Thawrted Terror Plot Reminds Us That Our Enemy Has Enduring Resolve

One of the biggest obstacles in the war on terrorism is complacency and apathy. Unfortunately, we consistently need to be reminded of the impending dangers that these islamofascists promulgate on a daily basis.

As their methods of murder and destruction evolve into more subtle forms, like using chemcials concealed in inconspicuous containers to be mixed in an airplane bathroom then detonated in mid-air, we too must think as creatively and, unfortunately, as diabolically, as these destroyers of innocents and lovers of misery. There is absolutely no justification for their actions, and anyone trying to absolve their motives as the result of their environment has a horrible and misguided understanding of human nature. Deterministic frameworks lead to otherwise inquisitive individuals to blame the decent, upstanding society instead of taking on the nations who actually perpetuate the violence in the first place.

The 'blame America first' mantra is so simple that people who undertake its principles are morally repugnant and intellectually lazy. It's easy to blame a decent nation, when one knows that no retalitory measures will be taken against the critic. Standing firm against nations who foster violence, breed hatred, and blame western institutions and frameworks for their misery is much more difficult to do because the possibility for retribution always lingers. The regimes in those nations do not care about personal autonomy, the rights of the individual, or a sense of natural law principles and the inherent worth of every innocent and upstanding individual. A person who lacks clarity in their moral convictions is dangerous, especially if they are in a position of power to shape policy and guide international affairs.

Collectively, westernized nations must make sure to remain vigilant. We cannot fall into complacency, and must heed every warning and gather as much useful intelligence as possible. Radical Muslims cannot be reasoned with, and it is absolute folly to think in any other terms. That might sound pretty stark and uncompromising, but this battle is a battle of values, of existence, and of our way of life. The greatest fallacy is to believe that an isolationist policy will all of a sudden stop the hatred, especially considering that it is our institutions that the terrorists hate. Our very existence spurs them into strapping themselves full of explosives and blowing up a day care center, or mixing chemicals in an airplane and taking down innocent travelers who want to visit family, go on vacation, or attend to business. They want to disrupt our very way of life. That is what terrorism is -- deliberate warfare declared on civilians in order to influence their lifestyle and alter their politicial and economic institutions.

We can take Israel as a case study into this phenomenon. Every time a Muslim leader makes a concession to Israel, like Sadat did when Israel relinquished the oil-rich Sinai Pennisula back in the 1970s, they end up assasinated. Sadat, the former 'President' of Egypt, was struck down by a radical Muslim's bullet because he addressed the Israeli Parliment and gave formal recognition to Israel's right to exist back in the early 1980s. Even when Israel offered to give up the entire West Bank and 3% of their heavy populated Palestinian regions, including Eastern Jerusalem, in the late 1990s, that was still not enough; stirring up more violence and death. Palestinans and other Middle East nations do not want peace accords, they want to destroy Israel simply because it exists.

Just remember to stand vigilant, clear the clouds of moral confusion, and remember that this fight is a fight for our institutions and culture. The terrorists will not be satisfied until we are destroyed.

Global Warming

The facade of the completely objective scientist who has no innate bias can officially be laid to rest. Horror stories accounting the blatant rejection of research reports headed by scientists who go against the orthodoxy of the established order are too numerous to simply turn a blind eye towards. Such rejection of competing research that might undermine the dogmatic beliefs of some is the antithesis of credible scientific work, and unfortunately no field is more culpable of such ideological abuse than scientists who purport to study global climatic change.

The issue of global warming has become increasingly politicized, and, in turn, polarized many scientific communities, as well as the general populace. This can be demonstrated in Al Gore’s first shot at cinematic stardom, adeptly titled “An Inconvenient Truth,” which purported to expose the many ills associated with global warming, and put the blame squarely on human consumption and economic advancement.

What makes global warming inherently a political campaign is that the science behind these supposed ‘discoveries’ is grossly suspect. The National Academy of Sciences proclaims that global temperatures have risen by one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that such escalations will have damning ramifications for mankind as well as the ecosystem.

However, one must take into account the methodological implications associated with trying to accurately gauge global temperature change.

How, with all honesty, can some scientists purport that they have a completely firm grasp on climate change even though the data in most cases is scarce, in addition to their methods not being uniform? Furthermore, climatology has only been in existence since the late 1890s, with such readings from that era being susceptible to human error and archaic technology. It is not too difficult to imagine a data collector standing in the middle of the field with an old mercury thermometer trying to tell if the air temperature is 56 or 57, or maybe it’s 58? The prospect for grotesque error is inexorably there.

The limited and potentially flawed data sets would have anyone who views information critically raise their eyebrow over such findings. Moreover, great technological advancements such as weather satellites and other sophisticated machinery that can accurately manage complex temperature variations have only been in existence, at the earliest, since the 1970s. This gives one about 35 years of reliable data to forecast projections thousands of years into the past and future.

What is even more disheartening is that scientists that try to let the evidence guide them and staunchly believe, as a first principle, that a tenet of good science is the falsification of theories, are brushed aside. Scientists who theorize that global climate change is cyclical, or that the temperature changes which global warming alarmists disseminate are too negligible to be conclusive have a difficult time finding a substantial audience.

It is a shame, because maybe their voices of reason can curb the unmitigated industrial regulation that the Kyoto Protocol puts into effect in Europe, crippling industry and economic vitality in its wake. A balanced perspective on global warming is very much needed. The fate of the climatology community rests upon it.

French Youth Riots

Recent civil unrest in France has garnered the headlines in most major publications in the past few weeks. French youth, a sizable chunk jobless, are violently protesting a new labor law which will allow firms to fire anyone under the age of 26 without justification. The law was proposed in light of the staggering unemployment rate among French youth, which hovers around 25 percent (reaching 50 percent in some suburbs), as a means of lessening the rigidity in French labor markets.

At first such logic seems counterintuitive. Seemingly, a law that allows for unmitigated firing would exacerbate unemployment, not alleviate it. However, such logic is devoid of understanding some basic economic principles, namely, that when the cost of anything is artificially inflated, the demand for it goes down.

France’s current labor system structure essentially guarantees lifetime employment. It sounds wonderful at first, but virtual life-long employment has serious implications for people who are seeking jobs. Because of current legislation in France, the cost for hiring an employee is exorbitant, simply because once employed, the worker is practically tied to the company until death. Since employers cannot readily separate from employees, firms hire fewer workers instead of incurring the lifetime costs associated with a larger payroll. This acts as an effective barrier to employment, much like what unions are notorious for propagating since their existence. As a basic rule of thumb, whenever labor markets become rigid, in the sense that labor cannot move freely within the market, higher unemployment results because firms are hesitant to take on a larger workforce. The individuals left behind are the youth, seeing that they have a much more difficult time competing with workers who are already firmly entrenched in the system.

Such economic principles and basic understanding of labor market functions makes the current situation in France all the more perplexing. Instead of youth leaders championing this law as a step in the right direction for inexperienced workers to get their proverbial “foot in the door,” they resort to violence and call for “increased job security,” even though a quarter of their workforce doesn’t have a job in the first place. Such backwards thinking is emblematic of France’s current economic situation, where they further indulge deeper into more extensive welfare entitlements and lagging productivity.

The entitlement sentiment in France in particular and industrialized Europe in general is leading to their demise as a worldwide economic superpower. Moreover, it further demonstrates France’s ineptitude towards creating an environment which can be increasingly competitive within the globalized context of contemporary economic affairs. This can be evidenced by France’s anemic, less than 2 percent, growth rate since 1992. The numbers are even bleaker for its European counterparts, like Germany’s paltry average of only 1.4 percent growth in its GDP over the same period. This can be compared to the United States’ average growth rate of 3 percent to 4 percent, which is substantial once one takes into account how advanced many western economies are.

The European entitlement mentality must yield to a merit-based system which rewards hard work and ingenuity. Their socialist framework is proving to be unsustainable; the sooner they recognize it, the better off they’ll be.

House Resolution 177 (PA)

Pennsylvania is a state that is taking part in an ongoing trend that has captured the attention of many legislatures across the nation. House Resolution 177, which has been dubbed the Academic Freedom Act, would create safeguards for students enrolled in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education. The bill would allow for numerous legal outlets that would empower the student to challenge intellectual bias within the classroom setting. Instead of just petitioning unresponsive school administrators or deans, students can take academic grievances directly to civil litigation, bypassing those initial avenues.

The issue stems from numerous grievances filed by students who cite that their grades have been adversely affected by professors who held the student’s political viewpoints against them. Therefore, their coursework has not been graded on individual merit or quality, but instead on irrelevant factors such as whether the professor and student share common values.

Whether one supports the legislation proposed in the state house or vehemently opposes it, pretending that political bias does not adversely affect students and their academic career is insidious and disingenuous. While my limited government tendencies have me weary over the enactment of legislation that allows for more government intrusions into societal institutions, my libertarian economic principles have me questioning the setup in universities that promulgate academic bias and grading discrimination. After mulling it over, it becomes readily apparent that professor tenure is the major culprit in intellectual dishonesty among the profession, instilling mediocrity and complacency, not to mention shielding the culpable professor from certain retaliatory avenues.

This is not an overarching indictment on all college professors. While most college professors tend to be politically liberal, (in a contemporary sense, not classical) they nevertheless tend to have the ability to separate their value judgments from objective course material to be taught in the classroom environment. Eliminating tenure would do nothing to those instructors, since their intellectual integrity and individual merit precludes them from being singled out for punishment. All tenure does is shelter professors who want to pass their personal preferences off as absolute fact, not to be questioned in any regard. They often ask loaded questions in their exams that eradicate any sort of retort to the underlying theme of their bias. Moreover, they enact course requirements that have a profound political tilt, like requiring students to be political activists or champion a political cause that meshes with the instructor’s own individual philosophy. Such professors don’t deserve to be teaching at higher institutions because they are inherently intellectually dishonest for disregarding varying perspectives from their lectures and material. If tenure — which practically ensures for lifetime employment once attained — would be scrapped, teachers who present material in the most effective manner would hold the proper positions. Such principles work marvelously in every other profession in the United States, which allow merit to trump over simply ‘time served.’

While adding more regulations might not be the answer, dissolving protections such as tenure that simply facilitate a sense of invulnerability might be a better solution. Introducing competition into academia will add much needed pressure for professors to stick to the course material.

The Global Economy

The concept of free trade between nations is one that is in dire need of promotion amongst all countries in order to create wealth and pull developing countries out of wretched poverty. However, some hold the position that free trade is detrimental to those countries. When put under close scrutiny, that notion fails to pass economic muster. Preventing third world nations from gaining access to developed markets essentially shuts them out of the opportunity for substantial economic growth.

When people talk about free trade, they must accept the notion of trade without the erection of barriers, such as tariffs, which artificially distort prices and destroy any comparative advantage a nation might have. Unmitigated free trade allows for third world countries to compete on a level playing field with industrialized nations since the costs of production in those developing nations is significantly less than the United States. Therefore, for example, instead of putting up protective tariffs to insulate U.S. citrus farmers from international competition, the nation would import citrus fruits from tropical regions where the cost per unit of that good is relatively less expensive due to inexpensive labor, deregulation and a favorable climate. These increases in cost effectiveness will translate into cheaper prices domestically, and those lower prices provide an increase in purchasing power for everyone in the economy.

Some people, however, lament over the destruction of a particular industry in the United States due to trade, or the outsourcing of jobs. While it can be painful for workers in certain industries to be out of work temporarily, the gains from these types of trade benefit society as a whole by manufacturing goods and services in a more efficient manner, allowing for the nation to focus on industries where a comparative advantage actually exists. Simply put, it is part of the creative destruction that is inherent in a capitalistic society. Technology and more efficient means of production are always a top priority, and rightfully so, since such gains diffuse over the entire macro economy. It would be silly to argue, in the time when cars were becoming much more prevalent, that society should subsidize the horse and buggy industry because of the threat cars posed to that industry’s existence.

Some even grieve over the exportation of capital to other nations in order to take advantage of their cheap labor. These \'d4anti-globalists’ simply say that we are exploiting cheap labor and paying horrible wages in those nations. However, what these individuals fail to grasp is that high wages are not a cause of prosperity, but are merely a reflection of prosperity. These critics never mention what the prevailing wage is in these countries, because it will inexorably weaken their argument. Moreover, wages invariably increase when productivity increases. Case in point is India. Many telemarketing jobs were exported to that country because of the inexpensive labor costs. However, due to their greater human capital cultivation, those telemarketing jobs are now being shipped to South Africa because wages in India are increasing exponentially due to constant productivity gains.

If free trade is encouraged, capital development and technological innovation can be realized in every nation, creating viable trading partners and worldwide economic prosperity.

Wal-Mart and the Economy

Wal-Mart has seemingly become the latest focus of opposition for many activist groups on the left. Many of these groups cite that Wal-Mart pays low wages and neglects its employees by providing inadequate benefits that leave many people uninsured and searching for coverage. However, these groups neglect the scope of employment at Wal-Mart, as well as Wal-Mart’s ability to take advantage of economies of scale to provide essential goods at extremely low prices.

Wal-Mart dramatically lowers prices because they can take advantage of the aforementioned economies of scale, which posits that transaction costs can be lowered by dispersing the cost of a product over multiple transactions, therefore bringing the unit per transaction down significantly. Wal-Mart does this by purchasing staggering amounts of products from its suppliers, and passing on the savings by increasing the number of transactions through the medium of lower prices.

Moreover, because Wal-Mart’s prices are so low, and everyone has the ability to purchase from the mega-retailer, everyone benefits from what is called the real income effect. Wal-Mart’s low prices essentially act as a \'d4raise’ for everybody, but instead of being paid more per hour, Wal-Mart lowers prices to make one’s dollar go further than before.

Because of their ability to make common goods much more affordable to lower income workers and families, Wal-Mart is much more of an asset to the disadvantaged rather than a nuisance. Furthermore, the misconception of Wal-Mart as a firm which keeps people poor due to their low wages neglects the type of work Wal-Mart offers, and the degree of skill the job requires.

The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart is and always will be a low-skill, low-wage employer simply because the nature of the job demands it. It is not a profession that requires copious amount of ingenuity, strenuous work or demanding intellectual rigor. This is not to demean workers at Wal-Mart — especially since this writer was once employed there — but it is simply being pragmatic about the type of skill involved in executing a job at that establishment successfully. Since the nature of the work is routine, and the productivity of the workers is at a level which compensation seems about right for their amount of output, Wal-Mart is within their right to pay a wage which, despite all the criticisms, still attracts many applicants nationwide.

Wal-Mart is a firm which does not exactly provide great career opportunities within its business, but rather acts as a place where low-skilled workers can cultivate a good foundation of human capital to be used in professions which provide greater upward economic mobility. This is evidenced by the fact that Wal-Mart has an extremely high turnover rate, meaning that employees within Wal-Mart stay with the firm for very short periods of time.

They often see Wal-Mart as a temporary place of employment which can be used as a stepping stone for better professions, and are not simply locked into a career that provides menial wages as many opponents of the firm suggest.

The Wal-Mart opposition is superfluous, and criticisms of the retailing giant are in dire need being put in proper perspective.

School Vouchers (Again)

Few would deny that top-flight educational attainment is critical for substantial upward mobility in today’s economic climate. An individual needs to be well-versed in a variety of fields and must have the flexibility to adjust to an invariably changing work environment. These traits can only be cultivated through a solid scholastic background, and it all starts with elementary and secondary schooling.

The dilemma is that our public school system, which has a stranglehold on education in this country, is in dire straits and is abysmally failing to provide a well-rounded academic background to our youngest generation. The problem stems from incompetent school administrators, deceitful teachers’ unions that only look out for the best interest and a lack of parental involvement, which is frustrated by layers of school-district bureaucracy that only serves the purpose of draining the public coffers. The depressing reality is that district administrators and personnel do not want parental participation because it undermines their system of dictating curriculum and settling for mere mediocrity in teaching children essential skills.

Fortunately, there is a solution to alleviating the death grip that failing public schools have on education: school vouchers. A system of school vouchers lets parents choose the school that best fits the need of their child, and allows them to pull their kids out of underperforming schools and place them in areas where their potential will be satisfied. Instead of property taxes — the primary source of funding public education — being tied to a particular school district, they would rather be attached to the individual student, allowing them to pick from a wide array of capable schools to suit their academic need. This would enable a drastic shift of power from unresponsive school administrators to a market-dictated, parental-choice medium.

The reason school vouchers and school choice are so critical to education reform is simply because school-aged children deserve the best education. The only way out of the failing public school system is for the districts to become more responsive to the needs of their students. By allowing schools to compete for their class base, students will benefit from the better curriculum established by schools that want to acquire as many students (and as much funding) as possible.

School vouchers also help the disadvantaged send their children to top-notch private institutions that they could otherwise not afforded because of their income. Instead of hearing bloated school administrators clamor about how they spend tens of thousands of dollars per pupil for an academic year, school vouchers will give the power of the purse back to the parents, now be armed with the ability to use those aforementioned thousands of dollars on quality education for their sons and daughters.

Despite denigration from the self-interested teachers unions and school administrators, school vouchers are not a radical concept. School vouchers have been used countries like Belgium for years with overwhelming success.

A proper education is a once-in-a-lifetime experience for an individual. Society should provid quality education to children by instituting a school voucher system.

Immigration (Again)

The illegal aliens that flood the United States’ borders every day are becoming a great concern for the nation as a whole. The transparency of the borders, and the virtually unmitigated traffic that flows between them, poses security risks in a time where the United States can ill-afford lapses in oversight. In an increasingly hostile world, the federal government, more so than ever, needs to be able to know with confidence the ambitions and purposes of foreign nationals within our vast country.

That is not to assume that all illegal immigrants infiltrate our borders in order to cause havoc and undermine our system of governance. In reality, many aliens cross the borders to find work and better economic opportunities than are afforded to them in their own country. However, they are classified as “illegal” for a reason.

Immigration has been a central staple of the United States since its inception. There is no denying that immigrants built this country, fostered its system of representative government and nurtured it to the super-power status of today. But those immigrants pursued all those means through legal avenues and did not try to bend or break the rules established by the citizenry of that nation. They knew that doing so would weaken the deeply held principle of the United States being a nation of laws, meant to be upheld and respected so that society runs effectively and with due fairness.

Illegal immigrants don’t just show disrespect for the legal processes and institutions, but, as previously mentioned, also pose a security risk for the nation. That is not to say that all immigrants are hell bent on destroying the United States, but the notion that someone can enter the United States undetected and undocumented leaves one to question how the federal government could effectively protect the citizenry from outside threats if they don’t even know who comes in and out of the country on a routine basis.

Exacerbating this problem in the contemporary political structure is the judicial system. Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states that Congress shall have the power “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Therefore, the authority to decide immigration issues is clearly and distinctly enumerated to the legislative branch.

The meddling of the court into such issues as whether illegal immigrants can obtain the same social benefits as legalized citizens is outside the purview of the court, and just further confounds the national debate on sound immigration policy.

The court has adjudicated that illegal immigrants are essentially granted the same status as legalized citizens in a wide array of circumstances, and in doing so, become virtually indistinguishable from individuals who played by the rules and respected the legal institutions of this country. Furthermore, it also displays the power grab that has been going on for some time in the federal judiciary. Instead of allowing the intent of the legislative branch to shine through, and the mandate of our Constitution to dictate government setup, the judiciary has given itself the initiative to inculcate social policy based on the justices’ personal policy preferences.

Although illegal aliens usually have good intentions, they need to be held accountable and respect the legal foundations of the U.S. government. Doing so will restore integrity to the status of legalized citizens and diminish the security risks associated with undocumented aliens.

Gay Marriage

If you want a hotly contested debate, just bring up gay marriage on a college campus. The argument centers on many topics, and to just label it as one that involves “love” and “equal rights” is shortsighted and disingenuous. It, more so than anything, encompasses legal underpinnings and whether the electorate sets social policy.

First and foremost, one of the most cited rationales for gay marriage is the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. Essentially, the argument states that homosexuals are denied equal protection if heterosexuals are allowed to marry. There are many essential flaws with this logic. To adhere to it, one must believe that the Equal Protection Clause is all-encompassing, applicable to every facet of life without prejudice. However, any rational person would observe that state and federal governments set up classifications of individuals that aren’t “equal” for a variety of essential rights — voting age comes to mind, for instance.

Moreover, it also presumes that marriage is a fundamental human right, akin to freedom of speech or the right to practice one’s own religion. After conversing with many gay marriage advocates, very few — if any — buy into the precept of marriage being a right that is classified as “fundamental.” Since this is the case, the court’s test for determining the constitutionality of having only heterosexual, monogamous marriage would not be one of strict scrutiny — which posits that the government must provide overwhelming evidence for restricting a right, and is the basis for contests on fundamental rights — but rather a test of rational relationship. Under court precedent, a rational-relationship test simply states that a government entity must display that the statute shows a rational basis for why it is tailored as such, and why it is of governmental interest.

Therefore, applying the rational relationship test to statutory heterosexual marriage passes muster. It would make sense to argue that heterosexual marriage should be promoted to procreate the next generation of responsible citizens. Myriad studies have shown that children grow up happier, healthier and more intellectually ready for adulthood if they are raised with their biological mother and father together in a nuclear setting. The state, knowing this, would want to make sure children grow up in this setting. Marriage, at the statutory level, is an incentive for one man and one woman to unite in order to start a family. It is something that the legislature, the branch that sets social policy, feels necessary to promote in order to have a stable society.

One can point out that not all marriages end up in child-rearing, which is worth noting. However, a vast majority of marriages do promulgate children, which would lead one to believe that it is an advantageous social policy in that regard. Citing a minority of incidents does not make for an effective argument against heterosexual marriage.

The problem with this debate is that marriage has been masked as an essential right, when certainly it is not. If gays and lesbians want to make a legitimate case for a legally recognized union, they should petition their legislative branches and not impose gay marriage on the electorate through judicial fiat. It is a losing proposition, never mind one that neglects our checks and balances and respect for the citizenry to set social policy.

Social change should come through the consent of the governed, not through faulty constitutional reasoning.

Medical Care Reform

Much has been made about the state of the U.S. health-care system. While the American health industry provides the best medical care in the world — with unparalleled screening procedures, drugs and surgery — many consumers have quarrels over the cost of attaining some of the aforementioned treatment.

Some have suggested that the cost of insurance is even high enough to leave 43 million Americans without coverage. However, when broken down, the actual number is dramatically less.

Out of that 43 million uninsured, approximately 10 million of those individuals are illegal aliens. Furthermore, a discernible percentage of that 43 million are young, college-aged students who would rather forego medical coverage; choosing to save funds rather than spend it on premiums. Lastly, and probably the most significant, 20 million of that 43 million, approximately half, go without health insurance coverage for fourth months or less. Ultimately, the bulk of the highly touted “43 million uninsured” number refers to the short-term uninsured, and not to significant systematic problems with securing health insurance. While it does leave about 10-15 million Americans uninsured for possibly longer periods of time, it is in no way a national crisis which needs to be resolved with extremist policies (i.e. the nationalization of the health system).

Therefore, the central debate does not focus around the quality of our health care, but rather the affordability of the system. Price is meant to be the ultimate rationing tool, allowing markets to run efficiently and provide that a person who values a resource the most will have the ability to acquire it. However, price for health care has been aggrandized to the point where it no longer reflects just the cost of the procedure, but rather the salaries of employees at insurance companies, gigantic federal subsidies in the form of Medicaid and Medicare creating artificial demand for negligible treatments, and frivolous malpractice lawsuits that drive up insurance premiums on practicing physicians. All have an inflationary pressure on the price of health care, and all need to be resolved by promoting a system where the patient/doctor relationship is strengthened not just treatment-wise, but also in terms of payment for medical care.

In the United States, we must fundamentally alter our methods of purchasing health services. The extent of health insurance now is quite encompassing. Because of this reality, every health care purchase is done through an insurance network. It funnels through multiple levels of bureaucracy, both in government and in private enterprise, accumulating the salaries and work of countless individuals.

Because the transaction passes through so many hands, the processing cost is reflected in the price. A way to alleviate this is not through more government subsidization or regulation, but rather through Health Savings Accounts. An HSA allows citizens to transfer tax-deferred income into a personalized account used for health care expenses. Therefore, instead of paying through your insurance company, a consumer can pay for routine procedures out-of-pocket, cutting down on transactions costs by not having to file through your insurance provider. Couple this with a low cost, high deductible catastrophic-coverage insurance plan and health care costs will see a dramatic decline.

The expansion of government in our health care system has only led to inflated prices. If we restore the market to a two party transaction, costs will decrease and more individuals and families will enjoy confidence in their health-care coverage.

Stop Taking Christmas From The Christmas Season

The holiday season is a joyous time of year when everyone is in their best mood, and good grace and cheerfulness are in abundance. Strangers that pass by each other on the street corner wave and spread good tidings, while countless individuals donate their time to local soup kitchens or to collect donations to help the needy and less fortunate.

However, it seems like during this time of year, especially recently in the American political climate, many special-interest groups are looking to essentially censor Christmas and subject Christian traditions to meaningless dogma not worthy of recognition. These groups would much rather have the people who celebrate the holidays praise their materialistic, faith-based worldview and bow down to their humanistic doctrine of intolerance.

It becomes disheartening when the liberal left preaches tolerance and understanding amongst all individuals, yet fails to accept traditions that approximately three-fourths of the United States citizenry embraces. It is hypocrisy in its purest form and speaks volumes about how the only acceptable worldview in the eyes of these secularists is a worldview devoid of all that does not coalesce with their own faith and beliefs.

Some elementary schools across the country have taken the liberty to rewrite holiday classics like ‘Silent Night’ and have banned children from wearing red and green to school because they are identified as “Christmas colors.” It is shameful and disgraceful that these students are not allowed to express their religious underpinnings and that it is so hard to accept differing perspectives in our public schools. Tolerance is synonymous with inclusion, and these students are essentially being shunned because of what they decide to embrace.

Such censorship of Christmas even hits closer to home and is evident on our campus grounds. Students and faculty were invited to attend the “Holiday Tree” lighting ceremony last week. The tree has always been identified with Christmas, not Hanukah, Kwanzaa or any other holiday. “Christmas tree” is the proper and common name for that holiday decoration, and subjecting it to an alternative definition is a slap in the face and a pathetic attempt to politely tell Christians that their tradition must be modified for the sake of political correctness. I find it hard to believe that secularists are dumbfounded at why Christians would get upset over the new definition. I have a sneaking suspicion that Jews would take offense if the Menorah was ever renamed the “holiday candle holder.”

No one is calling for everyone to accept the Christian faith and buy into all the precepts the religion has to offer. That couldn’t be further from reality. What most Christians want is an official recognition and acceptance of their holiday traditions without secularists trying to meddle in and redefine Christmas.

So make sure to celebrate diversity this season. Learn the traditions and understand the differences. Changing the customs of the Christmas holiday is the antithesis of acceptance. Enjoy this time of year, and I wish you all the best.

The Democrats Play Blame Game Again

The cyclical blame game is manifesting itself once again within Senate chambers as the Democrats try to bring back their revisionist history of the war in Iraq. Either the Democrats have no platform to try and rally consensus around for the upcoming elections, or they believe their unintelligible rhetoric about lies and distortions of intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq.

Unfortunately, it seems as though the latter is becoming a much more reasonable interpretation of their intentions. Leave it up to the Democrats to try and profit off the ignorance of the ill-informed.

It’s difficult to gauge why this issue is gaining resonance again within the Democrat base, especially considering that it currently is and always will be a losing proposition whenever they try and rehash the old “Bush Lied!” mantra. Many prominent Democratic leaders within the Senate, such as Minority Leader Harry Reid and Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Jay Rockefeller have once again tried to label the Iraqi intervention as the primary responsibility of the Bush Administration. Never mind that both of those individuals were afforded the same intelligence reports that the White House utilized, nor that Harry Reid voted for the removal of Saddam Hussein back in 1998 under the Clinton Administration. No surprise that both voted for the current involvement, too. Correspondingly, people like Jay Rockefeller, who spoke so eloquently back in October of 2002 when he said, “I do believe, that Iraq poses and imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11 that question is increasingly outdated.”

This man is regarded as an expert on intelligence and is someone who Democrats often refer to when considering important policy decisions. Moreover, Sen. Rockefeller went the extra step and boldly stated that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq posed an “imminent threat” to the United States. Similar sentiments have been echoed by other prominent Democratic leaders such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin and Teddy Kennedy.

Politics on the federal level has been conflated to quick sound bites and beguiling accusations. The loser is often the one who is slow to react to the latest lofty allegation no matter how baseless and unsubstantiated it is. It is often said that the one who stays silent in politics often implicitly admits that the accuser is correct. The Democrats are banking on silence, hoping that the White House continues to allow these senators to effectively get away with misleading the public while, likewise, allowing them to act as the bastions of integrity in a corrupt governmental institution.

The Democrats, having the same intelligence, arguments, history of Iraqi hostility and aggression towards the United States and often voting for intervention in the past, are now trying to play the role of the innocent victim bamboozled by a suave administration hell bent on death and destruction. They didn’t fool the public in 2004, and they still won’t succeed in 2006.

Media Should Be More Careful

The media coverage of the I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby Jr. indictment has been thoroughly frustrating.

It is extremely perplexing to see the media distort the true allegations and speculate about how this indictment is indicative of the way that the Bush Administration handles criticism on foreign policy issues.

The conjectures of the media are not warranted and are simply perpetuating misinformation to the general public.

Many would think that the investigation centers on Valerie Plame’s concealed identity and whether the Bush Administration intentionally released information on a covert operative in order to exact revenge on Joe Wilson, whose report allegedly debunked the Administration’s rationale for invading Iraq.

However, there are two major flaws with both of those assumptions.

First and foremost, Valerie Plame is in no way classified as a clandestine operative and therefore cannot claim protection under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. In other words, her status was not classified, her work was not top secret, and everyone knew that she reported to Langley every day for work.

The only reason her identity is an issue is because of Joe Wilson himself.

After his report was filed, he subsequently stated that his wife, Valerie Plame, had no influence in sending him to Niger in February of 2003. However, the bi-partisan Senate Select Committee reached a different conclusion.

In filing their final report, the committee indicated that Valerie Plame “had suggested his name for the trip.”

White House officials, by releasing this knowledge, were simply setting the record straight instead of obfuscating details to the point of absurdity.

Second, Joe Wilson’s report never discredited any intelligence used relevant to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the report he filed further verified previous data obtained in 1999 about a meeting between Niger’s prime minister and an Iraqi delegation. Besides adding new evidence to strengthen the argument of the international intelligence community about Saddam Hussein’s ambitions to secure nuclear material, Joe Wilson did not add any substantial information on his much-touted trip to that nation.

The famous ‘16 words’ in the 2003 State of the Union Address are valid, and have been confirmed again by the British government in their post-invasion review of intelligence – calling the statement “well-founded.”

The Libby indictment does not support ridiculous theories that have been circulating around in many political circles, nor invalidates any pre-war intelligence used to justify the invasion.

Libby is not charged with outing a covert CIA agent or endangering the safety and security of our intelligence community.

All Libby has been charged with is lying to FBI agents and the grand jury as to how he learned Valerie Plame worked for the CIA.

Correspondingly, perjury is a serious charge that warrants full litigation. But to compare this case to Watergate or any other more systematic government corruption investigation is superfluous and melodramatic. The evidence simply does not support those assertions.

The media needs to tell their audience the complete story pertaining to the investigation. Anything less is deceptive and neglectful of their duty to inform the public.

Conservative Base Has No Cause For Worry

In a move that wasn’t all too surprising, Harriet Miers, President Bush’s nominee for the Supreme Court, withdrew her name from contention late last week. The president, with this void, once again gets another shot to fill the vacancy of Sandra Day O’Connor’s concluding retirement. As I wrote earlier this semester, I wasn’t sold on Miers and her ability to be a Supreme Court jurist that would practice judicial restraint and interpret the Constitution on its merits. A lot of the skepticism came from a lack of information pertaining to her judicial philosophy and track record in Constitutional litigation. It is hard to rally consensus for a nomination when pertinent knowledge is unavailable to make an informed and confident decision. In the end, a lack of information and an inability to persuade senators during private conferences spelled the end for her candidacy.

Many Democrats are essentially claiming success and clamoring for the president to now acquiesce to their demands for a Supreme Court nomination. Numerous Democrats, like Barbara Boxer, view the Republican base as fragmented, disillusioned and in need of guidance. They want the president to consult excessively with Democratic leaders in the Senate and make sure the next candidate is a true “consensus” candidate — even though Ms. Miers was a particular favorite of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid. Politics is essentially about power. There is a constant movement for position, and no doubt the Democrats are trying to grab power and build a national following for the upcoming 2006 elections. If they paint the other party as weak and misguided, then they seemingly look like the better alternative by comparison, even though the Democrats have been bankrupt on worthwhile policies since the late 1990s. Of course, that is a value judgment, but I honestly can say that I haven’t been remotely impressed by any recent proposal they have put forth in either the House or Senate. I also can’t blame them for trying to seize on the potential opening — it would actually be quite bizarre if this wasn’t their initial, reactionary response.

However, I don’t tend to see the cavernous fissure of the conservative base. There is no profound hatred or animus towards Miers or President Bush. Even though many conservatives felt as though he made a very weak pick, he nonetheless had the Constitutional obligation to nominate who he felt would act as a tremendous jurist on the Supreme Court. That nomination failed due to lack of Senatorial support, and now the process starts over. It’s simply our political process at work. A nomination was made, objections were raised, and the candidate withdrew their consideration. Miers is a fine, genuine, and sincere person. Moreover, she is an immensely successful personal lawyer. But when a lack of consequential evidence is produced pertaining to the highest court in the land, it is natural to be weary of a person who can wield great power for generations to come. The base is there — we’re just waiting for someone to rally around.

Vouchers Would Help A Flawed System

The public school systems in the United States have been abysmally underperforming over the last several decades. This is in spite of record high inflation-adjusted spending in that very same system over virtually the same time period. The funding is available. The problem is with the system and how resources are allocated to maximize the learning capacity and potential of every student.

Public schools, whether on the elementary or secondary level, spend taxpayer dollars in a tremendously inefficient manner. Many dollars that should be distributed to help students succeed are instead tied up in frivolous matters, such as keeping incompetent teachers employed through domineering unions and retaining administrators who are only concerned with lining their own coffers. In short, many of the dollars become tangled within the web of muddled bureaucracy and serve no sensible purpose towards academic attainment. The dollars don’t get filtered to the students because the individuals in charge simply have too much to lose were the system not in disarray. Instead, they can continue to clamor and make disingenuous claims about insufficient resources to secure more sympathy from the public and more taxes from their income. Subsequently, the school system continues to fail, and the cycle repeats itself once again.

The cycle of impassive public school administrators must end. It has been too costly for the public, both financially and in terms of students who are ill-prepared to contribute positively to society as a whole. What the public school system needs is a generous injection of competition from the private sector by allowing local and state governments to issue vouchers to families with school-aged children. School vouchers are essentially scholarships awarded to families, used toward their children’s education. Periodically, families would be granted these funds in order to pay tuition and other relevant educational expenses. Parents can use these resources to send their children to a wide range of capable schools.

Children no longer have to be at the whim of reckless teachers unions and school administrators because of their geographic location. They will no longer be doomed because of where they live, but rather have the option to meet a degree of academic achievement which would be unfeasible in their current situation. A school voucher program also allows families to be in the forefront of their child’s education by making them an active and conscious consumer. Parents can make a much more forceful statement as to where they expect the academic standard to be set if they can choose the scholastic setting. Speaking with the pocketbook is essential in reforming the defective public school system. A child’s education is a once-in-a-lifetime event and should not be subject to inefficient bureaucratic management. The monopolistic approach towards education has failed. Our system needs choice if we expect the next generation to be sufficiently equipped for real world endeavors.

Immigration Reform Multi-faceted

Many individuals think about or even openly debate this issue, but it never seems to manifest into a practical policy. The dilemma is immigration reform. More specifically, when people talk about immigration reform, they are usually talking about the unsecured borders in the southwest corridor of this country. The proverbial floodgates ostensibly open as millions of ‘undocumented workers’ make their way stateside to find work that would pay better wages than Mexico’s available employment. To think of a policy to implement to deal with the border fiasco, one has to take a gigantic step back and survey all the explicit and implicit nuances which are relevant towards immigration and border security.

Border security is obviously an issue that is at the forefront of the debate whenever the subject is brought up — and rightfully so. In the contemporary United States, we face threats from numerous entities around the globe that want to disrupt our livelihood and well-being. Many of these organizations view Mexico as a prime location to gain entry to the United States because of their relatively lax immigration policy and our relatively inefficient border security. The government’s primary concern should always be the protection of its citizenry. Essentially, government is rendered ineffective if it acquiesces to ignorance and refuses to take proper precautions to document all residents in the country — whether they are naturalized citizens or foreigners temporarily in the United States. In order to prevent costly assaults on our livelihood, the proper authorities need to know who has legal residence in this country at any particular time.

Furthermore, Mexicans or other foreign nationals would not risk life and limb trying to infiltrate the border if economic conditions in their homeland were at least somewhat adequate. Unfortunately, the Mexican economy is subject to extreme volatility on the macro level. They have very few stable industries, a poor tax base and an extremely insufficient capital infrastructure. This generates turmoil as it is virtually impossible to earn any type of meaningful income for the purchase of goods and services. The best way to help poorer nations is through free trade.

Despite some critics, free trade aids all parties involved in maximizing utility and building capital infrastructure which facilitates growth and development. The gains from free trade are mightily impressive, as any nation which has been exposed to it can testify to. Throughout the 20th century, nations like Japan, South Korea, and Singapore have benefited mightily from meaningful access to developed markets such as the United States and Europe. Denial of competition thwarts any gains from comparative advantage and renders all economies inefficient in the long haul. Policies which look to minimize the effects of free trade are invariably shortsighted and do nothing for developing nations in their quest for higher standards of living. Effective immigration reform must be multifaceted. The complex nature of contemporary matters demands it.

Industry Depends on Realistic Oil Policy

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent landfall of Hurricane Rita, many have emptied their hearts toward alleviating the pain and anguish that many Americans have felt or will feel. The public outpouring to hurricane victims has once again displayed the generosity and overall good will of the American spirit. Many volunteers have donated their time and efforts to help salvage any type of remnants to help the affected once again get on with their lives.

Unfortunately, this national tragedy also exposed the vulnerability of the United States petroleum refining capacity. Within a matter of weeks, about one-third of the overall U.S. refining capacity has been adversely affected by Katrina and Rita. Such damage to our energy infrastructure should ignite serious debate about the proposition our country should pursue. The essential problem with our country’s capacity to refine oil is that it is extremely inadequate. That a nation with the industrial aptitude of the United States has not constructed a refinery in nearly 25 years is perplexing. Many environmentalist lobby groups have successfully petitioned regulatory commissions to keep refineries from being erected, which have essentially made us more dependent on high quality crude from foreign cartels like OPEC.

There is no conceivable way, at least in the imminent future, that the United States could dissolve the price-fixing entity of OPEC. It is too profitable for the countries involved to stay united and set a universal price for their petroleum. An avenue for diminishing the significance of this cartel is to further establish quality energy sources on the homeland. This means building refineries for converting inferior crude into a usable energy source. It also implies drilling for more petroleum within our borders, effectively allowing the nation to be more self-sufficient.

Furthermore, we should research and develop alternative energy sources, which would allow the nation collectively to ease off the need for petroleum. Oil consumption in the contemporary United States is a cold, hard reality. It would be optimal if the United States could use other, cleaner sources of energy, but such methods take possibly generations to develop. In the meanwhile, significant economic growth depends on the relative cheapness of energy sources such as oil. Instead of erecting excessive barriers to enhanced refinement capacities, this nation should be more accommodating to the consumption needs of its citizens and industry.

This policy dilemma is not about destroying the environment or lining the coffers of oil executives. What the United States deserves is a practical energy initiative that promotes economic vitality and keeps consumption affordable for all citizens. This requires an expansion and diversification of energy resources done in a thoughtful but expeditious time frame. The citizenry deserves such resolve from officials in Washington.

Critics Can't Touch Roberts

As the confirmation battle rages on in the chambers of the Senate Judiciary Committee, John Roberts has been nothing less than stellar in his ability to answer truthfully and authentically questions which are lobbed in his direction. The man exudes high moral character and a respect for the law, which transcends his personal policy preferences. There’s no doubt that, once confirmed, Judge Roberts will be a fine arbiter of the Constitution and an exemplary Chief Justice. He will practice judicial restraint and not effectively insulate policy decisions from the democratic process like some contemporary Supreme Court jurists (and his future colleagues) have so successfully done. Even though Judge Roberts is qualified in every sense of the term, Democrats will no doubt try and take cheap shots at his record.

Labels such as “extremist” or “out of the mainstream” have and will be surely catapulted in his direction. What exactly “out of the mainstream” means with regards to a jurist is hard to gauge. People who use this term seem to perceive justices as super-legislators, having the ability to usurp elected representatives and create policies they deem appropriate. Such a role for the court was never envisioned by the framers and is simply a contemporary myth which has somehow gained acceptance in the legal community and government. Such a perspective leads many extreme left wing groups to make eccentric claims about Judge Roberts supporting abortion clinic bombers and his supposed hostile record towards women’s rights. Senator Joe Biden (D – Delaware), during the hearings last Tuesday, even had the audacity to imply Roberts doesn’t consider women full citizens. Luckily, Roberts was able to take Senator Biden by the hand and explain his jurisprudence thoughtfully and with poise.

Even though Senator Biden and his other cohorts on the Senate Judiciary Committee irk me somewhat, the special interest groups are the real perpetrators of deception and ill-spirited political discourse. Their ads have been nothing less than inflammatory and disgraceful. The “keep abortion legal” mantra is misleading on its face. The group purports that overturning Roe v. Wade will all of a sudden make abortion illegal. Overturning that egregious decision will do no such thing. It will simply delegate the issue back to the states to be decided through the legislative process, effectively ending years of judicial fiat on an issue more properly suited for democratic debate. In the grand scheme of the political environment, a touch of veracity - and proper perspective - would be nice for a change.

Mud-Slinging Left Should Take A Look Within

Most of the rhetoric being disseminated from the Democratic camp has become quite tiresome and repetitive. How many times can one political party blame the other without taking part in any type of self-reflection? The left-leaning faithful have simply rehashed old, wearisome ideas which lack substance and credibility, further dampening their agenda and setting them back years at the ballot box. The Democrats, especially as of late, seem to have a deep infatuation with scoring cheap political points at the expense of the citizenry they claim to represent.

Any policy proposal submitted by a Republican seemingly has been demonized outright without any civilized political discourse to be documented. Take, for example, Social Security reform. All the left has been able to “contribute” toward reform is outlandish claims that Republicans are out to steal pension plans. Most Democrats refuse to acknowledge the pending insolvency, the infusion of eligible beneficiaries and changing demographics. They also fail to acknowledge a petition signed by 450 economists in May of 2005 — including Nobel laureates Milton Friedman, Robert Lucas and Robert Mundell — supporting President Bush’s plan for Social Security reform. Any reform proposal which would create personal accounts, real assets and real inheritability is denied. Ownership is essentially frowned upon by the leaders of the Democratic Party. In retrospect, such a stance isn’t too unexpected. Creating a much larger investor class would dramatically decrease the Democrats’ hope for a welfare state utopia.

What about other federal policies, like health care reform? Republicans have introduced tax-deductible Health Savings Accounts. A worker would be able to divert a fixed percentage of their income into these accounts in order to pay for routine health care services. This direct transaction between consumer and physician will help lower administrative costs and cut out the middleman (i.e. the insurance companies), thus lowering overall health care costs. Not surprisingly, this plan has been championed by many physicians nationwide. What is the Democrats’ proposal? Expanding federal government expenditures and creating higher and more complex bureaucracies. The increased administrative costs would surely wreak havoc on health care affordability for all citizens. But results and practicality never seem to matter as long as they “mean well.”

Democrats must realize that their policies of over regulation and hostility toward business at every level costs Americans good paying jobs and higher standards of living. Furthermore, they must also come to grasp with their blind hatred toward investment and savings. Such animus hinders economic growth and vitality and keeps individuals poor and dependent on big government. The government should encourage citizens to be self-sufficient instead of just sufficient on the government.

Shorten Judicial Terms

One of the most important decisions the court decided to tackle last session had to do with property rights and the governmentís use of eminent domain powers. Enumerated in the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the eminent domain clause, or the ìtakings clause,î specifies that the government (whether it be local, state or federal) may seize the private property of the individual as long as the owner is justly compensated and the land is designated for ìpublic use.î The term ìpublic useî has widely been interpreted as using the newly acquired land for public goods such as roadways, municipal buildings or other public amenities that are accessible for all persons to enjoy. However, the controversial 5-4 decision in Kelo vs. City of New London (2005) has dramatically stomped on all previous precedent and opened up a Pandoraís Box of ambiguity.

According to the Supreme Court, the City of New London could constitutionally seize the land of private homeowners, compensate them for their land and turn around and sell that newly acquired land to private developers to build commercial structures such as shopping malls and office buildings. Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, wrote: ìThe City has carefully formulated an economic development plan that it believes will provide appreciable benefits to the community Ö including ó but by no means limited to ó new jobs and increased tax revenue."

Therefore, the Supreme Court has ruled by the slimmest of margins that if your privately owned property is not bringing in enough tax revenue deemed ìadequateî by your local city council, the government has not just the right, but seemingly the duty to take your property away from you in order to put in a convenience store that will bring in more property taxes. This decision could go down as one of the most un-American, anti-ownership, communist-type rulings in the history of the judicial system. No longer can homeowners feel secure in their property investments. Instead, private property owners must constantly look over their shoulder and be at the mercy of their local city council, hoping that a private developer cannot effectively bid themselves the right to your property.

Private property rights are an intrinsically important cornerstone in the United States, and one that is on the same level as liberties such as free speech and freedom to practice oneís religion. The Supreme Courtís attack on such a fundamental right is an assault on individual liberty and autonomy and goes against the very Constitution that the justices have sworn to protect.

This latest decision has further affirmed my belief that lifetime appointments to the bench do not create an independent judiciary, but rather, out-of-touch justices who let their virtually unmitigated powers corrupt their judgment.

A solution would be to limit justicesí terms. Instead of lifetime appointments, justices appointed to federal courts would serve one non-renewable term. The terms would be staggered so that each presidential term could appoint the same number of justices. This would add fairness while creating a much more effective check on the judiciary. Making the terms non-renewable will allow for the judiciary to still be independent and enjoy limited political pandering during the time of nomination.

Non-renewable set length terms work great for the Federal Reserve, and nobody doubts their independence and autonomy. Term limits on federal justices would decentralize judicial power and create a more equitable balance between the three branches of government.

Fathers In Short Supply

Father's Day was Sunday [June 22, 2005], and hopefully many fathers received praises and well deserved pats on the back for working hard to provide for their family.

But when I use the word father, I generally speak of the man who provides for his family, takes care of his children and stays with his wife through thick and thin. He is a man who honors his wedding vows and realizes that he possesses tremendous influence over the lives of his children and the peace of his household.

I refuse to equate the word 'father' with individuals who run away from their responsibilities and are utterly selfish in their lifestyles.

Unfortunately, it seems real fathers are in short supply over the last half of the 20th century. I am especially saddened that, according to the National Fatherhood Initiative, the proportion of out-of-wedlock births rose nearly 600 percent from 1960 to 2000. Moreover, 24 million children grow up in households without their fathers.

The decay of the nuclear family has lead to too many single-mother households, in which women are subjected to being the primary caregiver and the primary income earner.

It is no coincidence that the colossal increase in fatherless households correlates with more children living in poverty and sub-standard living conditions. It is also a significant contributor to the well-touted "wage gap", which seems to be a popular statistic among college students. Unfortunately, the "wage gap" statistic fails to account for similar education and experience, where paradoxically women are actually earning the same and even more in many fields than their male counterparts with similar backgrounds. Since the statistic factors in all wages across all levels of labor, it makes sense that women would earn less.

Women tend to work part-time more than men because of child-rearing responsibilities. Women who have children at a young age and are absent a husband usually have to forgo higher levels of education because of responsibilities. This leaves women little choice with their financial well-being, as we know, higher levels of education correlate with higher paying careers. Women, therefore, are stuck in lower paying jobs working fewer hours which equates into sub standard pay. This, coupled with child expenses, leaves many single-parent households in financially dire straits.

If a father is permanently affixed in the household, the couple can enjoy added income and share in the child's responsibilities. It is no coincidence that nuclear family homes make up an overwhelming number of the middle and upper-middle class families in this country.

Fathers are of utmost importance. This is why society must promote long lasting relationships and responsible child rearing practices. Besides being important financially, fathers add much needed emotional and psychological support to their children. Children that grow up with responsible fathers have shown to be much happier and emotionally healthier adults. Nuclear families are vital in promulgating responsible, decent children as well as happy and long lasting families -- they should be, without a doubt, an important societal goal to attain.

Nothing 'Secure' About Social Security

Franklin Roosevelt, the creator of the Social Security system, once remarked that it might be in the best interest of the people to move Social Security toward "voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amounts received in old age."

Social Security has proven to be a lousy "investment," if you want to call it that, for everyone who pays into the system. It seems like a harsh statement, but the return the individual taxpayer gets on his or her lifelong donations is paltry at best. Not to mention, unlike money deposited in an IRA or savings account, money dropped into Social Security is never truly yours.

It's not possible to pass that money onto your family in the event of your passing, nor can you use your Social Security payments pre-retirement, say, to borrow against or just simply cash into an investment that is yielding a higher return.

In order for the Social Security system to work properly, a higher ratio of workers to retirees is necessary.

Remember that the system is simply based off of a diffusion of payments (or redistribution of income if you will). Therefore, a smaller workforce paying out taxes to an ever-increasing retirement class proves troublesome.

Take, for example, the fact that when the program was first implemented in 1940, there were 16 workers for every one retiree. According to the Social Security Administration, today that number has shrunk dramatically to three workers for every one person drawing from the Social Security fund.

Although the ability for Social Security to pay its benefits is a problem (since it is projected to go in the red in 2018), my real gripe with the system is that it is simply inadequate for this day and age. With the availability for people to make money in stocks, bonds and foreign investments, why must we mandate our citizenry to this arcane retirement plan?

The annual rate of return in any one of those investments is much higher than the 0 percent you receive from your Social Security payout (not to mention that you can pass on some wealth to future generations). There seemingly is nothing "secure" about Social Security.

I equate Social Security checks for the elderly to the minimum wage -- if you think you can live off of it, you're crazy.

Partial privatization of Social Security can also be a real boost for the economy. The savings rate in the United States, on average, is pretty dismal. If we give more money back to the workers who earned it, we can try and promote greater savings within the system. Greater savings in our economy means banks will have more money to loan, keeping interest and inflation rates down.

Giving money back to the people who earned it in order to invest in the economy is not an evil conception. I'm a strong advocate that when people are faced with a decision, they often make a wise choice.

Opponents of privatization are seemingly scared of the notion of people actually having control over their money and economic well-being without constant government intrusion.

The federal government has proven to be unreliable in managing the Social Security system, which is why this issue has garnered such public interest in the current day.

The Social Security system is headed for crisis, and debate and discussion need to happen today before the system manifests to a full-fledged disaster in the future.

Intelligent Design Informed By Fact

A couple of recent editorials and letters to the editor questioning the merits of intelligent design, or the ID movement, has me curious as to what exactly the secularists and people on the left have against the growing scientific movement.

It seems as though the critics of the theory try to immediately label it as an attempt to introduce religion into the classroom and undermine it as legitimate scientific theory.

To make that assumption is to say that intelligent design is based off of absolutely no science.

This would be incorrect.

Intelligent design has plenty of scientific merits and is based on numerous observations.

The theory proposes that the universe is not chaotic but structured in an organized manner that follows certain rules and principles (gravity, for example). These certain principles can also be seen in how the natural environment has the ability to replenish itself and tends to follow set guidelines and principles. The human being, for example, is very structured and seems to behave in an orderly manner.

Since the universe seems structured, has order and seems designed, we make the assumption that intelligence must be behind its design. Hence the name of the theory: intelligent design.

Unfortunately, too often "hard" science is taken as the absolute or indisputable fact to any dilemma that faces humanity.

However, what many people fail to realize is that everything breaks down to assumptions and axioms, or basic principles that are self-evident.

From these axioms, frameworks are built to analyze the world around us. Now, we may test certain components of the framework to see if they hold any weight, and may also repeatedly do so within the precision that we can measure and test.

But there may be certain instances when they don't hold weight, and we may never run across them or can't even design an experiment to test them. So we take it on "faith" that they will always hold.

Take, for example, the testability of the big bang theory. Some people would respond that we can test the theory by studying background radiation. However, is there any other explanation that can fit the measured background radiation besides the big bang? A reasonable person would say yes.

Also, scientists have been "measuring" that the universe is actually accelerating rapidly. How do they actually measure the expansion in the first place within any accuracy? It seems as though some basic assumptions, which are unscientific, are taking place.

Stephen Hawking is actually working on a new theory that views the universe neither with a beginning nor an end (i.e. no big bang).

This seemingly sounds a lot like a creator, the uncaused cause of all things.

What is ultimately being proposed is to introduce new theories and expose our children to different levels of thinking.

As the great Christian apologist C.S. Lewis once wrote, "By starving the sensibility of our pupils we only make them easier prey to the propagandist when he comes."

Welcome to my Blog!

Thanks for taking the time to view my blog. My name is Tom Car and I'll be a first year law student at the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. I graduated from Indiana University of Pennsylvania this previous semester, summa cum laude, with a major in Criminology/Pre-Law and minors in Economics and Political Science.

Being a college student with a a socially conservative mindset and a libertarian economic philosophy can be difficult in the contemporary college setting. Ideas about the merits of free market economics, the importance of the nuclear family, and the championing of federalism as our political structure no longer seem like viable positions to take in higher learning. This blog will be a compliation of my rants both from my undergraduate days as well as contemporary observations from my subsequent enrollment in law school.

First, I will be posting all my editorials that I have written for my undergraduate newspaper, The Penn. For about a year I was the conservative columnist and held a weekly column with the paper. So readers can get an idea of my worldview, I will post all my articles, starting with the earliest, and working my way towards the most recent and last publication.

I hope you enjoy my blog, and I encourage comments and reactions to my observations. I hope that we can spark dialogue and really have a true battle of ideas, instead of suffering the fate that seemingly is engulfing many collegiate campuses -- the infalliability of liberal (contemporarily speaking) social structures and practices.