Token conservative columnist Ross Douthat has an interesting piece in today’s New York Times to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.  His argument, in short, is that the end of the Cold War has left us without a legitimate target for our paranoid delusions about the next great turn or tragedy in world history.  He takes both political parties to task for their role in perpetuating pseudo-threats in an age of what is actually unprecedented security.

On the right, pundits and politicians have cultivated a persistent cold-war-style alarmism about our foreign enemies — Vladimir Putin one week, Hugo Chavez the next, Kim Jong-il the week after that.

On the left, there’s an enduring fascination with the pseudo-Marxist vision of global capitalism as an enormous Ponzi scheme, destined to be undone by peak oil, climate change, or the next financial bubble.

Meanwhile, our domestic politics are shot through with antitotalitarian obsessions, even as real totalitarianism recedes in history’s rear-view mirror. Plenty of liberals were convinced that a vote for George W. Bush was a vote for theocracy or fascism. Too many conservatives are persuaded that Barack Obama’s liberalism is a step removed from Leninism.

OK, fair enough.  Give Douthat some credit for making a bold claim that directly contradicts conventional psychosis wisdom.  The state of our public discourse is abysmal – but that doesn’t mean our current economic, political and social solutions are actually sustainable.  It just means the crazies haven’t been vindicated…yet.  Twenty years of ideological hegemony for global capitalism is hardly enough time to declare “the end of history.”

What do you think?

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.

Authority must always be questioned. It is simply inherent to a modern democratic society. As college students, we can certainly appreciate this sentiment and should act on it. Our system of government operates with the understanding that some of our basic liberties will be given away in order for the state to function. Laws impede some of our liberties since, by definition, they determine what people should and should not be allowed to do. Absolute liberty would result in anarchy where those with physical power oppress those without it.

Because our laws require a mechanism of enforcement, police are a necessary evil in a democracy. Their goals of ensuring safety and civility will often be at odds with personal liberty. The suggestion here is not that police are themselves detrimental to society but that their power will inevitably infringe on citizens’ rights. The police are needed to arbitrate disputes and to serve as a neutral authority to guarantee that all people are allowed to live as freely and safely as possible. It is the right and duty of citizens of a democratic system to be on guard as a check on those who are given power over us. We willingly hand over essential rights with the understanding that the police will provide fair protection and that laws will be upheld.

Nonetheless, police are human beings and therefore capable of overstepping their authority. This is why we must remain vigilant – when government is given power, it will not voluntarily return it to the people. That is why citizens must constantly and actively protect their rights. Citizens must defend liberty and democracy even in the event of popular complacency, as is visible in America today.

A blatant example of the police trampling the civil rights of an individual is the case of Cheye Calvo, who had his house broken into about a year ago by a SWAT team during a botched drug raid. Mr. Calvo was innocent of any sort of drug smuggling. The police broke down his door and shot his two dogs, which were allegedly non-hostile. Despite the egregious violation of his civil rights, Calvo is still fighting for compensation. This sort of behavior on the part of law enforcement is unacceptable.

The “no-knock” policy of many police and SWAT (Special Weapons And Tactics) organizations has been hotly contested in court, yet remains a widely-used practice. Are citizens and their privacy to be considered less important than ending the marijuana trade in this country? Nothing can be more important than these civil rights. We owe it to the men and women who died for this nation’s freedom to not accept these barbaric practices. Even the notion of a SWAT team is something that ought to be received with caution. Why is it necessary for nearly every county in America to be armed with a paramilitary organization? Several of these groups are involved with weapons and drug trading themselves. The most widely known of these cases is the police department of Hoboken, NJ, which dismantled their SWAT team after serious corruption charges emerged. The growth of these “militarized” police has increased at a frighteningly rapid pace in the last few years. According to the CATO Institute, the number of SWAT team deployments has jumped from 3,000 a year in the early 1980s to more than 40,000 a year by the early 2000s. This vast and deliberate militarization of police departments is unnecessary. Again, most police officers do their jobs with honesty and integrity, but we must be awakened to the reality that sometimes law enforcement will cause us to be less free.

Although most Lehigh students will not suffer such serious civil rights violations, we will undoubtedly experience or become aware of police crimes against liberty. As a student body, we must never become complacent in the face of infringements on our civil liberties. We need to be aware of police actions and speak out when they cross the line. An alert community is a democratic and free one. As Thomas Jefferson said: the government should fear and serve the people, not the other way around.

College students have a great and defiant history of fighting against the “man.” We led the charge against the Vietnam War. We have never hesitated to take up a cause that is important to us – even if we’re just whining about the drinking age. We need to make noise and use our voices, both in and out of the voting booth, in order to keep the authorities in check. Their job is to protect and serve, and we must continuously remind them of that.

We must also recognize the alarming trend towards government control over society. We are seeing how the government rescinds more and more of our rights for the sake of ‘security’. The ironically named Patriot Act and any similar legislation that restricts the rights of the people for the sake of collective ‘security’ should be contested and overturned. It is a travesty that we are selling away our liberties out of fear. As Benjamin Franklin put it, those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

The founding fathers would be ashamed of the unwillingness of the masses to put their liberties above all else. We must follow their example and lead the charge to defend liberty. Question authority and do not submit to injustice! Be defiant and recognize that you have certain inalienable and undeniable rights. Vigilance must be a hallmark of our society. When we witness injustice in any form, it is our duty as free persons to speak out against it. We can not call ourselves the heirs to the noble idea of America if we failed in this sacred duty to protect our liberties.

It would be great if we could have a world without nuclear weapons. This is a dream for many idealists, but a farfetched reality for most pragmatists. Some consider this dream possible, if we were able to rid the world of despotic dictators. Others say that human nature and its proclivity for conflict makes war inevitable. Thus, countries need the right to defend themselves from foreign threats. Meanwhile, the uninformed, without any regard for what’s happening in the world, say that every nation should make a pledge to destroy their nuclear weapons arsenal immediately.
This brings me to the United Nations and its new commitment to implementing nuclear disarmament. With its upsetting track record, the U.N. has rarely been effective in accomplishing anything from holding successful peacekeeping operations, to preventing genocide, or to maintaining human rights. Even with the support of President Barack Obama, the inherent corruption and bureaucracy of the U.N. will make disarmament nearly impossible. With unpredictable countries like Iran and North Korea, countries will not be willing to lessen their deterrence.
While Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn’t the most unstable world leader, his country is the biggest threat to our strongest ally in the Middle East: Israel. According to the New York Times, “Iran’s agreement in principle … to ship what American officials called ‘most’ of its declared stockpile of lightly enriched uranium to Russia and France to be turned into nuclear fuel.”^1,2 According to experts at the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency, Iran has all the materials to make an atomic weapon.³ Using this material, Iran is most likely gearing up to create weapons earmarked for use on Israel or, at the very least, to sell them off to any number of terrorist organizations. This may cause Israel to preemptively attack Iran. Considering that nearly all the oil leaving the Middle East passes through the Strait of Hormuz, right off the coast of Iran, Iran is likely (and has threatened) to choke off this passageway if Israel or the United States attacks.⁴ This would put 40% of the world’s oil in the hands of a single country, and a volatile one at that.
In contrast, North Korea has perhaps the world’s most deranged dictator, Kim Jong Il. While the man is of poor health, his third son is poised to take over. North Korea, with its habit of testing missiles and bombs, is a major threat to our ally, South Korea. North Korea also has the capability to strike Japan, and even Hawaii with its missiles.⁵
The UN’s dream of a nuke-free world is nice, but idealist, at least for now. If every nation were a democracy or a constitutional republic, it would be easier to rid the world of most of its nuclear weapons. But, for now, with some of the world’s farcical governments threatening proliferation and stockpiling, we’ll have to put that dream on hold.
1) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/world/middleeast/02nuke.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
2) http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSLP63169620090226
3) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090917/ap_on_re_eu/eu_iran_nuclear
4) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,374905,00.html
5) http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/03/n.korea.military/index.html

The other day, three students in my Economics class told me they were robbed in their fraternity the previous evening. They all missed class because they had to file police reports and get their lives back together.

I read in the Brown and White that a student claimed she was sexually assaulted, and then recanted.

Soon enough, I suspect, we will get our first report of a binge drinker being hauled into the emergency room at St. Luke’s for treatment.

All this is very disturbing. None of it should happen, but it does. Some people are thoughtless; some people are just plain bad.

At the same time, every day of school has been sunny and beautiful.

My freshman students are as enthusiastic and bright as any I have ever taught.

I saw a student writing assistant, part of Greg Skutches’ Writing Across the Curriculum program, meeting with younger students in the library, patiently helping them through their first theme.

The professors I hang around with at lunch seem pumped up about their classes. I see Rosemary Mundhenk, who has been teaching serious students serious literature for decades here at Lehigh, scribbling last minute notes before her first class on David Copperfield, one of the great works of the human imagination.

I frequently run into Paul Brockman, our most distinguished newly minted Joseph and Amy Perella Professor of Finance, zooming around campus, anxiously preparing his first course for Lehigh undergraduates.

When I asked him if he had been to the Linderman Library, he said he had. “Nice building,” I said. “That’s the most elegant academic building I have seen on any campus,” he replied.

A year after the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the beginning of the greatest financial crash since the Depression, the stock market is recovering nicely. While Yale and Harvard reported endowment losses of about 30 percent, Lehigh has been doing relatively well. I would guess that we are down less than 10 percent from our highs. Not bad, all things considered.

All this blizzard of conflicting activity puts me in the advice-giving mood.

Here goes.

First, there is always plenty to be cheerful about.

But to enjoy the good times, we must all battle to keep life simple.

Lehigh is far too willing to admit all the pressures and temptations of the outside world into what should be a refreshing, less complicated college experience. We have too much competition, too many clubs and affinity groups (they do not unite the campus, they fragment it), too many outside speakers (a shameful waste of money), and too many noble causes and diversions. Avoid them all. Avoid the speakers (they are usually blowhards anyway), don’t join the clubs, and don’t worry about saving the planet, or curing cancer, or eliminating poverty—at least not yet. And stay away from television.

Here is some advice on the subject from the great Yale intellectual, Harold Bloom: “Do not attempt to improve your neighbor or your neighborhood by what or how you read. Self-improvement is a large enough project for mind and spirit.” That’s an understatement. Think about it.

Make friends, do your homework, and if you have an interest—sports, or singing, or journalism, or something like that—do it. But avoid the rest. The classroom experience should be the centerpiece of your college life. Only in the classroom can you get your money’s worth here—if your teachers are no good, study with others who are. Classes should not be boring. The great teachers are what most old-timers remember about college. Don’t make class work an afterthought, and don’t accept mediocrity easily.

Finally, behave yourself. Be reasonable.

On that subject, here’s a thought from Satchel Paige, an uneducated, itinerate pitcher, now proudly ensconced the Baseball Hall of Fame. Satchel didn’t know much about Yale, but he knew thing or two about the sportin’ life. “Go very light on the vices, such as carrying on in society” he cautioned. “The social ramble ain’t restful.”

So there. Class dismissed.

The cost of a college education is the bane of us all, and it isn’t about to get any easier to manage. This summer, tuition at Lehigh increased about 3%. This by itself is not particularly noteworthy as tuition increases every year, however, it should be recognized that a 3% increase in tuition over the course of four years adds up to an additional $10,000 in paid tuition. This increase is mostly to check inflation but it is still an increase. As registered students, we all received a pair of letters from President Gast informing us of both this adjustment and also of an increase in the amount of financial aid being given to students who apply for it. In this economy it is perfectly reasonable for this additional support of those students who cannot pay the tuition in full. The idea, however, of increasing the tuition of those who could afford it to pay for those you can’t brings up some interesting parallels to the economics that we are seeing on a national scale in our country today.

Karl Marx, in his famous Communist Manifesto, wrote, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” This sentiment summarizes a key idea in his socialist philosophy which espoused the equality of society. We have found since these famous words were written that a society that is given everything does not function as well as one that competes for excellence. From an economic standpoint, this mentality is essentially tantamount to communism. President Obama’s new economic direction for the country seems to be directed by Marx’s works. We are told that the presidency will be able to reform major national institutions such as health care. What we aren’t told is how exactly they plan to afford this sort of restructuring. The most common approach is to simply tax the wealthier citizens more to attain the needed funds. This approach works to an extent, but can’t be sustained. We are discouraging success with the message of, ‘Go to school, work hard so that we can take half of what you earn.’ This is a reality for many people who have worked hard to pull themselves up to a wealthy socio-economic status. Data presented by the New York Times from the Congressional Budget Office demonstrates this. “The poorest fifth of the population, with average annual income of $15,400, pays only 4.5 percent of its income in federal taxes. The middle fifth, with income of $56,200, pays 13.9 percent. And the top fifth, with income of $207,200, pays 25.1 percent. At the very top of the income distribution, the CBO reports even higher tax rates. The richest 1 percent has average income of $1,259,700 and forks over 31.1 percent of its income to the federal government.” This isn’t even including state or municipal taxes. Some citizens can literally find themselves paying about 50% of what they earn to the government, more and more of which is redistributed.

The average tuition cost of attending a 4-year private school, such as Lehigh, is about $37,000. Lehigh University charges slightly more than that, about $38,000 for tuition. This means that with all other costs included attending Lehigh costs about $51,000 a year. According to the College Board, 56% of students attending 4-year universities pay less than $9,000 a year. At the same time, only about 9% of students pay upwards of $33,000 a year for education. This payment system seems arbitrary and redistributive. In 2003, 51% of freshman received average grant of $17,677 according to College Handbook by College Board. This means today’s tuition of $38,330 is excessive. When Lehigh gets to the point that students can’t afford to pay this school’s inflated prices, students will simply go to universities that offer more prudently structured tuition. To be accurate, school’s should list tuition at $20,000 but place an asterisk referencing different pricing for those making more than a $X. Why not have 5% of the wealthiest students pay even higher tuition that will cover the costs of educating more of their peers? It seems Lehigh may be heading down this path. As mentioned above, Lehigh is already slightly above average in terms of cost, and we’re not getting any better. The school is getting more money from fewer students. Financial Aid director Linda Bell described how financial aid is receiving more money from the budget, which is primarily financed through student payments.

“The annual budget for financial aid is determined based on our current population of aided students adjusted for attrition and cost of attendance changes. Our model for determining the budget on an annual basis has provided sufficient resources to enroll an entering class as well as continue assistance to those who are already enrolled…As stated previously the cost of attendance increases are built into our model to determine the aid budget. A significant increase was made to financial aid entering into the 2008-09 academic year to accommodate the new initiative of eliminating or limiting loans in need based aid packages for middle and low income families.”

This redistributive system makes Lehigh less appealing in the eyes of prospective due to increased costs. Our attempts to try to include more potential students will probably have the unwanted affect of driving away those that can actually afford our prices in full. Lehigh’s already elevated price will start to look less and less appealing when compared to similar schools with lower prices, such as Lafayette, which charged about $36,000 for tuition this year.

The Brown and White recently ran an article in its September 25^th issue that covered the health of Lehigh’s endowment, which is surprisingly good considering the recent financial problems. I believe that rather than strengthening our endowment just for an ostentatious showing of financial strength we should use that money to support Lehigh students. Rather than bulking up our resources we should be fine with using money that we have and need to use during difficult economic times. Rather than charging some students more so others can pay less, let’s cut back in other areas and use the resources we have to educate the next generation of Lehigh students fairly and equitably.

It is clear that if we just keep charging the wealthy for being wealthy there eventually won’t be enough prosperity to pay for the rest of us. We cannot expect those in the very top socio-economic percentages to pay for the rest, no matter the situation. The wealthy will move away and prosperity and talent will walk away with them. It is necessary for the administration to understand the immense burden being placed on those who not only pay for their education but those around them. Lehigh will need to cut costs. Just as our government cannot rely on the wealth of some to fund their programs for the rest, Lehigh cannot rely on the tuition of some to cover the costs for everyone.

The letter’s reference to ‘strengthening our aid programs’ essentially boils down to the simple fact that some students will pay more so others can pay less. The mentality of charging ‘those who can afford it’ is one that will deplete needed resources and cannot be relied upon for long-term economic success. It is simply interesting to note the relations between our schools financial structure and our increasingly socializing nation. The application of Obama’s economics to the tuition structure at Lehigh University will have only harmful ramifications.

On the night of September 17, 2009, in front of a packed audience at Baker Hall, TJ Leyden, a former Neo-Nazi white supremacist recruiter, gave Lehigh University students some StrHATE Talk on how to turn away from hate. At least, this is how it was advertised – and you know what they say about truth in advertising. It really should have been “Former Neo-Nazi talks about all the bad things he’s done in his life and why other people shouldn’t do them.”

Specifically, the flyer for the speech said Leyden became “one of the nation’s most compelling advocates for the importance of diversity and cultural importance.” Pfft. Leyden spent maybe five minutes of his two hours on diversity. He mostly talked about his history in the white supremacy movement and the violent acts he committed. The explanation of his exit from this lifestyle was more of an afterthought.  He never really explained how he repented. He also found time to insult the US military, equating the Marine Corps to a racist organization that hates gay people. He even said that “The military made [him] a better racist.”

TJ Leyden was a white supremacist, and this feeling was deeply held. He recalled one particularly gruesome event in which he kicked a kid in the thumb with his steel-toed Doc Martens so hard that air escaped the body as the bone broke the skin. His explanation for leaving the white supremacist movement was even more confusing than that event was grotesque. He said he got out of it because he didn’t want his two sons to become radicalized and end up in prison. This led him to turn his life around, somehow. The problem here is repentance. He goes into an anecdote about how his mom forced him to go to a Jewish tolerance center. At no point in the lecture did he explain how he realized his beliefs were wrong, nor did he fully explain these so-called activities of repentance.

Leyden is a consultant for the Simon Wiesenthal Center, a Jewish human rights organization. But he didn’t really explain how his “expertise” is of value to their efforts. For all we know, he’s just capitalizing on his knowledge of the skinhead movement. I doubt he talks to them about diversity…

This lecture was marketed as a Neo-Nazi turned diversity advocate. If he’s the latter, he didn’t make that clear. He had some compelling words about how important diversity is, but he also made a very judgmental remark. First off, he told everyone to “Fight racism with your mind, not your fists.” Powerful words indeed, but not something most college students haven’t heard before from sources with considerably greater moral authority.

That’s not to say this lecture wasn’t interesting. The fact that there’s a video game where the objective is to kill the “Master Jew” in the subway is twisted enough to border on comedy. I also learned that the inventor of the electric can opener, Ben Klassen, founded a white supremacist group called the “World Church of the Creator,” which advocates a whites-only religion. And there’s at least one thing Leyden and I can unequivocally agree on: he’s a Packers fan.

I am not an operator inside the administration. Frank Roth, Lehigh’s general counsel, probably wakes up to copies of my emails, under some privacy-invasion clause of which the school failed to inform me, thanks in part to some of the efforts that I’ve stood behind in my time here. They [the administration] don’t care for me, but they pretend to.

I’m not raising a flag and screaming for uproarious change – in fact, I’ll state that in this letter I stand behind that which has raised more eyebrows and blood pressure rates than any other topic, beyond even race: the Greek System.

(more…)

The Presidency of Barack Obama is a new age for America. It is also, quite possibly, the signaling of the death of capitalism in America. The very traditions and ideals that helped to make this country great are now being abandoned for special interests and instant gratification. Quick fixes are not the answers our nation needs in a time of fiscal uncertainty. We are witnessing, with each passing day, new powers being ushered unto the federal government without so much as a pause to question the legality of it all. Is our government supposed to be in the business of manufacturing cars and distributing home loans? We are moving so fast that everyone is asking whether the stimulus plan will work, not if it’s really permissible. The long-term repercussions of Obama’s economic policies are leading us down the road of socialism, which is especially bad news for those of us preparing to enter the workforce.

(more…)

As a result of the current financial crisis, many intuitive lessons of our parents and mentors are becoming countercurrent truths. The industrial age assumption that hard work, a lot of studying, and a little luck will land you a great job for life is no longer a reality. Currently, the unemployment rate is 8.1 percent and rising (U.S. Department of labor). Students in the finance department are now fumbling for jobs and even Engineering Co-ops are being cut.

(more…)