http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_654237.html

Whether they want to admit it or not, the supporters of alternative energy rely on the threat of oil scarcity to sway people who really do not care if the Earth’s average temperature rises 1°F in 100 years.  This article purports that the claim our oil wells will dry up in about 1o to 30 years is not only unfounded but also has been repeated for the last 80 years.

 This reminds me of the conspiracy theory that oil is not limited but instead is constantly being created deep in the Earth and oozes up from tectonic plates. Since that science is a little shaky, I’ll do my best to stay away from that and other conspiracy theories.

Our world runs on oil, gas, and coal. To deny that is ignorant. I do not suggest we drop all research into alternative energy, but to set unreachable goals for “energy independence” (double talk for non-fossil fuels; true energy independence would be domestic drilling) is foolish.

More people are demanding more energy than ever before and the “green” technology is not affordable or efficient. With the leaked CRU documents putting conciderable doubt on anthropogenic global warming and new, large oil deposits continuously being found with improving technology, I wonder why we are allocating so much tax money to alternative energy. For example, GE got billions from TARP and other federal sources to make wind turbines (Made in China) and install them. Wait, aren’t GE and Obama best friends?

Right, no conspiracy theories.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/11/the_us_house_of_presumptuous_meddlers_99099.html

Many young people, such as college students, do not worry about the implications of health care. We aren’t concerned by it because we don’t think that we’ll get sick. In fact, the exorbitant numbers we always here about how many Americans that don’t have health insurance are probably inflated just because of how many young people choose not to have it. They could afford it but choose not to because they don’t plan on getting sick, as a senior citizen would.
Even if we only have to tap into the health care system when we are older, we should be aware of what is happening in the Capitol building. No good can come of government takeover of health care. We as students need to be awake to these frightening realities.

Upon reading this editorial in the Washington Examiner, I was genuinely surprised about recent polls released about women’s views on health care. The bottom line is that more women would oppose a large health care overhaul with a public option than support it.

Keep in mind that women typically vote Democratic and the woman vote was not insignificant in Obama’s move to the White House.

Between having more medical procedures done and a typical man’s refusal to see a doctor even after a finger or two are missing, women have more exposure to the health care system. The poll revealed that women would prefer private options opposed to one public option, whether because of a fall in quality or a rise in price. Most are happy with what they have and worry that funding a public option would fall on their children’s shoulders.

According to the poll, women do want a decrease in the cost of insurance (who doesn’t) and a reduction of “artificial roadblocks to a more competitive and efficient private health care system.”

That is something I can agree with.

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.

As the Dow marked a psychological rebound at 10,000, few analysts were quick to verify this achievement. With an unemployment rate heading for 10% and no clear connection to revenue, the 10,000 mark might just be an artifact of a much bigger picture.

Internationally, the dollar is suffering, exchanging at only €0.67, almost a split from a 2001 high of €1.20.¹ Nationally, banks are still suffering, with Bank of America reporting a one billion dollar loss; real estate demand is dwindling with record lows in rent; and companies are only exceeding earnings by cutting costs.

In this climate of rising futility, weak markets, and unpredictable demand, companies are becoming increasingly cutthroat in their competitive strategies. Businesses are responding to decreasing market size with more aggressive strategies to demolish their competitors through hostile competition, mergers and acquisitions, and unethical behavior. A look into a few companies emphasizes this point.

Head-to-head, Amazon and Walmart are engaging in airline style price wars with books. Cutting bestsellers from the typical $25 to $10, Amazon thought they could out-price Walmart. Think again. Walmart, known as a cost leader, cut the price to $9, and when they were matched by Amazon, went down another penny to $8.99 a copy.^{2 In the same context, Microsoft sought to challenge Apple in the retail arena by opening two Microsoft retail stores. These stores will function as near replicas of Apple stores, selling high-tech gadgets and software packages licensed by Microsoft. They will even copy the Genius Bar, Apple’s signature customer service and repair center at the back of every store.3}

Top-to-bottom, Oracle offered to buy Sun Microsystems for $7.4 billion in order to compete directly with IBM as a one-stop-shop for big business IT solutions.⁴ Bloomberg bought BusinessWeek to expand its information clutch on the magazine channel.⁵ These big buys were financed by the industry of continual mergers: banking. With JP Morgan connecting with Chase and TD enveloping Ameritrade and Commerce, it’s hard to get anyone’s name straight.

Unethically, Toys ‘R’ Us is under FTC review for using market forces to hike the price of strollers and breast pumps.⁶ Likewise the SEC has recently identified the largest insider trading ring in a century.

In this environment of ultra-competitive forces, companies and watchdogs need to step back and observe the long-term results of their actions. Will this competitive behavior end the recession? Is it best for us and our customers?

In most cases the answer is a clear ‘no.’ In the long run, consumers and producers will both lose. As companies increase cutthroat competitive tactics, they will decrease long-term profits. If you make the seas red, no one wins. Customers will lose choice and quality while companies will lose capital and positive PR.

In the case of book selling, Walmart and Amazon will have to sell below cost and will discourage publishers from selling through their channels. For Microsoft, they will create channel conflict with their nearby retailers and increase costs for the customers, since retailing is not their core competency. Oracle will minimize the functional number of customer combinations from nine (e.g. IBM + Oracle, Oracle + Other, or IBM + IBM) to two: either IBM or Oracle. This will decrease the market capacity for their software product while increasing the risk of gaining market-share since Sun + Oracle is not a well-established combination. Finally, the losers will lose – unethical business practices never get companies ahead. Toys ‘R’ Us will end up paying in the jugs for their breast pump price fixing.

In this zero-sum game, there is only one way to get ahead and win in the long run: ignore the rules. Instead of buying into the U.S. magazine market, Bloomberg could offer a hybrid terminal with a magazine feel. This would create a “blue ocean” of uncontested market space. Instead of trying to find more ways to sell products with bugs and overheating Xboxes, Microsoft should focus on developing an operating system that is not vulnerable to viruses. Banks might even be able to do more than clean their balance sheets by offering investment products to small companies.

Taking this theory out to the market, analysts see a bleak future because companies are hollowing out. They are trading cost-cutting strategies for revenue-building approaches. Instead of expanding their intellectual property they are selling it below its true value. When we can learn to step off the battlefield, our market will stabilize.

Sources:
1 – http://www.x-rates.com/d/EUR/USD/graph120.html
2 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704322004574477050954174722.html
3 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125582090441392365.html
4 – http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/10/15/ellison-oracle-wont-be-seventh-in-services/
5 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704107204574473382444906054.html
6 – http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125573656435491057.html

Photo credits to Young Americans for Liberty
It seems that Obama still has the fan-boy crush he enjoyed while campaigning for presidency.  His latest admirers?  the Nobel Committee.  In their decision, they noted “Only rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given it better hope for the future.”  Obama’s broad campaign slogans of Hope and Change have become empty shells of their former meanings.

When Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prizes, he specified a peace prize, based on “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses”.  Despite Obama’s overtures to foreign nations, he still posts two glaring failures in the Middle East.  Despite a draw-down in forces in Iraq, Afghanistan has seen increased troop levels over the past nine months.  Furthermore, our efforts in Afghanistan are futile; replacing one corrupt dictatorship with one corrupt puppet government does little to further peace in the world.

In addition to Obama’s continued nation-building abroad, he has done little to maintain peace at home. With the Patriot Act still in full effect, Guantanamo Bay getting little more than a name change, and an escalating police state the notion of “peace” is further away than it was nine months ago. In the wake of Governmental actions such as A woman facing jail time for buying cold medicine or People being charged with Obstruction of Justice for using Twitter to communicate poilce actions during the G20 protests, America has grown from land of the free home of the brave to land of the oppressed home of the cowards.

Was the Nobel Prize a consolation to Obama for not getting the Olympics in Chicago?  Maybe not, but his actions are hardly fitting of a Nobel-Prize winner; let alone a President who has been in office for only nine months. Only after a full term in office, where Obama’s overtures have been met with success should he have been awarded such a prize. The Nobel Peace Prize should have been given to a nominee who has actually accomplished tangible peace; or at the very least did more than do political grandstanding to accomplish “change.”
CNN

More sensationalist take on the subject

The question posed to our editorial staff was: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Read their responses below.

Benjamin Mumma, Class of 2010

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

Brandon Sherman, Class of 2010

Two words: Public option.  Note that this modest, hardly even progressive measure does not amount to a “government takeover” of health care.  Actually, I wish it did, but it doesn’t even come close.  Save for curbing some of the most outrageous abuses of the private insurance industry, President Obama’s health care plan will leave this market largely unchanged.

A public insurance option accomplishes two indispensible goals of reform by lowering costs and increasing coverage.  If every American had the option of a public insurance plan, private insurers would be compelled to lower their premiums in order to remain competitive.  Compared to the rising cost of premiums in the status quo, this measure would provide an effective tax cut for all Americans.  The choice of public insurance would also provide coverage for many of the 30 million Americans who currently can’t afford it.

Costs will only come down, however, if health reform includes an individual mandate – a requirement that all Americans purchase health insurance.  This rubs many libertarians the wrong way, but it shouldn’t.  Even those who are convinced of their invincibility will fall ill.  Those individuals push the cost of their care onto the rest of society, and their absence from the ranks of the insured hurts the bargaining power of individuals to demand lower premiums from their insurance providers.  Even then-Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney advocated the implementation of an individual mandate as a matter of “personal responsibility.”

If these measures bring down costs, increase choice and competition and compel Americans to exercise greater personal responsibility, why is there so much opposition on the right?  Easy.  Republicans are using the playbook from 1993 – the last time they killed health care reform.  As in the case of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, welfare-state programs inherently undermine the GOP’s knee-jerk “no-government-is-good-government” position.  In 1993, opposition to health care reform was shrewd political strategy.  In 2009, the situation is no different.

Trevor Drummond, Class of 2010

On the eve of Ted Kennedy’s death, after I finished a glass of my favorite brut and lit some scented candles (outside the dorms, of course…), I reflected on the life and legacy of the deceased Lion of the Senate, who is now being propped-up post-mortem, like a gangly overweight puppet and paraded about as a means to finance an ill-conceived health care “reform” package that is more agenda-ridden then, well… most of the things that Teddy ever touched.

The fact is, the liberal stronghold (a figurehead of power as they’ve recently proven, with their so-called supermajority and no way to pass anything meaningful other than flag-waiving and blame-chasing resolutions) has toted their socialization of medicine package as reform, and chastised those who don’t care to see their doctor become yet another supplicant of the state as against reform.

This is both wrong and immoral.  And, incidentally, I should address morality, as I was asked a very popular question while debating this very topic at Lehigh last year.  I was asked if I put costs or means or anything else ahead of care, and given yet another sob story on someone who was “lost in the system” and died young.

I replied that, yes, I do believe in picking “who shall live,” but it’s not with government panels and legislation, but with common sense.

At present, while I agree that the scope and nature of the term “preexisting condition” needs to be reviewed, those who smoke or are overweight, or use illegal substances are subject to additional tariffs and, in some cases, die from their disorders from a subsequent inability to pay.

I’d frankly rather see the obese or maligned die in small numbers, than face a government who (in an attempt to be brutally fair) will banish snack foods, sugar, cigarettes (I like to consider them a form of blue collar population control), and of course, the lovely glass of bubbly that I’m enjoying as I push my Matchbox cars off the surface of my desk into a pail of water, reflecting again on the life and legacy of Ted Kennedy.  And I don’t want to stop those who eat to excess or smoke from celebrating their freedom and doing it, so long as they don’t force their burden onto me.

We need reform.  We need health care providers to have certain restrictions on this “preexisting conditions” crap that is so often used to prevent paying customers from receiving care, and we need tort reform to reduce the costs of that care.  We don’t need 150% Medicare-grade cost overruns and “public health initiatives” in the form of more restrictions on our foods and habits.  After all, wasn’t it the liberals who chastised me for questioning what someone can do (or eat, or smoke, as the case may be) in the privacy of their home?

Question: What should a Health Care Reform bill look like?

Our current system isn’t perfect. But no system is. Our system is great for those who have it, which is evidenced by the high percentage of people in polls who like their current insurer. For people who don’t have insurance though, our system relies on their ability to pay up front for expensive procedures, obtain emergency care for free, or go without treatment.

To remedy this, democrats have a variety of proposals at the ready. All of them look to reduce the number of people who live without insurance. This isn’t a bad goal, but as usual the political methods being proposed are nothing short of atrocious. Republican have, rightly, opposed such proposals due to prohibitively high costs, and for the simple reason that the government should be in the health insurance industry.

But there are things the government can do to fix our health care system with the tools they should have available. Tort reform would be a great start. The current system forces doctors to practice defensive medicine – performing extra tests in case of lawsuit. According to the Pacific Research Institute, this process costs over $200 billion a year. While a system is needed to compensate patients who were wronged, the current system is for the benefit of the lawyers more than it is for the patient’s benefit.

Tort reform would be simple, effective, and popular. But politics is getting in the way. The result is a bill that will make health care in the United States worse, not better. Other changes could be made alongside tort reform: allow insurance policies to be purchased across state lines, and allow individually purchased plans to be tax exempt just as employer purchased plans are.

These solutions are out there, and they can work. But they are being drowned out by irrational ranting on both sides. Un-American protesters and death panels aside, there are real improvements to the health care system out there, and they need all the support they can get.

To Discuss this issue, please see all three of our editor’s viewpoints, and comment here.