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

Standing Up for Edison’s Original

An ignorant and, in so being, apathetic citizenry is one of the greatest dangers America faces today. The sound bite, media-driven world, in which reporters whittle the content of congressional bills, thousands of pages long, down to mere headlines, encourages and indeed perpetuates an unaware populace. A thorough knowledge of the realities of any given governmental action is an important responsibility for the preservation of freedom in this country. Without such oversight we put our liberties as Americans in jeopardy, providing an elite few with the ability to slip objectionable mandates on an oblivious public. The energy bill the President recently signed is one such example.
Unbeknownst to millions of beauty-conscious girls countrywide, the President and Congress have done the unthinkable…. Yes ladies, they are forcing us to live under florescent lighting! Our ever-expanding government, in one-fell-swoop, and without a smidge of public outcry, has outlawed the most handy device which we have used for over 120 years to bring light to our homes and offices.
Within the next four years Thomas Edison’s ground-breaking invention, the incandescent light bulb, will be no longer welcome in its country of origin. Edison’s brainchild will instead be replaced with florescent and halogen lights, which somehow manage to dull the color of all that they touch; causing even the most animated people to appear grey and lifeless.
While the bill does not explicitly state, “incandescent lights bulbs will be outlawed by 2012,” the new energy standards set forth require light fixtures to use up to 30% less energy than current levels, rendering our existing systems unacceptable, by federal standards.
To be fair, compact florescent lights (CFLs) are more energy efficient. Further, many claim that although the purchase price is significantly greater, their durability and energy saving capabilities offset the cost, and then some. This might be the case, yet it is important to note that these supposedly “cost saving” light bulbs are already on the market, waiting to be purchased by the cost-savvy consumer. With all their money saving promises, one would expect such bulbs to be flying off the shelves. Yet, despite their availability they do not, and instead represent only 5% of the light bulb market. Consumers, it seems, when given the choice, prefer that which has provided a consistent and visually favorable source of light for over a century.
Brian Carney of the Wall Street Journal, further pointed out, on January 2, 2008 that, “A few years back, one could have argued with a straight face that consumer awareness of the benefits of CFLs was inadequate. No more. The sticking point lies at that ineffable nexus between price and quality–with all that “quality” implies, whether it be service life, the delay between flicking the switch and full power, or color temperature or the look of the thing.” In a nutshell, the government is robbing consumers of the opportunity to demand the best product companies can provide at the best price. Instead the consumer must passively accept that which a few in power have mandated. Capitalism, it seems, is falling by the wayside as we stand by and watch.
Big corporate light bulb producers like Philips and GE are the greatest benefactors of these new government regulations. What commercial enterprise wouldn’t appreciate a government mandate requiring consumers to buy their more expensive alternative? Consumers are indeed getting a raw deal.
For all the acclaim surrounding these efficient lights, The Department of Environmental Protection warns that compact florescent lights, if broken, represent a significant danger. World Net Daily reported that, “presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in CFLs poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually burn out. The potential environmental hazard created by the mass introduction of billions of CFLs with few disposal sites and a public unfamiliar with the risks is great.” Furthermore, CFLs have been found to cause migraines and increase the risk of epileptic fits. Incandescent light bulbs, on the other hand, pose no significant health risk.
I wholeheartedly agree that energy efficiency and global longevity is a priority. I do not believe however, that the government should be allowed to control the public to such an extent that the purchase and use of the current, harmless, standard becomes illegal. It might be fun, however, to see formerly law-abiding, but not wanting to age, baby boomers, seek out the feature-softening lights on a future incandescent black market.
While the image of your mother seeking light fixtures in a back ally is amusing, such unilateral government action is no joke. It is these types of leaks and cracks in the proverbial dike, while protect our rights not only as consumers but also as Americans, that will one day lead to its demise.
Caroline May
January 29, 2008

Gun Free Zones, Danger Free Zones??

For fear of being labeled a militant gun fanatic who wants to arm everyone down to her cocker spaniel let me begin this article by saying I am not calling for the abolition of all regulations on dangerous weaponry. Namely I mean to question the wisdom of Rice’s campus gun-ban and attempt an answer to the perennial issue of student safety. The student handbook is explicit in its firearm policy, in addition to fireworks, ammunition, explosive material, firearms, pellet guns, illegal knives, clubs and other dangerous weapons “[s]tudents are prohibited from possessing firearms on university premises, at university-sponsored events off campus, or in university vehicles used for transportation. This prohibition applies even to those licensed to carry concealed handguns under Texas law. Weapons may be stored at the University Police Department.” To be sure, as a private institution Rice has every right to dictate what is and is not acceptable on its property. Despite Rice’s inherent right, the question remains: does the maintenance of a gun-free zone really mean that the campus is a safer place than if law-abiding citizens were allowed to possess a viable means of self defense?
Case in point, practically all of the more recent mass shootings have occurred in gun-free zones. The good intentions of these restrictions have the paradoxical effect of providing individuals seeking to inflict maximum damage with large numbers of unarmed, defenseless victims–and with them the opportunity to achieve extremely evil ends. The common go-to logic is the fact that shootings never occur in places in which the threat of viable retaliation exists. When was the last time a mass shooting occurred at a firing range or police station? Indeed merely the chance that one person might have a weapon is often enough to deter a would-be murderer from targeting a gun friendly area.
In 1999 John Lott of the American Enterprise Institute and William Landes at the University of Chicago published an examination of all the multiple-victim public shooting incidents in the United States. The pair found that “when states passed right-to-carry laws, these attacks fell by 60 percent. Deaths and injuries from multiple-victim public shootings fell on average by 78 percent.” Further the vast majority of public shootings that did occur happened in gun-free zones.
The futility of gun-free zones is most apparent in that those without a desire for destruction are the ones who adhere to the rules. On the other hand, an individual wishing to devastate a population, facing certain prison time or even death, will not be deterred from action by the potential slap on the wrist for carrying on campus. Unilaterally disarming the innocent makes them naught but sitting ducks, wholly unable to assert their right to self-defense.
Studies have shown that guns are used as a mechanism for self-defense over 2 million times a year. This in comparison to the average 450,000 times guns are used to commit a crime. Guns are an overwhelmingly effective means of self-defense. Just the threat of a gun makes a criminal think twice before attacking a potential victim. More often than not a gun used defensively does not even need to be fired in order to maintain one’s safety.
In writing this I do not mean to marginalize the important work RUPD does to keep students safe on campus. Nor am I saying that licensed handgun owners should be responsible for campus safety. I realize that the policemen on campus are armed and are meant as an added obstacle to criminal malevolence. This is great but for the fact that with fewer than thirty policemen on RUPD staff (not including the 2 meter maids, 5 dispatchers and 4 support personnel) there is no guarantee that an armed policeman will be in the vicinity of a potentially deadly security breach. Unfortunately, a U.S. Secret Service study into thirty-seven school shootings has shown this phenomenon to be all too true. “Over half of the attacks were resolved/ended before law enforcement responded to the scene. In these cases the attacker was stopped by faculty or fellow students, decided to stop shooting on his own, or killed himself.” The study further says that of the thirty seven, only three were stopped by law enforcement.
In an ideal world policemen would be the only ones with guns and able to be on site during any and all disturbances. Regrettably the world in which we live is not perfect and as such maintaining the best safety precautions ought to be the order of the day. In this case Rice ought to allow for the threat of an armed student body. As Cesare Beccaria, the father of criminology, once wrote, “[l]aws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Caroline May
September 25, 2008

In Support of the President-Elect

After months of uncertainty, the longest election in history has come to a close and the country can now accurately identify the next leader of the Free World. President elect Barak Obama, having run a brilliant campaign, deserves all the victory and praise going his way. His triumph was indeed historic and I will be proud to look to him as my country’s leader. Although I am enthusiastic, I do have concerns. Throughout the last two years Obama promised a lot and raised expectations extraordinarily high. Despite the ostensible closure of his campaign, Americans still do not know for sure where Obama plans to take this country. Yes, we have heard that he is for hope and change, but, as a newcomer with a short resume, voters approached Obama much like a Rorschach inkblot-seeing what they wanted to see, not necessarily what he is.
It was always the case that on November 5, 2008 half the country would wake up disappointed, the losers. However, as Obamiacs slap on their party hats and blow their victory bugles, the question, for many remains, what exactly does Barak Obama stand for? While he ran as a centrist, his radical associations, voting record (sparse though it is), and his off the cuff comments have made a great deal of people hesitant to truly consider him a moderate. I am hopeful that Obama will govern with the pragmatism, bipartisanship, and restraint about which he spoke on the campaign trail. While I am optimistic, I remain aware that Obama is America’s most liberal senator and that his ideological history is quite radical. In our desire for his success as a leader, we ought to hold him accountable for all his promises of moderation.
The momentous nature of the election is, indeed, contagious. Against all odds, this black intellectual, son of a Kenyan outsider, with less than 150 days in the Senate, was able to capture a nation. Although McCain lost and conservatism has been relegated to the periphery, the groundbreaking nature of this election is a bright spot. America truly is a beautiful model of equal opportunity.

While I could go on for days divulging my myriad problems with Barak Obama’s ideology the fact remains, he is to be the next President of the United States. I disagree with many of Obama’s beliefs (although I was enamored of his position regarding guys wearing super saggy pants, “Having said that, brothers should pull up their pants. You’re walking by your mother, your grandmother, and your underwear is showing. … What’s wrong with that? Come on….And, you know, some people might not want to see your underwear — I’m one of them.”), but he is now the next president of our county, and as such I will support him.
Each night before I go to bed I say a prayer for (among others) President George W. Bush. You can be sure that, despite my visceral dislike for Obama’s politics, every night hence I will be hitting my knees and praying for his success. Even after such a polarizing election we are all still Americans and I am proud to be able to stand with our newly elected leader (even if I do fear the direction he plans to take the country). Now for 2012……
Caroline May
November 5, 2008

A Thank You to President Bush

Observers this election season have been witness to the cultivation of an exceedingly polarized atmosphere by an ever-increasing mass of campaign minions, career politicians, and political pundits. Each respective side has, for months now, been readying their weapons and mapping out their strategies; attempting to secure votes via the skillful manipulation of rhetoric, divisive politics and hard-hitting inquiries. As different as the candidates are, one similarity is their common tendency to marginalize the successes of our current Commander-in-Chief. To be sure, the pair varies in terms of the degree to which they disregard the President’s achievements. While Barak Obama and Joe Biden disparage our President’s leadership (indeed Biden has hinted that, if elected, an Obama administration might possibly pursue criminal charges) Senator John McCain is doing his best to distance himself from the current administration.
Yet who can blame them? President Bush’s approval ratings are quite low (though they trump Congress’s poll numbers) and “change” has become a contagious mantra, with both candidates embracing the theme. In this environment a relative rejection of the past eight years is predictable, yet to ignore and diminish Bush’s most significant accomplishment does our country a disservice. I myself have problems with a number of the President’s policies; despite this I am more than sensitive to the fact that the administration has succeeded in achieving the most important role of government. President Bush and our unceasingly brave men and women in uniform have made this country safer.
Since September 11, 2001 we have gone over 2,500 days without another terrorist attack on American soil. On September 12, 2001 how many among us would have believed this to be possible? My guess is very few. We have reason to be proud of our country, its warriors, and, yes, its leaders.
Since the collective recognition of America’s domestic vulnerability, our government, under the leadership of President Bush, has reinforced security at home and, with the War on Terrorism, has taken the fight to the enemy. Since going on the offensive against Islamic extremism, our military has succeeded in taking down two of the globe’s most notorious state sponsors of terrorism, the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Jack Spencer and Ha Nguyen, in an article publish by the Heritage Foundation, elaborated on the dangers posed by these types of accomplice nations, “a deadly synergy is created when states like Iraq and Afghanistan choose to work with terrorist groups. States have resources…that non-state actors do not have. On the other hand, non-state actors are able to operate globally and can act largely undetected… This symbiotic relationship can operate undercover, possibly without the knowledge of the American government. Thus, a state hostile to the United States may appear to be acting within the bounds of acceptable diplomatic behavior while at the same time covertly supporting aggressive endeavors of its non-state allies.” In taking the fight to the terrorists we have not only killed and/or apprehended thousands of terrorists but we have also disrupted their organizations and financial resources, deprived them of training grounds, and put them on the defensive. Further, the wars abroad have had the added bonus of acting as a magnet for terrorists previously gunning for the American homeland. Instead of fighting these violent extremists on United States soil, American heroes are able to kill them on external battlefields.
By treating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 as an act of war rather than as an isolated criminal act President Bush made it clear that America was no “paper tiger” (Osama Bin Laden’s characterization of America in his 1996 Declaration of War Against the Americans). Those actively hostile to the United States and her interests would pay a price. Americans are indebted to the work of our country’s public servants who are fighting the terrorists abroad and securing the homeland from within. Indeed, America has flexed her muscles, come out victorious, and forced those with evil intentions to take notice. With all that the President and America’s valiant soldiers have done to keep us safe, comfortably focused on our own lives and insignificant plights, the least we can do as average citizens is recognize and thank them for their invaluable service to this great country. Thank you!
-Caroline May
September 12, 2008

The Responsible Parties

In the wake of the recent economic meltdown, Americans are eager to assign blame and hold the guilty parties accountable for their poor judgment at best, malevolent greed at worst. To be sure, there is more than enough culpability to go around, from reckless mortgage brokers to politically correct lending practices to inadequate oversight. While institutional glitches bear a great deal of responsibility, the tendency for individuals to allocate any and all misfortune, even that which is self-inflicted, on external scapegoats is a troubling trend in our society.
Indeed, the majority of financial failures in America these days are the consequence of poor decision making on the part of the individuals themselves, not the lenders, not the banks, not the stores, and not the government (not even George Bush!). Ours is a credit culture, and far too many people have grown accustomed to living outside their means. This is a mistake and one that lends itself to negligence and poor judgment. As the markets seem so erratic and we struggle to maintain stability, a return to personal responsibility is imperative. And living within one’s means is the number one requirement for such accountability.
The lure of credit- buy now, pay later- is as sweet as the Siren’s call from Anthemusa, but it is a debt trap and a cause for future financial ruin. My grandfather used to advise, “Stay out of banks. You may never get as rich as you would with other people’s money and some luck, but the trade off is sleeping at night. Live your life so that you can walk down Fifth with mistletoe on your coattail.” If you financed a house you can’t afford or cannot pay back the debt on that expensive Jaguar you had to have last year, you have nobody to blame but yourself. In the end all we really need is food, clothing and shelter; all the rest is just gravy, and gravy that is more than attainable in this country with a bit of hard work and elbow grease. We live in the most opportunity rich nation on earth it is up to us to seize on it and earn enough to afford all the luxuries about which we dream.
As responsible citizens we are advised, in most instances, to save at least 10% of our after-tax income. Sadly, in 2007, the Associated Press reported a study by the Commerce Department, which showed that the average personal savings rate was an anemic negative one percent. This is its lowest level since the Great Depression. “The negative rate means people are spending all of the money they have left after paying taxes — and then some. They are dipping into savings or increasing their borrowing to finance current spending.”
The citizenry is not alone in this; the government also needs to get a grip. The spending on Capitol Hill is out of control, and the tentacles of the state have well exceeded any acceptable range of influence. Like the rest of us, Uncle Sam needs to learn to keep to a budget and avoid outlandish excess. Not withstanding the familial nickname of Uncle Sam, the American government ought not be obligated to rescue and care for those whose decisions have caused their downfall. Our wants are not needs, our needs are not rights, and our rights ought not be deemed entitlements. Tighten your belt, Uncle Sam, and we will take care of ourselves!
To be sure, it is hard to teach old dog new tricks, and the deterioration of financial responsibility has been a gradual process. We must however, reverse the tide and work toward a more willingly accountable populace. In closing, I shall pass on a sage piece of advice my father gruffly used to, and still does on occasion, tell me if ever I go shopping, “Don’t be a reverse alchemist! You know what a reverse alchemist is don’t you?…. Turning good solid money into sh*t!” In other words, the majority of things you buy, once purchased, are worth next to nothing. Better to keep the cash and not be a reverse alchemist.
Caroline May
October 9, 2008

Global Warming aka Political Hot Air

Having spent the majority of my college career skillfully navigating my way around my science and math requirements (if you need a suggestion for an easy DIII I’m the girl to ask!), I can safely say that I am not a scientist. Though I am no Archimedes, I am a rational observer of the scientific community and, as a sentient human being, am susceptible to their discoveries and assertions. Indeed, that which the wizards in lab coats decree has the ability to shape policy and affect the lives of everyone. Presently, the breathless dictum emanating from on high is that mankind is warming the planet, causing the oceans to rise, and killing the polar bears.
Once again, I do not claim to be a scientist nor do I claim to know any more about global warming than the next person. What concerns me is the assertion by the dogged proponents of manmade global warming that the debate is “over” because a “consensus of scientists” believes it to be occurring. In my opinion, to declare a debate over and refuse further discussion is to reveal that the argument is weak and cause people, like me, to question any further assertions. As the great, and sadly recently departed, Michael Crichton once said, “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right…. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.” Indeed fact is not a part of consensus, rather only the majority opinion.
The consensus used to believe that the world was flat, that there were witches in Salem, and that the sun revolved around the earth. I am inclined to see what others are saying on the matter and there are many, highly regarded scientists who are skeptical of manmade global warming. Unfortunately, the debate has become highly politicized and agenda driven.
To power-hungry politicians, anthropogenic global warming is manna from heaven. How to stem its effect is their long sought after question for the solution they have always had: more state control, more taxes, more regulations, and more opportunities for self-aggrandizement, a la Al Gore. The propagation of this initiative is greatly hindered by debate and inquiry, thus a fascistic oppression of dissent has become the order of the day. Paul Joseph Watson has written eloquently on the topic: “The assertion that global warming is man made is so oppressively enforced upon popular opinion, especially in Europe, that expressing a scintilla of doubt is akin to holocaust denial in some cases. Such is the insipid brainwashing that has taken place via television, newspapers and exalted talking heads – global warming skeptics are forced to wear the metaphoric yellow star and only discuss their doubts in hushed tones and conciliatory frameworks, or be cat-called, harangued and jeered by an army of do-gooders who righteously believe they are rescuing mother earth by recycling a wine bottle or putting their paper in a separate trash can.”
While there is little doubt that the planet has warmed slightly, nobody can know for sure to what this can be atributed. The lack of unquestionable proof, outside of a majority opinion, requires more investigation, an engaged populace, and a transparent scientific debate. For, the policies promoted by those adhering to this hypothesis (that temperature change is manmade) are far-reaching and oppressive. Let us be certain that we have something to fear and/or that our actions will make a difference before we institute some of the most drastic initiatives a free society has ever considered.
It is our liberty as Americans that makes the United State the greatest, most opportunity rich country in the world. The free market of ideas and goods has been the proverbial pillars which have sustained this country since its founding. The proposed spending initiatives, draconian regulations on behavior, and unfettered government control of our personal lives are antithetical to the America we know and love. The threat of global warming is no reason to allow for the indubitable destruction of American prosperity.
Caroline May
October 9, 2008