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

I had wanted to post this before the weekend, but it’s always easier to let Jon Stewart have his turn, rather than doing the analysis myself.  Luckily, the House GOP’s dismal approval rating and generally objective incompetence should ensure the hilarity of this segment regardless of your political preference.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c
Q & O
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

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.

Each Sunday, the Patriot will provide a look at some of the news issues that you should know about. We know it is tough for college students to keep up-to-date on current events. The Patriot’s Sunday News Beat is your answer to that. Enjoy!

• Last Friday, the Supreme Court made one of its most controversial rulings with regard to corporations and campaign financing in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The 5-4 ruling overturned much of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, and allows both corporations and individuals more freedoms to finance political advertising. The Wall Street Journal provides a good analysis of the decision as a victory for the first ammendment.
• This week, President Obama gave his first state of the union address (transcript here). In an interesting article, Peter Wehner of Politics Daily argues that Obama’s shifting of blame away from his administration should unnerve democrats. Meanwhile, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek claims that his speech should enthuse liberals.
• Even with the State of the Union being given, the fate of the health care legislation is still up in the air. Several sources suggest that Democrats may give up on the legislation and shift their focus to repairing the economy, which was the main focus of Obama’s speech. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Barack Obama have all signaled that they “will not walk away from health care.” However, many moderate Democrats are shifting away from their support in light of the shifting political tide. John Bresnahan reports on Politico that influential Democratic Senator Evan Bayh wants to move on from the health care bill and focus on creating jobs.
• While news organizations specializing in liberal propaganda ignore the ever-decreasing credibility of climate alarmists, The Orange County Register has a great editorial detailing another incident that discredits their hypothesis. Specifically, the 2007 UN IPCC Climate Change report knowingly included a claim – that Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 – that had “no scientific basis.” This follows the scandal in November revolving around several very prominent climate researchers. The issue was also covered in the Wall Street Journal, which shows that the IPCC was warned by glaciologist Georg Kaser that 2035 was “so wrong that it is not even worth discussing.”

This coming week, we will likely see continued attempts by Democrats to accomplish something of note. Some commentators suggest their failures thus far have been due to having Gilligan, of Gilligan’s Island fame, as their highest paid consultant.

Until next Sunday, have a good week!

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.

“The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

People are angry, and they’re frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.” – Barack Obama

In the latest saga of Barack Obama’s increasingly illogical comments, our President decided to blame Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts on… drumroll please… George W. Bush! Sure, it isn’t much of a surprise, given that this was Barack’s number one move in getting elected in the first place (followed closely by the hope-change two-step). But the logic behind this accusation is simply non-existent. A Republican doesn’t win, especially not in Massachusetts, due to anger against another Republican. Most democrats have figured this out, notably Senators Evan Bayh and Jim Webb, who have called for slowing down the process on the health care bill.

According to most polling, the health care bill was a primary reason why Scott Brown won. He won because he promised to vote against the bill which President Obama continues to push. By Barack’s logic, if a bill does get passed, George Bush should be blamed (or credited) for that as well.

A transcript of Barack Obama’s interview can be found here.

Additionally, Charles Krauthammer and Jonah Goldberg have some interesting, informative, and humorous things to say in reaction to Scott Brown’s election, and Barack’s subsequent interview.

The climate is changing. It always has been, and it always will be.  The question that drives discussion on environmental policy of late is, “What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the huge changes that some politicians support in the name of combating climate change, it is important to take a critical look at this question. While I know that you may have heard that the scientific community has reached a consensus on this question, let us take a look – you may be surprised.

Carbon and the Climate

The theory behind anthropogenic (human-induced) climate change is that CO₂ emissions are causing a rampant increase in global temperature. Thus far, proponents of this theory have largely succeeded in making the public believe that this is an undisputed fact among the scientific community. The truth is, many notable climatologists and other scientists dispute this scientific hypothesis. To name a few:

1.     The Polish Academy of Sciences [1], who submitted a letter discussing ten problems with the theory of anthropogenic climate change.

2.     Princeton Physicist Dr. William Happer [2], who testified before Senate in February that current climate models are inherently flawed.

3.     Ivar Giaever, Norwegian Nobel Prize winner [3].

4.     Dr. John Cristy, a lead author of the U.N.’s original IPCC report in 2001 [4].

5.    Over 700 scientists according to a list provided by the U.S. Government [5].

Clearly, it would be inaccurate to claim that there is a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change. All of these scientists provide theories of their own regarding human activity and the causes and effects of an increased level of CO₂ in the atmosphere. It is understandable to see so many differing views; since even the climate models that predict runaway warming cannot agree on its role.

The climate models that do predict global warming provide an estimated increase in temperature of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius by year 2100. These models require hundreds of assumptions – one of them being carbon’s role in regulating the climate. As Dr. Happer explains in his senate testimony though, about 90% of the “greenhouse effect” on earth is due to water vapor, not CO₂. The role of CO₂ is much smaller. According to Dr. Happer, it could cause at most a 1 degree Celsius increase in global temperature. He explains:

“There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO₂ concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO₂ will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO₂ in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can.”[6]

Dr. Happer continues to explain that models currently used rely on the assumption that small increases in CO₂ levels will lead to increased levels of water vapor in the atmosphere, causing runaway warming. However, empirical evidence has shown this correlation to close to zero of even negative[7].

Whether or not you agree with Dr. Happer, he and other renowned scientists contend that anthropogenic climate change does not pose a serious threat. Indeed, even climate models disagree. Climate models which assume a positive correlation between CO₂ and water vapor predict a temperature increases of anywhere from two degrees Celsius to nine degrees Celsius. What role does human activity plays in climate change?” Based on the evidence, it is pretty clear that we do not know. With that being said, let’s look at the cost of the proposed legislation on climate change, which is currently stalled in the Senate.

The Waxman-Markey Bill

The Waxman-Markey bill, touted as “transformational legislation,” would require the U.S. to reduce emissions of CO₂ and other gases by 17 percent within the next 10 years and by 80 percent before 2050. Should the bill pass through the Senate, the government will use a “cap and trade” system to regulate the emission of CO₂. Essentially, the government will issue permits to emit CO₂, which can then be traded from companies that pollute less to companies that pollute more. The end result should be a level of emissions equal to the “cap” that is set. The main issues in this bill are the effects on the monetary system, and the effects on the climate. So before a judgment is made about this bill, let’s look at who pays, who profits, and what happens to the climate as a result.

As with most government policies, U.S. citizens will foot the bill. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that this bill will cost the average household $175 per year, mainly from an increase in the price of carbon based fuels. Due to a series of provisions within the bill, the poorest 20 percent of Americans will actually benefit, making $40 per year due to this bill [8]. In addition to the direct cost to taxpayers, the “cap and trade” system will increase manufacturing costs, and provide incentive for companies to move manufacturing plants overseas to areas with lower energy costs, which would likely result in increased unemployment.

Where does this money go? That should be obvious – to the bureaucracy! According to the same CBO report, the bill would increase federal revenue by $845 billion over the coming decade, with estimated expenditures related to the bill weighing in at $821 billion [9]. There are several interpretations of what this means. One interpretation is the creative New York Times headline that the climate bill “would trim budget deficit.” Such an interpretation is accurate if the budgeting assumptions are valid, but also terribly misleading. This bill calls for an increase in spending of $82.1 billion per year. To put that into perspective, the AIG bailout of last August was $85 billion. This bill is essentially another one of those every year so that our government can regulate the emission of invisible gases.

Now despite the large costs involved, proponents of the bill claim that the cost is worth the benefit of reducing carbon emissions. The climate models cited by the proponents of the bill predict a rise of anywhere from two to nine degrees Celsius over the next century. Similar models predict the impact of the House’s climate bill to be a drop of 0.05 degrees Celsius by 2050[10]. Simply put, even if these climate models are indeed accurate, then this bill will do virtually nothing to change the warming trend. However, by 2050, this bill will have cost us $3,000,000,000,000 ($3 trillion) to change the global temperature increase from 3 degrees Celsius to 2.95 degrees.

Climate in the Real World

While the United States may look to self-flagellate itself through the Waxman-Markey bill, other countries will not do the same. With one third of the world’s population residing in China and India, both countries are going through rapid economic growth. Economic growth is inextricably tied to cheap energy consumption, and hence CO₂ emissions. China’s emissions of CO₂ have increased at a rate of 11% over the past five years, and are expected to continue at a similar rate [11]. These emissions will counteract any cooling effects the Waxman-Markey bill may have.

Even if we take the apocalyptic approach, the Waxman-Markey bill still does not make sense. Geoengineers have already devised several methods of cooling earth, some of which involve ejecting particles like sulfates into earth’s atmosphere to reflect sunlight [12]. This solution lacks appeal to environmentalists, but the result is that humans would see little effect from any warming that does occur. These methods are hundreds of times cheaper than the forced reinvention of the American economy.

In the past, the earth has been warmer, and it has also been cooler. There have been Ice Ages as well as warm periods, when Greenland was actually green. While it is easy to think that we live in extraordinary times, we do not. Our economy and our energy will become more sustainable over time, but we do not need to force the fact before it becomes economically viable.

Money and How to Waste It

For the sake of clarity, here’s what the Waxman-Markey bill does in real terms:

1. Takes a lot of money from 80% of Americans

2. Gives some of that money to the poorest 20% of Americans.

3. Uses the rest to create a huge government agency that monitors and attempts to regulate the emission of an invisible gas.

4. Creates cost incentives that will drive industry elsewhere, as unemployment continues to rise.

5. All of this is done in hopes that we can cool the planet by a 1/20^th of a degree over 40 years.

Clean and domestic energy are worthwhile goals, no one can dispute that. But, in typical government fashion, this bill goes about “achieving” those two goals in the most convoluted and inefficient way possible. This huge sum of money – about $12,000 per person – over 40 years should not be taken in the first place. The $3 Trillion could be used to directly fund clean energy research and technology. It could be used to build more nuclear power plants to provide cheap and clean electricity. It could be used to reduce the huge deficit built by President Obama and his predecessor. Instead, this bill is directly transferring wealth from citizen to citizen, and being used to fund yet another massive federal bureaucracy. To cap it all off, it will do essentially nothing to change the climate. It is but another example of political negligence.

---

[1] Kevin Mooney, Washington Examiner, 4/24/2009. (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/Examiner-Opinion-Zone/Polish-Academy-of-Sciences-Questions-Gores-Man-Made-Global-Warming-Theory-43618922.html)

[2] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[3] Christina Reed, Nature, 7/15/2008. (http://blogs.nature.com/climatefeedback/2008/07/nobelists_talk_energy.html)

[4] Jon Birger, Fortune Magazine, 5/14/2009. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/05/14/magazines/fortune/globalwarming.fortune/index.htm)

[5] Marc Morano, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, 12/11/2008. (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674E64F-802A-23AD-490B-BD9FAF4DCDB7)

[6] Dr. William Happer, U.S. Senate Testimony, 2/25/2009. (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/happer_senate_testimony.html)

[7] Dr. Roy Spencer, Earth System Science Center, 2/28/2008. (http://www.drroyspencer.com/Spencer-and-Braswell-08.pdf)

[8] Steven Mufson, Washington Post, 6/23/2009. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/22/AR2009062202836.html)

[9] Darren Samuelsohn, New York Times, 6/8/2009. (http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/06/08/08climatewire-house-climate-bill-would-trim-budget-deficit-83573.html)

[10] Chip Knappenberger, MasterResource.org, 5/6/2009. (http://masterresource.org/?p=2355)

[11] Univ. Of California – Berkeley, 3/10/2008. (http://www.physorg.com/news124384270.html)

[12] Jamais Cascio, The Wall Street Journal, 6/15/2009. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204771304574181522575503150.html

The debate over health care reform is ugly, and the victims are the American people. We have a 2000+ page bill which most legislators have not even read. Health care reform is being held back by partisan quibbles that have only gotten worse as the sides have polarized.

The heart of bipartisanship is compromise by meeting in the middle. Inherently, each side must give up a little if they want to get anything. The problem with the way compromise has manifested in this debate is that each side has gutted their opponent’s reforms. Democrats have eliminated tort reform and won’t allow insurance to be sold across state lines. The public option has been neutered to the point where it will hardly cover anyone. The polarization is so great that an olive branch is no longer possible. The bill doesn’t contain provisions to prevent illegal immigrants from getting free health care. Republicans say that means illegal immigrants are covered. Democrats say that means they’re not. Nothing gets done.

The path to compromise is revolting to most, but it must be done. The trigger to the public option is the key to an effective bipartisan bill.

Rather than have both sides cannibalize the reforms of the other, let’s split the bill in two parts. The first part is the Republican reforms, to fix the system we have. The second is the Democratic reforms, most notably a robust public option to throw the current system out. The third and most crucial part is the trigger.

The Republican part of the bill can fix the current system in a way that’s not been tried before. The state of health care has gotten steadily worse. The only tested solutions have been more regulation and bigger government. Even the reforms proposed by Republicans are compromised. Everyone wants to cover more of the uninsured. The free market way of doing that would make the market freer, so costs could drop and more people can choose to buy health care. The Republican reforms can include tort reform and deregulation of insurance plans.

Health insurance companies are monopolies. No, really. The Supreme Court ruled it is perfectly within Congress’s power to bust them, but Congress has been too frail to act. They wanted to improve insurance companies by letting them grow big, so that they can take advantage of the economies of scale. The problem is that the free market fails to be free in this scenario. Choice decreases, competition decreases, and prices skyrocket. Americans spend over twice as much on health care than any other country. Without this reform, any effort to increase competition is a joke. Free market idealists argue that the market should take care of this, but it has not occurred yet.

Interestingly, the lack of reform has been supported by the Democrats. When Hillary Clinton tried to get major health care reform passed during her husband’s administration, the industry funded the famous Harry and Louise ads that helped ruin public opinion and sink reform. Clinton learned her lesson and made a deal with the devil.

The Democratic part of the bill can be whatever they want. If they want to reduce drug patent life, tax small business, or punish drug company execs, let them do it. They can make a robust public option: Medicare for all, available even if you already have insurance.

The trick is where the two bills get sewn together. Both sides can work together to agree when the judgment has been made. The threat of the public option will also incentivize the industry to fix things.

Democrats and Republicans are in the mindset of a doctor. They’ve taken the Hippocratic oath to “Do no harm.” Legislators need to realize they are not doctors. The heart of my bipartisan bill is this: let the other side hurt the American people, because my reforms will be here to catch them. The Democrats believe the Republican reforms will be disastrous. Don’t worry about it. If you’re right, you’ve just proven them wrong, and you can catch them with the soft and fluffy public option and gloat all around town. Republicans think the current system isn’t beyond repair. So repair it. Then you’ll never have to trigger the public option and you’ve just proven the socialists wrong. Find me a better nail in the coffin for Obama’s reelection.

Effective compromise is built on agreement. As much as everyone disagrees, they share one common belief that can never be shaken, “I’m right and you’re wrong.” I feel healthier already.

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.

Recently, Lehigh invited Paul Gorski an interesting academic concerned with the issues of social equity and justice that face our schools today. Be satisfied that this was not another counselor’s lecture on the importance of equality or cultural awareness. Rather, students and faculty were treated to an aggressive, no nonsense style that cut nicely through the bureaucratic nonsense that surrounds the pursuit of social justice. Mr. Gorski delivered sound killing arguments to a few educational traditions that are outmoded and detrimental to the cause of social justice.

Events celebrating diversity or cultural competence initiatives attempt to educate majority populations about the existence and distinctness of minority populations celebrating diversity. The trouble, as Mr. Gorski points out, is that institutions use these events to cover their obligation of promoting diversity and equality while sweeping its own bias under the rug in a celebration of what are ultimately pithy and stereotypical minimalizations of ethnic minorities. The result is a classic example of treating the symptom not the problem.

Mr. Gorski also notes an approach he describes as the human relations approach, which seeks to bridge cultural and sociological barriers with structured opportunities for learning and dialogue. A common example of this might be to gather groups of different minority and majority ethnicities, differing genders, or different orientations together to confront the issues faced by the disadvantaged group. Though this approach represents an improvement over the more superficial methods mentioned earlier, it does not address the more deep-seated issue of institutional bias.

Mr. Gorski then moved to talk about a differing model of diversity development, which can be characterized as institutional awareness and activism. Where the other options present us with bottom up approaches of students or employees being educated to diffuse bigotry, this approach sees the best opportunity for progress to come from top down direction of the institution. Mr. Gorski outlined three main points which build on this second plan:

1. Institutional commitment to creating an anti-racist, anti-sexist, etc. agenda and atmosphere.
2. Continual assessment of circumstances, instead of the passing interest shown by most institutions.
3. Full guaranteed access to cultural, social, political opportunities for all students.

These goals, while apparently imperative as read, are generally enacted half-heartedly by institutions which find that these goals come into conflict with their own goals and interests. Institutions have a number of reasons for resisting these goals which vary in terms of their validity but should all be understood to be blocking the progress of social justice.

From a standpoint of fundamental right and authority, an institution gets into trouble by taking a stance of hostility towards bigots in creating a non-discriminatory campus. The institution finds itself toeing the very rule of openness and equality that it claims as motivation for such enforcement. While it can be generally agreed that there can be no sympathy for discrimination, the institution still is sluggish to act in a way that may be self-contradicting. As the university would be treating people differently based on their beliefs it finds itself walking into a catch-22. This is most notable in the case of gay rights where the freedoms of religion and expression come into conflict. However, it is also a concern with any social justice concern where there is some justification for the actions or opinions of both parties.

To prosecute these directives to the extent prescribed by Mr. Gorski the University will also be willfully creating conflict over an issue where before there was the appearance of health and good feelings. Even though there may be ethnic or gender based tensions, as long as there is no complaint or scene the University assumes a ‘don’t fix what isn’t broken’ policy. Although such action is a blatant ignorance of the actual situation for minority groups on campus, to the university’s credit, such a policy does reduce the risk of increasing tension or discomfort through misbegotten action which could be detrimental to both minority and majority populations.

These policies also can conflict with the university’s stated goals. The second point Mr. Gorski outlined was brought up in reference to the importance of creating a more socially just campus as a constant strategic objective. The issue is that this ultimately consumes administrative resources that could be otherwise put toward improving the institution for all students in much the same way as prosecuting policy to make the campus anti-bigoted would consume university resources. When faced with such a decision of committing resources to the campus as a whole or to the equality issues of the minority it’s not surprising that the universities stop treatment of bigotry as soon as the symptoms disappear.

This brings us into what is probably the biggest problem for an institution when it comes to prosecuting social justice with the effectiveness of which Mr. Gorski speaks. Mr. Gorski admirably addresses this problem head on saying, “Achieving social justice cannot be democratic.” The problem of social justice in modern society is mostly about the awarding of rights and power to minority populations who do not have the political power under a fully democratic system to gain such rights. Mr. Gorski’s argument, in defiance of every establishmentarian, is based in the idea that though some popular action will come about to right the most egregious wrongs of our society, those that do not present themselves publically but instead are apparent to only the minority they subjugate will go untreated. Mr. Gorski supports this assertion with the statistic that “in 1919, the year before women were awarded the right to vote, a survey found that 34^% of the American Population and 42^% of women supported women’s suffrage.” This statistic faces us with significant moral implications: that despite their best interest a minority population would willingly refuse a right such as voting indicates that the challenge of social justice may be nearly as much a matter of changing the minds of the minority as the majority.

Gorski’s position here is also troubling as non-democratic decision making, though more efficient and often more enlightened, often fails to account for the more nuanced preferences of the population which it seeks to serve. Gorski speaks often of the necessity of making people and institutions uncomfortable for the sake of change on these issues. He is right that the question left unanswered is when such initiatives should be pursued. But how many people must hold a belief to constitute a defendable minority? How offended must one person or group be before their rights are officially trespassed? Traditionally these questions are answered by the provisionally democratic administration. But if they are not to approach these issues democratically, then how should they fairly judge such matters? The questions are not easily answered, but should not be reason to dismiss Mr. Gorski’s position, as they do not reflect wrongness on his part. These questions instead should challenge us to consider the issue in a new light, for further democratic discussion, as we know no better way.