly discussing the death of their legislation on the grounds of a single election, it is clear the election must be significant. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, a Democrat from Maryland, made reference to the passionate nature of the election as a reprisal against the Democrats. “We will all be making a mistake if we believe that the message that was delivered in Massachusetts last night was unique to Massachusetts,” he said. “That anger was directed, frankly, at all of us.” Republicans responded in a more positive, but equally passionate, manner. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell from Kentucky recognized the frustration of the American people in response to a year of Obama-driven legislation. “There’s a reason the nation was focused on this race,” said McConnell. “The American people have made it abundantly clear that they’re more interested in shrinking unemployment than expanding government. They’re tired of bailouts. They’re tired of the government spending more than ever at a time when most people are spending less. And they don’t want the government taking over health care.” Even Senator Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a moderate who had voted for the Senate Finance Committee’s version of the health care bill said, “I never say anything is dead, but I think that clearly they’re going to have to revisit the entire issue. I think that was true from the outset. I think there were a lot of concerns that ultimately, collectively manifested themselves in yesterday’s vote. The American people are rightfully frustrated and they should be. This process is not becoming of this institution, the United States Congress. You can’t drive a policy that doesn’t have the support of the American people.” Her admitted hesitation about the health care issue as a result of Brown’s election is a factor that supporters of health care reform must come to terms with.

This dramatic response from both parties cannot be ignored. Even if the significance of Brown’s election turns out to be more ephemeral than substantial in the long run, it at least has had the effect of jarring Washington out of its stupor. President Obama himself recognized how the election would change his priorities and referenced it in his State of the Union Address as an example of how the election year to come would be a time of trials. Washington clearly sees Brown’s election as being significant, but how does it affect us at Lehigh?

Clearly health care will be thrown off schedule because of Senator Brown, which in all likelihood will be a good thing for America and our generation, specifically. The health care legislation that Congress and Obama have been trying to push through, if passed, would essentially be another tax with a goal of income redistribution. It is a classic example of having a few pay to support many, just as social security “works” today. Health care is just one example of the legislation that Obama will have to rework with Brown’s presence in the Senate. Obama will have tone down his priorities and really work for a bipartisan arrangement on many issues.

In the recent Presidential election, our generation was a bastion of support for Obama. We were largely responsible for electing him with a promise of hope and change. Is it true that a year after his inauguration, we are no better off? Many Americans, specifically those who elected Brown, see the Obama illusion as fleeting. They see Obama’s messianic message as a promise of the campaign trail only. In the last year, Obama has accrued a Nobel Peace Prize (whilst overseeing two foreign wars), a large national debt, and no foreseeable solution to the economic crisis.

What are some Lehigh students saying about Scott Brown’s election? I’m sure many haven’t even heard of him. The average Lehigh student who elected Obama should learn Brown’s name and fear the effect he will have on Obama, both real and psychological. Levi Bissell, ’12, a Lehigh student and resident of Pittsfield, Massachusetts, laid out his thoughts on the Brown election, “It’s a hopeful sign for the U.S government in general that we’re getting back to the two-party system, especially for a very blue state like Massachusetts.

It will push a lot of issues back into the open.” Another Lehigh student, Caleb Raddens, had a more somber thought on the election, “It’s sad that things are going to be deadlocked. I want to see progress.” Both students bring up good points. Brown’s election does make it clear that Obama does not have free reign to override Republican interests. And whatever your opinion of the health care debate, it is disappointing to see legislation that so many worked so hard for to be defeated. It makes one wonder if Congress can really do anything, even though perhaps the real question should be why the President thinks he has the prerogative to direct legislation. Regardless, Democracies are wonderful things. People speak through elections in republics, and the people have certainly spoken in Massachusetts.

Our world today is much safer than any that has existed in the history of humanity. We have immunizations for a variety of viral infections, antibiotics, cars, clean food and water, a dearth of localized warfare and violence and even government-funded student loans. We have it good, especially when compared to the billions who existed before us. Most of history has comprised of a shortage of resources, perpetual hunger, brutality, violence and a life expectancy that rarely exceeded 50 years.
Industrialization brought us clean living conditions and protection from some serious diseases but it also brought us weapons of war. The World Wars were devastated occurrences that shaped our world today and took the lives of millions of people. Politically, however, we are much safer today than we have ever been. The mayor of the town over from us won’t raid and pillage our homes and Germany isn’t going to invade any time soon. Although we do have worries with respect to international relations, especially with the threat of nuclear war, we have the sense that widespread destruction is unlikely in our generation, or at least at this time. This lack of threat from a world war is probably in large part due to those very same weapons of mass destruction that cause so much fear. Terrorism is a threat that we must all live with and it is our generation’s great battle. Random acts of terror, however, pale in comparison to what generations previous have dealt with. We are not asked to charge the trenches or invade Europe. Nations that were once willing to lose 50,000 men in a single battle are now cringing at the thought of losing 100. This is a very positive development for humans but we don’t seem to be at ease with our new-found sense of well-being.
Even though our life expectancy is greater than it has ever been and we are not facing the constant threat of death, as most of humanity has, we still feel the need to craze ourselves with fear. We live comfortable, cushy lives but we also have the myopia of seeing our moment in time and our generation as THE generation that will have to battle THE issue of the century. Undoubtedly these moments have occurred. We often have a gross misunderstanding of history. Our lack of perspective leads us to pessimistically believe that our generation will suffer greatly at the hands of a foreign power, or economic devastation will result or an awful virulent disease. History tells us that we won’t be fighting a world war in the foreseeable future, that we are richer and more prosperous than we have ever been (considering that a hundred years ago the average person would be considering poor in today’s standards) and swine flu isn’t the black death which was actually something to be concerned about. (Swine flu has killed a paltry number compared to the bubonic plague’s reaping of a third of Europe).
The news is full of it. Scary stories about crime going up, the economy faltering and bin laden coming to get us. Let’s take a moment to question why. Why do you feel the need to scare ourselves when all the evidence shows that we are living at the best moment in human history? So next time you hear that big, bad story about the next big thing to be afraid of just remember: You are not going to get the plague, you’re not going to be sold as an impoverished slave anytime soon and you’re not going to be bombed by the Russians.

As any Lehigh Student will tell you, there are an excessive number of New Jerseyans attending our school. The Bergen County area is particularly well represented amongst the Lehigh student body. These students should be aware of the fact that local police in their home area are arming with military style weapons and vehicles. This excess on law enforcement’s part is something that local residents of North Jersey should be aware of and protest.

Read article here.

Update: The link is fixed and now will work properly. Sorry for the inconvenience.

On Wednesday, February 10, Lehigh had its first snow day in 8 years. For those of us living in hovels, our campus was blanketed with nearly two feet of snow over the course of Tuesday night into Wednesday evening. I have no issue with trudging to class if my university and professors demand it. I honestly have no excuse to not get myself to my classroom that is a quarter-mile down the hill from my dormitory. Students who commute and professors obviously should be held to a different standard. It would have been absurd to demand them to drive to Lehigh on the day of the blizzard. I like our school’s stringent policy regarding holidays and days off. By not giving holidays off, we discriminate against no one. If there is a holiday that you feel obligated to take off then the university, and most professors, are usually more than willing to cooperate, as I found out for Good Friday. My issue is not with the school’s reluctance to give days off but rather the administration’s inability to communicate days off well enough, especially in potentially dangerous situations like massive blizzards.

Students awoke on Wednesday to no mass email alert from President Gast or whomever announcing that school was canceled. Rather, students had to dig through two or three layers of the Lehigh University’s webpage in order to obtain this information. It’s almost as if they wanted to keep this as low-key as possible. Apparently announcing that the school is closed does bad things for the administration’s collective ego: they must pride themselves on being tough guys who demand their students and faculty to report to their posts every day. What ensued from this lack of communication from people whose job it is to communicate, was chaos. Confused teachers arrived at campus to find that there was no parking and that buildings were locked. Really Lehigh? Locking buildings for snowstorms? Is that really an emergency that warrants a response like that? I myself only found out that the university was closed from my Gryphon, who seemed to have been more informed than the heads of some departments. There is a problem with this. One can only hope a real emergency never befalls this campus.

The film, ‘Avatar’, has been hailed as a movie classic and by some as the ‘greatest movie of all time’. It stole away the box office records, made a splash on 2010 movies, and has been on everyone’s mind. It’s been hailed as a work of proverbial genius. The graphics and costume designers of the film certainly deserve official recognition for their outstanding, if at times overdone work. That is where praise should end, however. Rather than being seen as the greatest film ever, it could be argued that ‘Avatar’ was a racist film with a trite plotline. The film was holistically quite banal and overdone. The morals espoused in Avatar promote the idea of a white outsider coming into an indigenous culture, teaching them and eventually leading them to victory against other white people. Considering the main character, Jake Sully, is a white man, and the Na’vi are all portrayed by ethnic actors and exhibit characteristic of a colored tribal society, this racist mentality seems to hold credence in explaining Avatar’s story.

This story has been done over and over again. ‘Dances With Wolves’ with Kevin Costner and ‘The Last Samurai’ with Tom Cruise both have a nearly identical plotline. The white man enters a foreign culture, falls in love with their way of life and one of their women, and wages a violent war against the evil culture he came from. It may be a story worth telling but it has been done already. To earn the title of ‘greatest movie of all time’ one must develop a slightly more sophisticated plotline than one that has already received so much exposure. It’s sad to see movies today degrade into action-packed visual stimulants. Whatever happened to stories with meaning, substance, and originality? Apparently they are gone by the wayside. The title of greatest movie of all time is today relegated to movies that appeal to our baser instincts for explosions, sex scenes with aliens who grow phallic dreadlocks, and simplistic good versus bad plot lines. Yes, we know white culture is evil and cutting down trees is bad. Thank you, James Cameron.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/dec/11/avatar-james-cameron-film-review

Public transportation is often seen as the answer to a variety of issues and has become popular in the eyes of environmentalists, urban planners and traffic-haters.  There is a drive to create more all-encompassing and better mass transit.  Although it looks good on paper, public transportation is failing to show real potential to solve societal problems.  Trains, for the most part, and government-run busing are two forms of mass transit that have repeatedly shown their inability to save society money, let alone save the environment.

As a resident of New Jersey, I have plenty of first-hand experience with the initiative to make transportation cheap and public.  The government-sponsored transportation company, NJ Transit, is the product of years of government efforts to further prop up a system that does not fulfill any of the state’s dire needs.  The state of New Jersey pours billions of the taxpayers’ dollars into mass transit with little to show for it.  I’ve been on New Jersey’s infamous buses and trains and it’s quite a sad sight.  Most trains operating are cost-centers, which are considered crowded if barely half the train is full.  The only way NJ Transit stays in business is through the state’s fiscal support.  The CATO organization notes that, “The average public transit vehicle in the United States operates with more than 80 percent of its seats empty.”  This is especially evident in New Jersey.  Secaucus, New Jersey, is home to another fine example of government’s ineptitude and the failure of mass transit.  Senator Frank R. Lautenberg built an eponymous rail hub there, with federal subsidies, in 2003.  The site cost $609 million to complete and only attracts 5,600 daily riders.  There is no parking nearby, despite its location just off a major interstate.  The atrocious cost of building this monument to the Senator’s ego, incompetence and myopia is almost criminal when one considers how few people actually use the station.  At the current rate of usage it will practically never be paid off.  If it is any consolation to the fine people of New Jersey, I can note with firsthand experience that the station is immaculate, although that is probably not attributable to it being well maintained.  A more likely reason is that it is perpetually empty.

The root of the problem with mass transportation is that nobody wants to use it.  It appears to be a great idea but this façade is proved to be incorrect in light of the reality that very few people actually use the trains and buses that the government provides us through Amtrak, NJ Transit and other companies.  It becomes clear why so many opt not to use government-run trains once you see the state in which they are kept and operated.  Often trains are dirty and are very inconvenient to use.  They run late and they make you bend your schedule to fit their often s   skewed time frames.  It is much more convenient (and in most places cheaper) just to drive wherever you want to go.

My home state jumps to my mind when the issue of mass transit comes up just because I have plenty of personal experience with it there.  New Jersey, however, is not the only place this is an issue.  It has been shown over and over again how ineffective mass transit is, especially when it’s government-run.  The CATO Institute points out that the last 25 years have taught this country a great deal about mass transit and its shortcomings.  Public transportation is odd because it has consistently received governmental support despite its obvious failures.  It has been said that mass transportation provides the poor with available options of travel, cuts down on pollution, reduces traffic, saves energy and revives urban centers.  All of these claims are false.  Only 7% of trips made by the poor are on mass transit and therefore do not benefit impoverished areas.  Due to the low use of mass transit, it does not reduce pollution.  In fact, usage is so low that a doubling in patronage would still have a negligible effect on air quality.  The fact that trains have not diverted a significant number of travelers from the roads means that the traffic problems we had 30 years ago are even worse today.  Mass transit doesn’t save energy either.  According to CATO, “because of the low average number of passengers per bus, energy consumption per passenger mile for public transit buses now is greater than that for private automobiles and far exceeds that for car and van pools.” Buffalo is a good example of a city that was not ‘revived’ by spending on mass transit.  After investing billions of dollars in a major rail network, Buffalo’s downtown area is losing businesses at an even more rapid rate than before the rails were implemented.  Mass transportation looks good on paper and therefore legislators are willing to support it.  People like the idea of a train, but in reality it actually costs more money and more energy than would private transportation.

Private bus lines, like Trans-Bridge in the Lehigh Valley, run where the demand is great.  They make money.  Government-run buses and trains are propped up because they lose money servicing lines that are generally untraveled.  I can recall seeing many NJ Transit buses on local roads in my area with an abysmally low number of passengers.  It makes me cringe when I consider that I am paying for the absurd amount of gas being used to transport two people three towns over.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York City, the city run organization that runs the subway, is broke.  The New York City subway is a good example of how the economics of trains do not always play out as we would hope.   The MTA has nearly $2 billion in service debt.  The subway beneath the streets of Manhattan is one of the most widely used rail systems in the world.  New York probably couldn’t function today if there were not some sort of mass transit system in place.  The debt incurred by the MTA is one that New York is willingly to support, as it should be.  Cities understand the necessity of systems like subways.  However, what should be taken from this example is that the economics simply aren’t there to justify mass transportation, especially trains, as a viable means for people to travel.  When the most traveled train system on the East Coast is losing money, how do governments justify propping up rail lines that are 80% empty?  NJ Transit is perpetually in debt, just like the MTA.  Unlike the MTA, however, NJ Transit is not a needed resource for the people of New Jersey.  It would be cheaper, in terms of gas and immediate cost, having a private bus line replace all of NJ Transit’s current train lines.  Let the market decide which line is worth keeping.   The state ends up wasting more energy and money trying to support these rail lines because people won’t use them.  They are inefficient and wasteful examples of government’s meddling and pandering to environmental propagandists.

The Brown and White r an an article in its November 6th issue discussing whether a train line from Lehigh County to Somerset County, NJ, is feasible.  Hopefully, the authorities behind this proposed project will do their research well and understand that their train will lose money and waste resources.  As for me, I’ll be taking Trans-Bridge Bus Lines home.