In Opposition to the Vagina Monologues

                 The month of February brought more this year than unusually cold temperatures; it also provided an excuse for many Rice students to broadcast their love for a specific part of the female anatomy.
                If you were on campus at all this month, you were inevitably bombarded with posters, fliers, buttons, and t-shirts bearing the slogan “I heart Vaginas.” The intense campaign was in honor of V-day, a worldwide movement inspired by Eve Ensler’s play “The Vagina Monologues.”
                   Witnessed throughout college campuses since 1998, each Valentine’s Day heralds not only the arrival of hearts, kisses, and cupids, but also vaginas. While I am partial to candy hearts myself, support for the vulgar tribute to private parts, this year, was disturbingly ubiquitous on campus.
                 Advocates for V-day define “V-Day [as]: an organized response against violence toward women. V-Day is: a vision: We see a world where women live safely and freely. V-Day is a demand: Rape, incest, battery, genital mutilation and sexual slavery must end now. V-Day is a spirit: We believe women should spend their lives creating and thriving rather than surviving or recovering from terrible atrocities. V-Day is a catalyst: By raising money and consciousness, it will unify and strengthen existing anti-violence efforts. Triggering far-reaching awareness, it will lay the groundwork for new educational, protective, and legislative endeavors throughout the world. V-Day is a process: We will work as long as it takes. We will not stop until the violence stops. V-Day is a day. We proclaim Valentine’s Day as V-Day, to celebrate women and end the violence.”
                   The aim of the cause is more than commendable. I thoroughly encourage the objective and I long to help in the pursuit of this vision. I am troubled, however, by the means in which supporters of the campaign have attempted to achieve their goal.
Central to the V-Day festivities is a benefit production of “The Vagina Monologues,” A play written for the supposed empowerment of women. Put mildly the play is a far cry from the liberation the early feminists envisioned. “The Vagina Monologues” objectifies women in the most crude of manners, essentially reducing girls to a single body part, the vagina.
                  In the fight for an end to the subjugation of women in all forms, the content of the play fails and in fact hinders its cause. The production focuses on women more with regards to sex than on such qualities as talent or intellect. Despite what Eve Ensler might have you believe, empowerment does not emanate from the vagina, but rather the heart and the mind of any given woman. I thought that was the goal of women’s rights, for women to be respected and seen for more than their bodies.
                   The earliest feminists fought for the vote. For the right to voice their opinions, thoughts and beliefs, a product not of the vagina, but of their wits. Exemplifying the exclusion of intellect from consideration in “The Monologues” is the scene in which a former lawyer describes her journey toward liberation. “I started out as a lawyer, but in my late 30s I became obsessed with making women happy. It began as a mission of sorts, but then I got involved in it. I got very good at it, kind of brilliant. You could say I found my calling. I started getting paid for it. I wore outrageous outfits when I dominated women lace, silk, leather. I used props…whips, ropes, handcuffs, dildos. There was nothing like this in tax law.” While I suppose it is important for pre-laws to know what else is out there, I have to call into question the notion that this play represents support and advancement of women. What is the oldest profession again? And in what year did the first woman graduate from law school? I am not sure if this story really represents progress (and I am still confused as to how encouraging sexual domination over other women will reach the goal of women’s lib).
                 Some of my favorite scenes include a portion where the narrator recommends repeating the word “cunt” for relief and empowerment. Advice such as this is accompanied by further probing questions such as: “How would you dress your vagina?” What is the most vagina friendly city?” “What does a vagina smell like?” “If your vagina could talk what would it say?” Such questions prove only to undermine women and perpetuate stereotypes, namely that women dwell on the trivial.
                 The play itself provides little to no realistic information for “protection” against the violence V-Day supporters is attempting to combat. Instead viewers are treated to pornographic descriptions of sex and vulgar conduct. In fact there is one scene in which a young girl “learns” about her sexuality when she is raped by a “gorgeous lady.” “The alcohol has gone to my head, and I am loose. I am ready…. Afterwards, the gorgeous lady teaches me everything about my coochie snorcher. She makes me play with it in front of her… She transformed my sorry-ass coochie snorcher and raised it up into a kind of heaven.” This glorification of lesbian statutory rape and exploitation of a girl I feel is somewhat contradictory to what V-Day claims to be its mission.
                 The cause, to end violence against women, is an honorable and extremely important one. While the funds did go to Houston Area Women’s Shelters I question the values that were stressed to raise that money. How can women end violence through the continued reduction of women to sex objects? We ought to find ways to raise awareness by encouraging positive values to lift the heart and soul of each woman, rather than force her attention downwards toward her lap.

Caroline May
February 19, 2007

President Bush=No Conservative

True Republicans are currently in an abusive relationship with their nominal leader, President George W. Bush. As Peggy Noonan succinctly put it, conservatives remain in a state reminiscent of “battered wife syndrome” in which each blow the administration has perpetrated against conservative ideals has resulted in many remaining loyal, scared to abandon that which they know, merely hoping for a better future.

It is no secret, however, that George Bush’s second term has resulted in a consistent stream of conservatives jumping off the proverbial Bush bandwagon (a bandwagon that currently portends no clear philosophical direction). Grassroots Republicans, the masses of GOP supporters to whom President Bush ought to accredit his presidential victories, have many bones to pick with their former candidate. The man who in his campaigns qualified his conservatism with the feel-good word “compassion” has gone astray from the original premise of conservatism. He has not only squandered any claim to the Reagan restraint from which he hailed but he has also lost a bastion of supporters garnered by the election savvy of  “the architect” Karl Rove.

Seeing Bush as a Texas simpleton, those representing the Left in this country have hated the President from the moment he defeated Gore in the Florida re-count, and continue to do so. With his enemies calling him an illegitimate president, it seems clear that the former Texas governor (celebrated for his good relations with Texas Democrats) has failed in his campaign promises to bridge the divide between Democrats and Republicans in Washington. Washington D.C. is indeed a much different place than Austin, Texas.

In his attempt to reach out to those who loathe him, Bush has only alienated those who actually backed him. Conservatives were baffled for example, by his appeal to Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy with the “No Child Left Behind Program.” Education initiatives it seems did little to sway the career politician Kennedy, a man who has continued to denigrate the President in the media. I love the quote in which Kennedy criticizes the very proposal over which he presided, no match it seems for the polarizing effect of this President, “This is the pattern and the record of the Bush administration (on) Iraq, jobs, Medicare, schools, issue after issue — mislead, deceive, make up the needed facts, smear the character of any critics. Again and again, we see this cynical, despicable strategy playing out.”

In the image of legislation-happy-democrats, the President has allowed government spending to skyrocket and has expanded the government in ways unimaginable for one who claimed to be a conservative. Perhaps it would be pilling on to mention immigration reform and the Harriet Meyers nomination; however, the latter has become relevant in recent days and provides Republicans with just one more reason to leave the President’s side.

To conservatives the administration’s Supreme Court nominations, Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito, represented a ray of light in a seemingly dark period for the conservative movement. In a book, recently published, which received a great deal of input from the White House, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George Bush, journalist Robert Draper tells of some of the most intimate strife within the President’s inner circle. Providing great detail about a wide variety of issues, Draper’s account offers a piece of seemingly damning information about one of Bush’s greatest successes. The book, with administration participation, claims that it was Supreme Court Justice John Roberts who initially suggested Harriet Meyers as the optimal nominee for the open seat on the bench. As many will remember the President did nominate the far from qualified Meyers, receiving near unanimous rejection from even the most ideologically lax Republicans.

Justice John Roberts since learning of the book’s allegations has adamantly rejected the premise. It seems misguided for the President to blame one of his biggest mistakes, Harriet Meyers, on his greatest victory, Chief Justice Roberts. With this claim it would seem that the President has completely rejected any aim to reinvigorate his based. Perhaps with such a short amount of time left in office the President no longer feels compelled to do so. However, is he now trying to destroy one of his greatest legacies? I continue to be baffled by this President. Bush has frequently stated, “history will be his judge.” I have reached a point, however, in which I doubt I will even be able to depend on this….

Caroline May

September 5, 2007

Destruction of the Adolescent Summer Job

Some had internships, some sought adventure abroad, some bummed around the house, some spent the summer looking for a job, and a few found employment. Regardless of the activity, after sitting in classrooms for the last nine months, summer, for the majority of American youth, is a time for- as John Cleese would say- “something completely different.” Having torn free from the bonds of professorial dictates and stifling schedules, the ability to choose one’s activities for the following three months is a luxury of epic proportion. And some do have great opportunities: wealthy parents or  generous relative may finance a trip to Europe. Numerous applications painstakingly written months in advance may have provided one with the opportunity to work as an intern or lab assistant. Others may return to their hometown community swimming pool to reclaim their lifetime gig as the beloved lifeguard. Yet for each trip to Europe or invaluable experience at a top organization there are many wholly unable to set their own summertime agenda. The economic woes of the past year served only to intensify this unfortunate reality.

 

The precise definition of an economic recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth. Although the country did not fall victim to even one quarter of such anemic figures, Americans did feel the pressure of a slowing economy, as (among other things) the housing bubble burst, the dollar weakened and gas prices soared. In the midst of the economic malaise, students throughout the country finished school and ventured out in search of a job- for a bit of spending money, resume enhancement, and good old fashioned character building.

 

Despite the moxie exhibited by a great many teens on the path to gainful employment, the statistics were not in their favor. At the beginning of the summer Kristen Lopez Eastlick, in an article published by the Washington Examiner, provided the distressing news. “According to [the Department of Labor’s] data, only about one-third of Americans 16 to 19 years old will have a job this summer, and vulnerable low-income and minority teens are going to fare even worse. The percentage of teens classified, as ‘unemployed’ -those who are actively seeking a job but can’t get one- is more than three times higher than the national unemployment rate, according to the most recent Department of Labor statistics.” At the heart of this mass increase in teen unemployment was the July 24 increase in the federal minimum wage, mandated by the Fair Pay Act of 2007-one of Nancy Pelosi’s early boondoggles as House Majority leader. Indeed, far from proving to be an economic boon, the increase in the minimum wage contributed to a teen unemployment rate of 20.3%, the highest such rate in over 10 years. A number made even more dramatic when compared with the percentage of total unemployment 5.7%, a figure many consider to be full employment.

 

I have been in many a heated conversation regarding the efficacy of the minimum wage. I am always shocked however at the level of ignorance regarding the economic realities of this superficial wage control. On its face, the minimum wage sounds like a benevolent policy, proffering nothing but excellent results; a course of action sure to shower all who promote it with good karma for years to come. Though appearing to be benign, as this summer’s unemployed teens can attest, this is naught but an illusion. All the good intentions in the world cannot conceal the fact that the minimum wage results in a number of negatives, namely unemployment

The minimum wage artificially raises the cost of unskilled labor, which, as any first year economics major can confirm, results in a decrease in the demand for such labor. In this way the government’s actions encourage employers to seek alternatives like machines or new production methods rather than hire employees to provide labor not worth the price mandated by the government. It is an empirical fact that as the minimum wage rises so too does the unemployment rate. 

In addition to the negatives resulting from this form of price control, it is important to note the demographic make up of minimum wage earners. The United States Census reveals that the majority of minimum wage recipients are teens and young adults just starting off in the job market. Only seven percent were heads of households, and as a study by the Employment Policies Institute revealed, two-thirds of minimum wage workers move above the minimum wage in one year or less. Although a seemingly virtuous endeavor, raising the minimum wage, in the majority of cases, is a result, not of constituent betterment, but rather legislative pandering to special interest groups, namely labor unions.

Supporters of a higher minimum wage might fool themselves into believing their own assertions of moral superiority, but the results of their actions speak volumes. Matthew B. Kibbe, a fellow at the Center for the Study of Market Processes at George Mason University, writes of the harm done to teens. “First, they lose income immediately. Second, because minimum-wage legislation has rendered them unemployable, teenagers cannot gain the experience and skills that would make them employable at higher wages later. If there were no floor price on labor, teenagers could offer to work for a lower price until they had gained the training, experience, and skills they needed to command a higher wage.”

 Caroline May 

August 30, 2008 

The Rice Memorial Center and Universal Health Care

You know the morning scene at the RMC, a line, 15+ deep, stretched past 13th Street, with the forward momentum of Ron Jeremy to church. Coffee, the veritable lifeblood of college students everywhere, is a morning necessity for the majority of the Rice campus. The University response to these daybreak-coffee-cries is the Rice Coffeehouse. The cubbyhole that comprises this campus enterprise is the sole location, within about a half-mile radius, from which study-weary students can buy a decent cup of coffee.

With no other options, the bleary-eyed student inches, ever so slowly, forward in line. Caffeine deprived and anxious, it is incumbent upon the continually time-constrained undergrad to wait while one or two (visibly exhausted and overworked) coffee clerks fill orders that can take up to a minute to dictate. Compounding the matter, the individual who wants no more than a single, easy cup of coffee, must wait, while the “mocha, chi tea, half soy, half skim, with half a tablespoon of sugar and three shakes of cinnamon—AND actually could you fix that with ice??” makes their order. With no competition, there is little incentive for efficiency and or improvements to this system.

The same phenomenon is present at 13th Street. While the line does not usually stretch out of the door, some how it is possible for there to be a packed store, three cash registers and a client turn-over-rate of about one every five minutes. 13th Street has no directive for performance because, as the only snack option, there is no need. In this dichotomy, the customer is an afterthought. At 13th Street, the rule “the customer is always right” does not apply. The preferred motto at this bastion of incompetence is instead: “the clerks will over-charge you at their leisure, and if you play your cards right they just might eek out a smile.”

Now that I have put any ability for me to get a snack at the RMC anytime soon in jeopardy, I will get to the point. My purpose in detailing the inefficiencies, incompetence, and inconveniences inherent to monopolies such as those present at the RMC is to provide an example of an environment without competition and, by extension, the results of such a model. The nationalization of healthcare in America will lead to this very lack of consumer choice and, in so doing, the degradation of the country’s overall medical system.

Americans need only look at such high-minded countries as Canada and the European nations to see the follies of this type of vast government expansion. Since surrendering their medical industries to the state, these nations have been wholly unable to fulfill their lofty, yet well-intentioned goals. Huge waiting lists and long wait times for consultations with and treatments by medical professionals, outdated medical equipment, increased costs, poor care, and an overall atmosphere of dissatisfaction are just a few of the problems ravaging these monopolistic systems.

To what, however, can we attribute these failures? Indeed, what cold-hearted soul would be against providing free medical care to everyone? At the outset it is best to remember that there is nothing in this world that is free – all things have a cost (be it money, time, health, etc.) and no matter how vital healthcare may seem, no man has the right to force others to pay for his necessities. Universal healthcare however, requires just that, by way of the taxpayer. In the second place, no longer spending their own money, patients do not have any incentive to seek out the best cost. In that same vein, doctors and drug companies, no longer accountable to consumer demand, lack compelling motivation to perform at their highest level. Formerly vying for consumer approval, these entities no longer have any need to compete. Without competition the overall quality of care decreases and the average citizen is left bearing the brunt (while the rich travel abroad for medical treatment at the first sign of a sore throat).

If poor quality healthcare, high costs and the like don’t turn you off, however, perhaps this will…With the government footing the bill for your doctors visits and medical needs, this leviathan has an increased interest in your lifestyle. Universal healthcare is thus the death knell of individual privacy.

The potential nationalization of America’s medical industry is a complicated and messy subject and, I concede, far too complex to scrutinize fully within the confines of an opinion column. Nonetheless, it is a relevant issue, worth keeping in mind. I offer this merely as a light-hearted topic for contemplation while waiting in line, this morning, for that essential cup of coffee.

Caroline May
October 15, 2007

Infringements on our Grad Students and Freedoms!

It is not often in this day and age, that smokers are heralded, praised, or even, for that matter, accepted within the community at large. Even here at Rice, in our liberal-all-accepting-ivory-tower-of-tolerance, we see a general trend of discrimination, judgment, and hostility. This is an unfortunate reality and one that must be examined more closely.

I myself do not smoke; indeed, few at Rice would be caught dead with a cigarette in their hand. The minority who do smoke are the social pariahs of our campus, harshly criticized and judged for their addiction.

In the last few weeks there has been an ever-increasing drumbeat of anti-smoking rhetoric, followed in large measure by progressively harsher smoking bans. It is in the nonsmoking community’s best interest to reverse this movement of smoker marginalization and fight for their right to smoke.

The rational for smoking bans is based on a “scientific consensus” which believes second-hand smoke to be a public health risk. As with most controversial topics, the loudest, most visible groups have received the most attention. Interestingly, those with the greatest interest in seeing smoking abolished are not necessarily moved to action by concern for public health.

Standing to profit from smoking bans, politicians, liberal fundraising outfits, and corporations like Johnson and Johnson ignore the preponderance of evidence that challenge their revenue-producing world-view. A study published by the New England Journal of Medicine found that a non-smoker would have to be exposed to second-hand smoke for 4,000 hours in order to inhale as much tobacco smoke as one cigarette. In 2003, a study of the health histories of 35,000 non-smokers living with their tobacco-smoking spouses found no increased health risk among them. This study, conducted by James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of State University of New York, showed that there was no “causal relationship between exposure to [second-hand smoke] and tobacco related mortality.” Perhaps the most damning to those propagating the cause has been the assertion by the World Health Organization, which said that the most in depth investigations, using the “largest and longest studies on second-hand smoke are most likely to find no effects.” Unfortunately for the public at large, the superficial goodwill of the aforementioned interest groups have and continue to affect public policy, to the detriment of individual liberties.

In the minority, and having been vilified for their perceived weakness by society, slowly but surely the country has seen the steady expulsion of smokers from various places. Smoking bans, legislated on the state level, first made their appearance in California in the early 1990s. Since that time, these types of regulations have permeated the country. In the face of this ever-tightening noose, the victims of these laws are facing an uphill battle. Though victory in the war for smoker’s rights is difficult, it is vital for the protection and maintenance of liberty in America.

Consumer preference within the free market should be the deciding factor in the debate over the place of smokers on private property. The risk of secondhand smoke aside, business owners, and thus the owners of the air within their establishments, ought to have the right to decide the optimal smoking level for their businesses. Leaving the decision up to market forces will allow for some businesses to cater to smokers and some to nonsmokers, thereby satisfying the preferences of everyone within the market.

What is great about this system is the presence of choice, rather than an imposition of the preference of the non-smoking community on the minority, both segments of the population can have that which they most desire. Nonsmokers need not be forced into establishments accommodating smokers and smokers need not get nicotine withdrawal jitters in nonsmoking bars and restaurants.

The burden of smoking bans on private establishments is less a debate over health risks and more of an Orwellian demonstration of nanny-state liberalism on steroids. Smoking is not illegal and smoking bans legislate that which individual choice ought to decide.
Indeed, if smoking was as evil as the establishment is making it out to be, the solution would be to outlaw it. The dirty little secret, however, is that the taxes levied on tobacco funds a great deal of government programs; indeed the State Children’s Health Program is funded by tobacco taxes. Thus, the place of smokers ought not be outside shivering in the cold but rather inside, basking in praise, for their funding of children’s healthcare.

Caroline May
November 7, 2007

Poor Santa

The lifestyle police are at it again, no longer content with mandating the choices and thoughts of their peers, society’s self-proclaimed saviors, have greatly expanded their focus. This holiday season the political correctness crowd has a new target, Santa Claus.

Apparently, Santa Claus is setting a poor example for the millions of children world-wide who so admire and love him. While I would have expected the use of non-unionized elf labor to be the first complaint levied against the jolly icon, the Daily Mail last week broke the news: Santa must deal with his weight problem.

Throughout the United Kingdom, malls and shopping centers are demanding that Santa watch his diet and maintain a more svelte figure. This movement has taken root in the United Kingdom in response to a recently released medical report, which predicted that over 50 percent of Great Britain’s population would be obese by the year 2050. While this is an unfortunate statistic, mandating Santa’s pant size is a far cry from a practical response.

Simply put, children so idolize Santa not because they want to be him, but because he gives them toys. Indeed, enterprising children hoping to emulate Santa would sooner don a red suit, give gifts, and get a pet deer before attempting to gain a hundred pounds. Fiona Campbell-Reilly, the spokeswoman at Bluewater shopping centre in Greenhithe, Kent, however remains oblivious. She instead has offered confused children this nugget of “wise” consolation, “He will still be the same lovable jolly man, but will be fitter and healthier.”

This attempt, however, speaks to a larger problem, namely the belief that the citizenry is irresponsible and must be shielded from anything which could potentially be deemed harmful. Such a nanny-state mentality asserts and propagates the insidious myth that people cannot think for themselves. The dangers of obesity are well known and it is the responsibility of the individual to look out for his or her own well-being. It is absurd to believe that Santa Claus’s weight would have any effect, either positive or negative, on a nation’s health.

While the Brits are forcing Santa onto treadmills, the Australians are giving Santa sensitivity lessons. In the post-Imus era, it seems the “ho” hysteria has made its way to the Southern hemisphere. The Sunday Mail reported that Santas employed and training with Australia’s largest Santa supplier, Westaf Operations, were ordered not to use the traditional Santa laugh, because, “‘We were told it (ho) was a derogatory term for females and can upset people,’ said the Santa, who did not want to be identified publicly.”

Instead of his normal, jovial chuckle, Santa will woo his admirers with a lackluster, but enunciated (to avoid misinterpretation) “Ha, Ha, Ha.” Thankfully, however, some have maintained their sanity, “University of South Australia communications senior lecturer Dr Jackie Cook said any banning of ‘ho, ho, ho’ was ‘nonsense.’ ‘Can we use a garden hoe anymore? Do we have to remove that?… Ho, ho, ho from Santa is going to be everywhere. It’s going to be in books, on Christmas cards and kids are going to come across it sooner or later.’”
Western nations pride themselves on their tolerance and freedom. Such restrictions on the thoughts, appearances, and attitudes of the members of society and, of all people, Santa, are a dreadful harbinger of things to come. For I think we all can agree that when Santa Claus is forced to change his ways something has gone terribly wrong.
Caroline May
November 14, 2007

Paul Newman: A Life in Full

The presidential candidates fought a rhetorical battle of words Friday night for their own respective visions of America. Sadly, that same night, a quintessential American lost his own fight with cancer. Surrounded by loved ones, film legend, philanthropist, war hero, and family man Paul Newman died Friday at age 83.

Overshadowed somewhat this weekend by grave financial and political matters, Paul Newman was a man to whom we should all take pause and remember as we move forward into what looks to be an uncertain and ominous era. While times are hard, politics are divisive, and we struggle with the banalities of everyday, our memory of Paul Newman can instill in all of us a renewed faith in humanity. Whoever you were cheering for in Friday’s debate or however you feel about the current financial bail out, we can unite in a shared admiration of this impressive man who truly did make a difference.

Newman lived the American dream. Born to a middle-class family in Shaker Heights, Ohio, he used his vast talents to work his way up and into Hollywood’s upper echelon. He was significant even before his first appearance on the silver screen. In 1944 Newman helped to defeat the Japanese as radioman and gunner in World War II. After the War, he discovered his love for acting as an undergraduate at Kenyon College. Upon graduating from Kenyon, the future film legend studied his newfound passion at Yale University and the Actor’s Studio. He eventually began his acting career in New York wowing audiences throughout the Big Apple and later impressing viewers all over the country in Hollywood.

Having reached the pinnacle of showbiz, Paul Newman exemplified the best that Hollywood could offer. He had major roles in over 50 films including “Cool Hand Luke,” “Exodus,” “Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” “Cat on a Hot Tin Roof,” “The Verdict,” “The Sting” and “Absence of Malice.” He was nominated for countless awards including ten Academy Awards (finally winning the Oscar for “The Color of Money”). His craterous impact on American cinema alone would make him worthy of our united approbation, yet his acting chops were but one of the many positive aspects he left behind.

Steven Hunter, writing in the Washington Post, described Newman brilliantly as an American archetype, “Practical, tough, urban. He figured angles, calculated odds, charted courses, deployed distractions, maneuvered brilliantly. He wasn’t violent, he wasn’t a leader, he wasn’t Mr. Cool with the babes, he had limited gifts for comedy and highly-articulate, dialogue-driven set pieces. But nobody played shrewd better than Paul Newman. He became great playing shrewd.” While women swooned over his piercing blue eyes, handsomely angular face, and unapologetic masculinity, men admired his strength, determination, and commonsense wisdom.

Film critic Pauline Kael wrote in 1964, “They could cast him as a mean man and know that the audience would never believe in his meanness.” America loved Paul Newman. The humble manner in which he lived his life merely served to underscore his exceptionality.

Newman worked in Hollywood but was no representation of its culture. The iconic actor avoided interviews and never read reviews once saying, “If they’re good you get a fat head and if they’re bad you’re depressed for three weeks.” True to form and wholly devoted to his family, Newman lived on the opposite side of the country, in Westport, Connecticut. In this less pretentious setting, one of Hollywood’s most dashing leading men remained married to the same woman, actress Joanne Woodward, for over 50 years. He is famously remembered for saying that he had no reason to stray because, “I have steak at home. Why should I go out for a hamburger?” Working in a culture in which the average lifespan of marriage appears to be shorter than baseball season, Newman’s love for his wife and family were a thrill to behold. We should all be so skillful at maintaining our values.

In addition to the more than 50 years of joy he brought filmgoers and decades of devotion he gave his loved ones, Paul Newman was an exceptionally generous philanthropist. In 1982 he paired up with writer A.E. Hotchner and started the food brand Newman’s Own, best know for producing salad dressing and popcorn. All the after-tax proceeds from the sale of Newman’s products have gone and continue to go to charity. In 1988 he and Hotchner founded the Hole in the Wall Gang Camp. Each year this endeavor provides over 13,000 children with cancer a priceless sleep-away camp experience. Newman has also given millions to his alma mater, Kenyon College, and made smaller contributions to innumerable causes. He died having given over $250 million to charity.

His unwavering selflessness, hardy spirit and, endearing demeanor will be remembered far into the future, much farther, than ephemeral election polls, market fluctuations, or political catcalls. To be sure, Newman was no political outsider. He was an avid liberal-activist and proud Democrat. Despite, what I considered to be, misguided politics; he lived a life in full. Indeed, even a conservative Republican like me can love a man with a spot on Nixon’s enemies list. Whatever the coming weeks may bring, we can all remain grounded in our shared appreciation and celebration of the life Paul Newman led.

Caroline May
September 27, 2008

Candidate McCain

As the election returns rolled in on Tuesday night, my heart sank lower and lower, my worst nightmare was coming true: John McCain was gaining a significant lead in the Republican delegate count. I maintained my optimism through Wednesday and the following morning, vicariously enjoying Super Tuesday’s results through the glee of my Obama supporting friends. I was forced to face reality on Thursday, however, when Mitt Romney, the last hope for conservative Republicans, suspended his Presidential bid. I am currently grappling with the fact that John McCain is now – gulp – the Republican nominee for President.

What is it that makes me dread a McCain nomination? In a nutshell, he is not a conservative Republican. Indeed, 2001 found John McCain considering a change in party affiliation. In the 2004 Presidential election he actively considered running as Senator John Kerry’s Vice President. The list does not, however, stop there. As political commentator Charles Krauthammer accurately stated on Special Report with Brit Hume, “McCain’s apostasies are too numerous to actually count.” I will endeavor to divulge those that I consider to be, the most egregious….

Senator McCain has a terrible habit of co-sponsoring legislation, damaging to the country, with liberal Democrats. Irrespective of the offensive components, the names of these bills, I believe, say it all: McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman, and McCain-Kennedy-Edwards. I do not begrudge McCain for attempting bipartisan legislation; I do take issue with the fact that these bills represent an absolute abandonment of the conservative principles I hold dear.

In addition to his attacks on free speech (McCain-Feingold), attempts to grant amnesty to illegal immigrants (McCain-Kennedy), promotion of economy stifling global warming initiatives (McCain-Lieberman), and an increase in medical liability suits (McCain-Kennedy-Edwards) John McCain voted against the 2001 Bush tax cuts.

The list does not end there. Unfortunately, I could go on voicing my disagreements with McCain on his to desire to shut down Guantanamo, loosen restrictions on federally funded stem-cell research, and even his participation in the “Gang of 14” during the Senate showdown over Supreme Court nominees. I will spare you, however, with monotonous lists, although I am sure that by continuing I will peak the interest of many wavering Democrats.

My conservative brethren and I now stand at a crossroads and though my inventory of grievances with John McCain is painfully long, I am loath to think that our only other option come November will be Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama. Conservatives throughout the country are reacting to the McCain nomination in a number of ways, some positive, many negative. In this situation, with the conservative movement seemingly in disarray, the worst thing we can do is sit out this election, or worse, vote for the Democrat nominee out of spite.

The course of the country is not a joke and media pundits like Ann Coulter do nothing but harm when, for shock value, they seek attention by advocating support for Hilary Clinton or not voting at all. A McCain presidency is better than surrendering the helm to either Clinton or Obama.

The fact that our candidate is not a conservative does not mean the movement has ended. Rather it provides an impetus for conservatives everywhere to get active and enthusiastically fight for change at the grassroots level. If the president is not a conservative, then lets saturate our local and state governments with conservatives and elect conservatives to the House and Senate! Michelle Malkin put it well, “If you can’t stomach John McCain, channel your support and energies to Republicans who do represent your values and who have treated the conservative base as allies instead of enemies.”

All Americans have a voice- it is up to us whether or not we chose to use it. John McCain may not be the ideal candidate and though I despise a number of his positions he is better than the alternatives. Further, I am certain that if conservatives play an active role in the various campaigns nation-wide we can maintain a presence and continue to build and preserve the movement through and long past a McCain presidency.

Caroline May

February 9, 2008

Barry Manilow Throws Down

The free and open exchange of ideas is a perennial value and goal of liberty-loving nations worldwide. Americans treasure the ability to hear and be heard. Freedom of speech is a universal entitlement for all citizens; the right to be heard therefore does not include the right to silence those with whom you disagree.
Seventies relic Barry Manilow, however, seems to have missed the memo. Manilow provided ample evidence of this when he backed out of a long-scheduled interview on ABC’s the “View” this week. The singer refused to appear because producers were unwilling to bar the more ideologically conservative “View” hostess, Elisabeth Hasselbeck, from the set during Manilow’s show visit. Manilow elaborated on his web site “I wanted to let you know that I will no longer be on The View tomorrow as scheduled. I had made a request that I be interviewed by Joy (Behar), Barbara (Walters) and Whoopi (Goldberg), but not Elisabeth Hasselback (sic). Unfortunately, the show was not willing to accommodate this simple request so I bowed out. It’s really too bad because I’ve always been a big supporter of the show, but I cannot compromise my beliefs.”
Barry Manilow, to clarify, was to appear on the program to discuss the release of one of his new greatest hits albums, a topic entirely unrelated to politics. This, of course, leads one to the inevitable question… Just how exactly does discussing 70’s love ballads with a woman, who happens to vote Republican, compromise his beliefs?”
The “View,” whether fortunately or unfortunately, acts as a mirror for the overall health of the American conscience. If a “View” guest cites political differences as a legitimate reason to refuse a conversation with a hostess, what does that say about the current state of discourse in the country? Has the fear to offend or be offended reached such a level that Barry Manilow cannot see it fit to discuss his singing career and upcoming album with a woman who has a different perspective on the world than he? To prevent dialogue due to disagreement is nefarious enough; however, to prevent discussion regarding issues wholly irrelevant to politics seems unfathomable. Nevertheless, Barry Manilow, it seems, has made the unfathomable, fathomable.
In a manner reminiscent of elementary school squabbles, Manilow has not shied away from stating both his motives (to silence Hasselbeck and undermine diversity) and what he deems to be the best course of action (pure avoidance).“I strongly disagree with her views. I think she’s dangerous and offensive. I will not be on the same stage as her.”
Many suspect that the crooner’s friendship with former “View” co-host Rosie O’Donnell, no fan of Elisabeth Hasselbeck, provided Manilow further incentive to shun the “dangerous” Hasselbeck. Rosie O’Donnell, as many will remember, left the view in May after a number of contentious disagreements with Hasselbeck.
Barry Manilow’s juvenile evasion of Elisabeth Hasselbeck is a humorous yet insidious act. Where would society be if we all refused to associate with those with whom we have ideological differences? Thankfully, Barry Manilow is no longer popular enough to set trends. (In fact, the Associated Press reported on September 17th that a Colorado judge was sentencing individuals to an hour of Barry Manilow tunes as punishment for noise level violations.)
My hope is that Barry Manilow is an anomaly and that most Americans understand the importance of productive discourse. It is nonetheless erroneous to view an episode such as this one with indifference. Though small in scale, it demonstrates that the political divide in the country, when paired with increased levels of societal sensitivity, has the potential to change the manner and indeed ability of people to communicate.
Caroline May
September 19, 2007

The True Gougers

Americans tend to link a college education to financial success. Sometimes I wonder whether a college education is worth the price, or, to put it in the language of economics majors: is what we pay in time and money an economically efficient use of resources? While politicians, interest groups, and certain segments of society accuse and condemn oil companies, pharmaceutical enterprises and the like for perceived price gouging, it always strikes me as odd that colleges and universities are able to escape such criticism.
The net price of college tuition in America has consistently been rising at a rate far faster than national inflation. In the last five years, the cost of four-year colleges rose 31% above the general inflation rate. A press release published by the House Democrats in 2006, pointed out that since the year 2000 tuition at public universities has increased by $2,000 (or 57%) and, at private universities by, $5,000 (32%).
The increase in the price of oil has nothing on the skyrocketing price of higher education. Maryland Public Policy Institute’s Dan Lips compared the cost of college tuition with the price of gasoline from 1986 to 2006. In that time frame, after adjusting for inflation, tuition and fees at public universities rose 122% and private universities rose 80%. (I feel it is safe to say that this is a rather large increase.) Lips further calculated that while the real cost of a gallon of gasoline increased from $1.58 to $2.50 in 2006, if the price of gasoline has risen at the same rate as college tuition, consumers would be pumping gasoline at $3.50 a gallon (in 2006).
As college students we all face this reality, as we watch thousands of our dollars slip out of our accounts and into the hands of the university cashier. What is causing this drastic increase in price? Despite the numerous conspiracy theories propagated by those hostile to capitalism, the high price of gasoline is primarily due to market forces. College tuition, on the other hand, has some other factors at work.
To be sure, demand for college education is on the rise, more Americans are attending secondary schools than ever before. Further, there is increased competition for good faculty and the fast pace of technological advancement has required consistent university spending to keep systems current. Such factors alone cannot, however, explain the massive price escalation. In a somewhat different response than their reaction to oil prices, the government is enabling these institutions to continue raising their costs by way of federal subsidies. The College Board reports that from 2005-2006, total federal college aid amounted to $94 billion. This represents 95% increase in aid since 1995. Yet while the government is pouring money into the problem, their actions act to merely aggravate the problem.
Federal aid allows for colleges to continue raising the price of their product with less consumer outcry. With a less elastic demand, colleges feel a minimized need to lower their prices to compete in the market. University economist Richard Vedder put it well, “Students receiving grants or subsidized loans are far less sensitive to tuition increases than they would be if they were paying their own way,” Dr. Vedder argues. “Where entrepreneurs in a free, unsubsidized market seek to cut costs and lower their prices to lure new customers away from businesses that are raising theirs, there is very little of that in higher education.”
Although the presence of third party payers cause price increases, access to higher education ought not be exclusive to the wealthy. Yet, while the government allows those who would otherwise be absolutely unable to pay the opportunity to attain a degree, the College Board reports that “changes in student aid policies have benefited those in the upper half of the income distribution more than those in the lower half.” Ironically, the majority of those footing the bill for such student aid, i.e. the taxpayer, do not have a college diploma. In fact USA Today reported that only 29% of Americans can lay claim to an undergraduate degree. As Dan Lips wrote, these taxpayers are “subsidizing students from upper- and middle-income families, who can go on to expect far higher lifetime earnings.”
All who have shown commitment, talent, and merit ought to be given an opportunity to attain a college degree and strive to reach their highest potential. This being the case, colleges must remain accountable for the prices they charge and the government ought not act as an accomplice, allowing colleges to continue to squeeze their student’s wallets-seeking to extract every last drop.
Caroline May
March 26, 2008