Sodexo, the company responsible for feeding the bulk of the student population recently conducted a survey by e-mail and claimed that the survey taker would be rewarded at the end of the survey. (What follows is the actual e-mail recieved)

Dear student, faculty and staff,

Today we are requesting your participation in an important online
survey about your recent dining experiences on campus. You will
be rewarded at the end of the survey in return for your participation.

We are collecting this information on behalf of Sodexo. At no
point will pass your information on to any marketing
company. No personally identifiable information will be collected in the survey; we will only use
your responses in conjunction with those of other survey respondents.

This survey should only take approximately 7 minutes to complete.

I have no issue with Sodexo doing a survey; gathering information is a vital part of 21st century business. What I do have an issue with is the reward at the end of the survey. (Screen shot of actual survey end)

Sodexo Decides to Spend My Tuition Dollars

For your participation, Lehigh University will donate $1 to The WORLD FOOD PROGRAM – earmarked to providing needed food supplies to the people that have just survived the tragic earthquake in Haiti on your behalf.

Why is LEHIGH UNIVERSITY donating money on my behalf? I pay them for an education, not to provide philanthropy. Furthermore, the choice of charity offends me. As I have previously discussed, I disagree with the disproportionate aid for Haiti.

Looking into the charity benefiting from my “donation,” the Better Business Bureau reveals they are an outreach of the United Nations. Why is my money going to such a cause, besides to give Sodexo a very nice tax write-off?

(click for larger image)

Despite knowing much about the origins of Jersey Shore cast members, one Brown and White commenter has made the incorrect claim that the Mason-Dixon line crosses New Jersey.

Mason and Dixon used the stars to calculate this path through the wilderness and mark out the 233-mile-long boundary line between Pennsylvania and Maryland, and the 83 miles long north-south boundary between Maryland and Delaware; the effort took five years.

Information about the Mason-Dixon line, and two men trying to restore it

One of the founding tenants of liberty is man should bear the fruits of his labor; that is, a person should be entitled to keep all of the money that he or she earns. Current OBAMACare legislation runs in the face of liberty, as the marginal tax increases have lasting and ignored ramifications.

While it seems difficult to connect “Penalized for Working More” to National Health Care, there exists a direct correlation. A January 13th CATO.org article identifies the role that marginal tax increases play in any future health care proposals. In a nutshell, a Marginal Tax Rate is the amount of additional tax one would be required to pay if he or she made one additional dollar.

At several points of income, a person would lose money by working more through progressive taxation and reduced subsidies; the article cites examples of “Under the House bill, a family of four starting at $43,670 that earns an additional $1,100 would see its total income fall by $870.”

And THIS is Change I can believe in.

Justice task force recommends about 50 Guantanamo detainees be held indefinitely

In the newest iteration of President Obama’s “Change for America: A rejection of Bushy Policies” the Federal Government has decided to continue the trend of indefinite detention in our secret prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The issue at hand centers on what rights (if any) people captured by American Military, Paramilitary and contracted personnel have.

The unique style of the “War on Terror” demands unique solutions to the problems facing our policymakers. No longer does contracts like the Geneva Convention dictate procedures, because the line between “enemy combatants” and “woman making rice for Resistance Fighters” is increasingly blurred. Additionally, provisions for repatriating foreign fighters at the end of conflict are nullified because the current conflicts have no definition of victory or means of ending the conflict, two traditional hallmarks of prisoner release.

Moving forward, the concepts of Git-Mo and secret prisons are unethical and should be abandoned. Although some may claim that European torture-houses are necessary for our safety, I refuse to be part of any government in which Rendition is the status quo; in which our view of “aggressive information gathering” is “out of sight, out of mind” and we stand by as fellow human beings get treated in such a manner.

It seems foolish to decry current policy without an adequate counter-plan, and I would suggest instead that the United States accept the responsibility of our foreign actions and allow for internment inside the United States, a tradition that dates back through both World Wars and even into the American Revolution.

“Shame on you America: the only country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed without eating, elderly going without needed meds, and mentally ill without treatment – yet we have a benefit for the people of Haiti on 12 TV stations. 99% of people won’t have the guts to copy and repost this.”

Above quote is from a friend’s status on Facebook.

In the aftermath of the devastating earthquake affecting Haiti on January 12th resulted in an outpouring of aid throughout the developing world, with Americans being bombarded by “Text ‘Haiti’ to 90999″ and the other numbers for American Red Cross and related charity and relief organizations dedicated to Haitian aid.

Lehigh University has started their own Haitian Initiative; Collecting $50,000 towards relief efforts. Despite the best intentions of the Community Service Office, is Haitian relief, efforts that have been duplicated around the world, really the best use of Lehigh Student’s time and money?

Goodwill to mankind is a noble goal, but logistical and financial concerns limit the impact that can be made. While Dr. King was a proponent of “help[ing] our neighbors across borders just as much as our friends down the street.”, when 17,000 Pennsylvanians are homeless, our efforts would be better spent closer to home, helping our friends down the street.

Article

In Friday’s issue of the Brown and White, a letter from Jailin Lu was published. It contends that the so-called egregious waste of food that occurs on a daily basis in the fine eating establishments on this campus are responsible for the genocide of millions of people in much of the underdeveloped world.

Jailin’s letter largely attempts to apply the cultural customs of China, in particular their ancient proverb of “wasting food is a crime” and that it was disrespectful towards farmers to waste their hard work. However, we do not live in China, nor do we live in Ancient times. Instead, farming is a profit-driven enterprise conducted by less than two percent of the American population in today’s day and age. Wasting food in today’s world is no more disrespectful to farmers then wasting gas is to oil drillers.

Another contention perpetrated by the letter was that wasted food here translates into recurring genocide throughout much of the world. However, wasted food, which equates to higher food prices in the United States is beneficial; not detrimental to much of the world. Many people in rural Asia and sub-Saharan Africa are local farmers. Higher food prices translate into an increased amount of money that can be made by farmers, which in turn spurs local investment, increased economic development and the ability for many to improve their social standing. In turn, higher food prices are beneficial, and not detrimental to impoverished people throughout the world.

The Federal Government, under the guise of “energy freedom” has crafted a broad array of overbearing and Constitutionally invalid laws designed to increase fuel economy among cars on the road today and steer our country away from its fossil-fueled way of life. Despite the best intentions of the federal government, the array of laws on the books are not the best way to accomplish change in our world.
Under the current system, the federal government’s mechanisms for change are composed of three main areas: Minimum mileage requirements, direct subsidization of energy development, and the ubiquitous “Cash for Clunkers” program. Of these, the first is the most egregious in terms of impacting the average American consumer.
The fundamental flaw of all three of these mechanisms is the belief that the government is the entity that needs to push for change. However, the government has never been an efficient mechanism for change; federal programs are often muddled in bureaucracy and unfairly favor some technologies at the expense of others. For example, during the Bush administration a major push was into research of switch grass, a plant that could be turned into ethanol. However, the federal government ignored other promising technologies such as hemp-based fuel, or solar, geothermal or wind power.
Minimum mileage requirements are harmful to consumers because they eliminate choice. The current federal system requires the average mpg rating of all cars sold by a company to exceed a certain threshold. What if an entrepreneur wanted to make a company that specialized in one particular class of car, such as large trucks to meet a consumer demand? Under the current system, they would still need to sell fuel efficient cars to produce gas guzzlers.
My solution is a simple one: replace all of these programs with one tax. By increasing the federal fuel tax from its current level of eighteen cents to a far steeper three dollars, the burden of fuel efficiency shifts from the federal government to private enterprise. Under this new system, a private corporation has tangible financial incentive to fund research, and consumers will pay for increased fuel efficiency because it is worthwhile for them to do so. Furthermore, unprofitable research will be stifled, as a profit-driven and results-oriented corporation has no desire to waste money in areas that lack promise.
The tax soultion also gives automotive companies something that has been missing for decades: specialization. A CATO article listed “GM’s competitive strength [as] the luxury car, muscle car, SUV, and pick-up truck categories. “ An automotive company should not be forced to develop small cars as a cost of doing business. Rather, they should be allowed to market what customers want. If Ford’s most profitable cars are Mustangs and pick-ups, there is no reason for them to waste factory space on compact cars.
The major caveat to this system is that the cost of goods will go up. However, even this is not a bad thing. Instead of produce being shipped across the country to stock shelves, the market would reward local farmers in small towns across America without the need for biased and politically controversial federal farm subsidies.
Furthermore, this proposal will ease congestion on major US thoroughfares. Between fewer and shorter truck shipments and fewer people making frivolous trips, less wear and tear will occur on our roads. Corporations that abandoned railroads in the 70s and 80s would begin reinvesting, since there would be demand for them; demand created by the free market and not a Federal entity. Programs such as Amtrak, an unprofitable government entity, may become profitable as its fares become more affordable.
This proposal will hurt poor Americans the most. However, a system of “rationing” could be created, where criteria such as distance to employment and number of dependents would allow poor families to receive a portion of cheaper gas. More importantly, it would give them the power of choice – the ability to prioritize their travel and make responsible decisions at home so that as a country we can achieve energy independence.
For college students, these ideals provide a similar outlook: a construct that rewards personal choice. Frivolous trips home or to another college would be less frequent and would only occur when one believes it is worth the expense. Things like the Lehigh University Ride Board would be utilized more often, creating a sense of community amongst the student body. Furthermore, increased transportation costs would lead to increased programming on campus and a decreasing need to go off campus to have fun, again engendering fellowship amongst the student population.
Despite the cost of higher fuel taxes, it is the only responsible alternative to federal subsidies and redistribution of wealth. By creating a system that rewards innovation and allows private corporations to decide the value of products, the United States can become a greener country because its citizens, not its lawmakers, choose to make it so. Furthermore, car companies would gain the ability to specialize without the need to sell super-efficient cars to stay in the marketplace.

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.

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.