Archive for March, 2010

Gentleman on Campus: UVA Holds a Contest

Monday, March 29th, 2010

Would the Founding Fathers Approve of Healthcare Reform?

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Shortly before the House voted to pass the healthcare reform bill, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stood on the floor of the chamber, praised past social reforms like Medicare and Social Security and “now, tonight, health care for all Americans. In doing so, we will honor the vows of our founders who, in the Declaration of Independence, said, ‘We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. Among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’ ”

For opponents of the healthcare bill, using Thomas Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence as justification for government takeover of the healthcare industry is just as sad as it is ironic. It is sad because on Sunday night, Pelosi and 218 of her colleagues in the House acted on their gross misinterpretation of that great founding document. But the question that all should be asking is whether or not the Founding Fathers would approve of the healthcare bill.

Simply put, the answer is a resounding “No.” For any student of the political thought of the American founding, the exercise of power by the Democrats in Congress and President Obama is enough to warrant another revolution. Where classrooms once taught that the British parliament circa 1763 is the foremost example of misuse of power and the dangers of disregarding the constitution, one now need look no further than the 111th Congress.

Yes, the process was bad. Deals were struck and bribes were made. Congressional leaders arm twisted and moderate Democrats caved. But if the Founding Fathers were alive today, those would only be minor issues. For in the grand scheme of things, what the Democrats accomplished was not a mere piece of legislation or the overhaul of a huge sector in the economy. It was getting away with a tyranny of the majority with the complete disregard to the American voter.

It was the tyranny of the majority that passed legislation that expands the powers of government more than any other since the 1960s, and all in an openly corrupt, dishonest, yet unapologetic manner. Worse still, the process exemplified the fact that to Democrats, government is an entity entirely separate from the will of the people and can in fact, be opposed to it.

The philosopher John Locke- who was a source of inspiration for many of the Founders- wrote in his Second Treatise on Government that government is derived from men in the state of nature voluntarily agreeing to form an authority to execute the laws of nature. And that is essentially, where the idea comes from that government gets its powers from the “consent of the governed.”

James Wilson- a Founding Father who signed the Declaration of Independence and was one of the original six members of the U.S. Supreme Court – wrote in 1791 that it was the business of the federal government to protect rights, and that under a properly functioning government, people would be more free than they would be in the state of nature. Of course, that concept is hard to grasp because the argument could be made that a perfect government has never existed. Nevertheless, it is still a valid point that deserves consideration in today’s political climate. Does this healthcare reform bill leave Americans more free?

In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson wrote that voluntary associations and relations among people were a major cornerstone of any Republican society. The healthcare bill however, does not allow for voluntary relationships. It demands, among other things, that individuals pay for health care for fellow citizens.

Thus it is fair to say that the healthcare bill itself, and the way in which it was passed would not sit well with Jefferson, Wilson, or any other of the attendees of the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and American revolutionaries. Government, in its correct form, should exist to protect individual rights. But by interfering in the economy and forcing individuals to buy health insurance, the government is doing nothing but violating rights.

Moreover, the Founders created a Democratic Republic for many reasons; one of them being that they wanted above all, to ensure that the rights and will of the minority were not trampled.

With the battle over healthcare reform however, Democrats, led by Nancy Pelosi, managed to pass legislation despite the very serious, genuine, and legitimate objections raised by their Republican colleagues and the unfavorable opinion of the bill from the American public. The Democrats have been clear- public opinion and the rights of the minority do not matter. Is there now no recourse for the tyranny of the majority?

Some say that the late Sunday-night vote in the House was a historic moment. They are right. It was a defining moment in U.S. history that will forever impact the freedom and liberties of future generations. The country came to a fork in the road, and Congress went left. So where does the country go from here?

Megan McArdle, econo-blogger at The Atlantic, explains it best: “The check that we have is that politicians care what the voters think. If that slips away, America’s already quite toxic politics will become poisonous.” In other words, if politicians can get away with misleading the American people and then ignoring them, America will no longer be the country the Founding Fathers created.

It might be time for another speech from Patrick Henry; or maybe a pamphlet or two by Thomas Paine.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Reforming No Child Left Behind: Is President Obama Up to the Task?

Tuesday, March 16th, 2010

Obama may or may not be trying to scare the American people into thinking the federal government must take over if the education system is going to be saved, but he does have plenty of reasons to want to start over with No Child Left Behind (NCLB).

NCLB, an initiative that was put forth by President George W. Bush and signed into law in January 2002, was based on the theory that setting measureable goals and standards for each grade would improve among other things, testing scores in public schools.

Eight years later, NCLB has largely proven to be one massive failure. The act only resulted in increased federal government spending in education by billions of dollars, the illusion of school choice, no real punishment for failing schools, and the introduction of standardized testing as the ultimate litmus test for success or failure.

So President Obama is right when he says NCLB has got to go. However, that promise would be a lot more comforting if the president didn’t already have an abysmal track record when it comes to education.

Consider the DC voucher program, for example. The program, which was authorized by Congress in 2004, gave qualified students up to $7,500 to attend private or charter schools in the district, allowing them the chance to escape some of the worst public schools in the nation. The program almost immediately became a success among students, educators, and parents alike.

For perhaps the first time, low-income students in the District of Columbia were given the opportunity to attend better schools. Yet last April, President Obama, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and the Democrats in Congress changed all that.

When the program first began, Congress made funding past the 2009-2010 school year dependent on re-authorization by Congress and the D.C. Council. So, Duncan decided to inform families that since there was no guarantee that the program would exist a year from now, it would be better to not allow any new participants.

Thus, letters were sent out to 200 families who had just gotten into the program, notifying them their scholarship was being rescinded. Of course, in doing so, he also effectively killed the program before it could get any kind of a fair hearing. This was all done of course, with the president’s approval.

Next came Obama’s community college initiative- a plan that was proposed last summer. In it, Obama called for $12 billion of taxpayer money to be invested in community colleges, and an increase in Pell grants for low-income students. To pay for this, a bill was passed on September 17, 2009, that effectively cancels all government subsidies to private lenders making college loans. Instead, the federal government has taken over as lender.

There are many reasons why that bill and the community college initiative are disturbing to free marketers. Not only do they increase government spending and intervention in education, it also tries to make college more accessible by making it easier for prospective students to obtain loans. That same tactic was tried once before with prospective homebuyers.

Reforming NCLB is the next item President Obama has set his eyes on in his overhaul of the education system. His plan involves dividing schools into three categories that are something along the line of “Excellent,” “Good,” and “Poor.” The better a school is, the more it is allowed to be completely autonomous and innovative. Poor schools are punished with strict government control and oversight until improvements are made.

The task now is for Obama to convince Congress that his plan is better than NCLB- which shouldn’t be hard to do. Almost anything would be an improvement over Bush’s initiative. But while the change in education law is likely to occur, given Obama’s record with education reform it remains doubtful whether any actual improvements will take place.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Why Health Reform is Bad Politics

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Lost and Found: Young Republican Enthusiasm

Friday, March 12th, 2010

McDonald v Chicago: Its Implications and Ramifications

Monday, March 8th, 2010

Last week, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in McDonald v. Chicago, a unique gun-rights case that has the potential to change years of bad legal precedent. Not only will the case decide whether the Heller v. D.C. decision in 2008 will apply to states, but also whether it can be via the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment, which was added to the Constitution in 1868, was intended to prevent the states from violating individual rights. At the time, the Bill of Rights only bound the federal government, and Southern states and localities in the Reconstruction Era were finding it difficult to treat the newly freed slaves as U.S. citizens or recognize all the rights that that status entails.

The Privileges and Immunities Clause, which is of particular importance in the McDonald case says that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

One of those privileges or immunities is the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms. But like the Bill of Rights, the 2nd Amendment only applies to the federal government. However, because the Privileges and Immunities clause was grossly misinterpreted only a few years after its ratification, most of the Bill of Rights has had to be incorporated to the states via due process.

But by trying to incorporate the Heller decision to the states through the Privileges and Immunities clause, Alan Gura, the lawyer arguing the case, is trying to restore the clause back to its original intent.

While it appears likely that the people of Chicago will soon be able to obtain handguns, it doesn’t look as though the Supreme Court will embrace the idea of reversing more than a hundred years of bad legal precedent by restoring the Privileges clause. Even Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia- who recently restored the freedom of speech with their decision in Citizens United v FEC- seemed skeptical about doing so.

But the questions that are at stake in McDonald v Chicago are more fundamental and philosophical than whether or not a city can ban guns. At its core, the case tests the bounds of federalism.

If the states are sovereign and independent entities that can govern as they see fit, how much can the fed really force them to do? Or in other words, should the federal government be able to force the states to recognize rights? The answer is yes, but only under certain conditions.

For the federal government to be able to force states to recognize a specific right, that right must be fundamental, essential to liberty, and easily identifiable and definable. The test that determines that comes from the 1997 case, Washington v Glucksberg.

In that case, the Supreme Court decided that the right to assisted suicide is not covered by the Due Process Clause. Why? Because assisted suicide is not deeply rooted in our nation’s history. Nor can it be defined with particularity. The Glucksberg test is recognized by both sides of the aisle as being able to determine previously unprotected rights that can be incorporated to the state by due process.

And while it seems that McDonald v Chicago will pass the test in the summer of 2010, the ramifications will last for years.  Some fear that if states are forced to rescind bans on handguns, it will only open the floodgates for hundreds of civil rights lawsuits. On the flip side, if Chicago’s gun laws are upheld, what else could cities get away with criminalizing? It is cause for worry for Conservatives who support gun rights, but also believe strongly in states’ rights as well.

Yes, the federal government should force the states to uphold a Constitutionally-recognized right like the right to bear arms, but how far do privileges and immunities go? Do they include things like drug legalization, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action, or eco-friendliness? Could the federal government start forcing states to allow any of the aforementioned controversial issues?

Most would say no; that those things wouldn’t pass the muster when it comes to the Glucksberg test. They’re probably right, but even the door is opened to frivolous lawsuits, it’s a small price to pay for finally giving the 2nd Amendment the respect and rule of law that it deserves. The only unfortunate part of the McDonald v Chicago case is that the Supreme Court passed up the opportunity to return the 14th Amendment back to its originMcDal meaning.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

International Women’s Day: Raising Awareness on Breast Cancer

Monday, March 8th, 2010

International Women’s Day has a checkered history. It was first observed in 1909 by the Socialist Party of America. Over the years, the day has been used to rally for causes from workers’ rights to peace movements to feminism.

Today International Women’s Day has a different tone around the world. In some countries it is celebrated like Valentine’s Day or Mother’s Day as an opportunity to honor the women in one’s life by giving flowers or gifts. But in the U.S., this often-overlooked holiday can have a much deeper significance – an opportunity to raise awareness of the many battles women around the world are still fighting.

One such important battle is the global fight against breast cancer. Every 68 seconds, a woman dies from breast cancer. It is the most frequently diagnosed cancer and is the leading cause of cancer-related deaths among women worldwide. While the incidence rate is highest in the U.S., Canada, and Western Europe, most deaths from breast cancer over the next 25 years will occur in the developing world.

This morning I attended an event organized by Susan G. Komen for the Cure that highlighted the plight of women in the developing world who are afflicted with breast cancer. These women have to fight not only the disease, but also cultural taboos that serve as significant barriers to diagnosis and treatment. Especially in the Middle East and Africa but also in parts of South America and Asia, many women suffer grotesque health effects as a result of advanced stage breast cancer that goes unnoticed or is intentionally ignored. Some particularly tragic cases are detailed in this article.

Women in the U.S. have done a remarkable job of fighting this disease. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer (when caught early before it spreads) is 98 percent. As recently as 1982, it was 74 percent. The rest of the world is not so fortunate. We as American women should take full advantage of the cultural openness and medical opportunities we have to help us detect this treatable disease early by being vigilant about self-exams, clinical screenings, and mammograms. The most significant risk factors of breast cancer are simple: being female and getting older – so none of us is immune.

One in eight American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer in her lifetime. My mother is one of those women. Her sister is another one. Their mother is another one. I am proud to say they are all survivors and living examples of the strength of so many women, in the U.S. and around the world, who have fought this disease and won.

******

Rachel Hoff is a young Republican activist based in Washington, DC.

Avatar: 3-Dimensional Fail

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

This Sunday, March 7, 2010, the 82nd Academy Awards will honor one movie with nine separate nominations. Said movie has in fact been the highest-grossing movie of all time, earning over $2 billion. The film is, of course, James Cameron’s Avatar.

When released in December of 2009, Avatar was met with high praise and wide acclaim. Movie critic Roger Ebert described the movie as “extraordinary,” saying “When I saw Avatar, I felt sort of the same as when I saw Star Wars in 1977.”

Time Magazine ran a review that told movie-goers to “Embrace the movie—surely the most vivid and convincing creation of a fantasy world ever seen in the history of moving pictures.” Ross Douthat of The New York Times even wrote that Avatar is “Cameron’s long apologia for pantheism … Hollywood’s religion of choice for a generation now.”

Well, Avatar may be “Hollywood’s religion of choice,” but there are three main reasons why free-thinkers and conservatives in general should be reluctant to waste about 2 ½ hours of their time.

For starters, Avatar, which some people characterize as a modern-day Pocahontas, has a strong anti-capitalist message. Comparable to any film out of say, Michael Moore’s private-enterprise-hating brain (yes, it’s that bad), Avatar is a story about evil Americans trying to take advantage of a distant ecosystem; and all for corporate greed.

Said ecosystem exists on the planet of Pandora, which is inhabited by natives called the Na’Vi. However, in the movie, Pandora becomes overrun with military mercenaries and greedy profiteers who will stop at nothing to gain a few trillion dollars. Now enter Jake Sully; an ex-Marine who takes over his dead brother’s Avatar.

An avatar is a genetically engineered replica of the Na’Vi that the humans can interface with by sleeping that will allow them to interact with the natives. And in a plot that is just about as predictable as Harry Reid’s loss in November, Sully falls in love with the Na’Vi princess, Neytiri, decides to permanently become part of the Pandora world, and fights against the evil humans.

Although in real life, no one would, or could defend the tactics that the military display in this movie, the very fact that entrepreneurship is shown as being evil, immoral, and synonymous with murder is very telling. Not to mention the fact that in the end, the collective, or socialistic society of the Na’Vi succeeds.

Then there’s the fact that the movie is basically a glorified, 162-minute, PSA for man-made global warming. It’s the perfect equation: untouched, green, ecosystem, plus humans who want to tear down the trees, equals the ultimate struggle of good versus evil. Or so Cameron would like people to think.

What’s most telling is a part of Sully’s narrative at the end in which he watches the “aliens” (i.e. humans) leave Pandora, saying they are going back to continue to destroy their dying world. But Avatar is more than just one big argument for taking care of the environment; it’s the vision of an impossibility that completely disregards the way the world works.

It’s this complete disregard for reality that is the worst feature of Avatar. For instance, the movie’s plot would not even be possible if Jake Sully wasn’t completely disconnecting his brain from his body. In other words, his adventures are entirely dependent upon his separation from reality. It would be the same as if another movie was made entirely about someone’s trip off LSD: completely unrealistic.

Moreover, Avatar has almost no metaphysical meaning; it does not represent any metaphysical concept. Or think about it this way: art (which most people would agree does include movies) is created as a projection that is reflective of the creator’s beliefs and values. This tells us a lot about those who create art.

With Avatar, there is no semblance of reality- no interaction between what is and what could be. It is simply what James Cameron wishes reality was. Thus, Avatar is a film that is a projection sans any values that can be found in the real world. Not only that, but the “happy ending” completely inverses the traditional sense of morality. In real life, permanently choosing to disconnect yourself from reality would be wrong. In Avatar however, it is Sully’s ending, and the audience is supposed to rejoice with him.

Many people argue that while watching Avatar, one must ignore the misguided messages and just appreciate the stunning visuals and effects, or the movie’s beauty. But to do that requires that one redefine the word “beauty” to include things that are anti-rational and value-less.

Just three things to think about as society prepares to give Avatar awards that were created through a capitalist system and built from our earth’s natural resources.

******

Amanda Carey is the Editor of The Tiger Town Observer at Clemson University.  She has previously worked for Robert Novak and has been published in Reason Magazine and The American Spectator.

Driving Trucks

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Here in the Midwest, we drive trucks. Everyone – well, almost everyone – drives a truck. And not because it’s a matter of style; rather, it’s a matter of necessity.

We haul hay bales and feed to the livestock. We pull trailers and implements. We haul fuel to the fields. We haul buckets and bags of seed and fencing supplies and tires and produce to the farmer’s market. Besides, how else would the high school football team get down Main Street for the Homecoming parade? And where would our dogs ride?

Our farmers drive them, of course. But so do our lawyers, teachers, politicians and bankers. Again, not for fashion, but function.

Out here, you see, we are part of a growing minority. We are – or are very closely connected to – the remaining 3% of our country’s population who are the food producers. We grow the wheat, corn and soybeans, and we raise the cattle, pigs and chickens that help to feed our nation.

But for the remaining 97% of our country, truck driving and wheat farming are becoming quite foreign. In fact, it has gone so far that it seems food producers and food consumers no longer speak the same language.

Even I fall into that guilty “consumer” column. My husband and I were just debating in the kitchen the other day about the difference in brown sugar and white sugar. I didn’t know where brown sugar came from. What I did know was that brown sugar is more popular among the “eat-healthy” advocates. But, even I didn’t know if brown sugar came from beets or cane, or how the sugar was refined and processed. (I have since done my homework.)

So it begs the question: If I, Kansas farm-girl, don’t know about the sources of food I use every day, how can those in more urban places, and those generations-removed from the farm, be expected to know and understand where their food comes from?

The gap is widening. The disconnect between producer and consumer, rural and urban is growing. And if we continue on the present course, our voice may be lost for good. Lost to an urban consumer whose food choices are en vogue, yet who lack a full understanding of how that food made the trek from farm to table and who may be unaware of how weather, world markets and politics played into the choices available to them at the grocery store.

What to do?

We can start by simply telling our story. The tools at our fingertips, literally at our fingertips, can put us in touch with that other 97% in nanoseconds. To a fault, we have been slower to adapt to the latest in Internet and social media technology. And beyond that, we’re still waiting for broadband service to reach every corner of my state. That’s not an excuse, just an admission of fact. But for those with access, the tools exist to make our story heard instantly.

But even telling the story can be a big leap for our truck-driving culture. People simply tend to be a bit more quiet in this middle section of the country, and furthermore, all those tied to the agricultural industry.

The best farmers and ranchers I know are humble, quiet, and devoted to the land and animals they serve. They tend to their soil while honoring the generations who have gone before them and preserving the land for future generations. Ranchers, livestock producers, dairymen and women, all care for their animals and see to their well being before taking care of themselves.

Yet, there is energy growing behind an anti-animal agriculture movement. And livestock producers have found themselves on the defensive, and a bit unprepared for the far-slinging tactics of a bigger, louder, angrier agenda. Energy continues to grow in the conventional agriculture versus organic agriculture debate. On the surface, organic production seems the gentle victor. But do consumers fully understand the production practices behind organic foods enough to justify paying premium prices?

So you should expect the volume to be turned up on the stories coming from the production sector. And you should expect to hear stories about men and women passionate about producing food; and stories of communities and families working so hard to preserve a rural culture; and of people who honor the land and respect the animals because it’s the right thing to do and because it also happens to make good business-sense. And you should listen. As the mother and chief-grocery-getter in my household, I intend to listen. I would prefer to hear about my food from its source; not from an exaggerated story spun in an urban office building.

Beyond growing soybeans and raising pigs, we also grow a lot of common sense in the Midwest. And be prepared, because just as soon as we figure out how to package it and sell it, we’re going to start hauling it to the cities in our pick-up trucks.

******

Sarah Goss is a native Kansan, full-time mommy of three, community volunteer and blog author. Her children are her top client, but her devotion to agriculture and rural community development run a close second.

Generation ‘O’ and the Switch to Generation GOP

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010