Timmyscape

Utopian Cabinet

2006-05-31T22:14:00.000-05:00

The 2008 elections are over, here is my dream cabinet.

January 2009: Here's the team I want:

President - Arnold Schwarzeneggar (Blogger: David L)--Who better to lead...a guy who battles big state government and unions openly or a guy who fights against waste/corruption in student government.
Vice President - Mitt Romney (Blogger: Brad V)--Both natural leaders who have histories of success (Mitt--Bain Capital, 2002 Winter Olympics; Brad--Beacon/LIB, SJ) and know what is important in life: God, family, freedom, life.
Attorney General - Tucker Carlson (Blogger: Opiate of the Masses)--Will only enforce the important laws and will diminish the state's excessive policing power.
Sec. of State - Mel Martinez (Blogger: Steve S) Excellent communications skills while fighting for American interests abroad. Understand what true freedom across the world should look like.
Sec. of Defense - Pat Buchanan (Blogger: Madison Freedom Fighter-Bob)--Different styles but in the end: Nobody will fuck with us.
Sec. of Interior - Gordon Smith (Blogger: Kellie S)--Making sure both commerce and the environment thrive in our states while holding to federalism principles.
Sec. of Health & Human Services - Tom Coburn (Blogger: Moral Majority)--Moving the National Govermentt away from drug subsidies and excessive regulation. Restoring a respect for life.
Sec. of Education - Michael Barone (Blogger: Jenna)--Getting rid of useless bureaucracy, promoting possible programs that encourage performance pay for teachers, abolishing No Child Left Behind, encouraging school choice and voucher programs.
Sec. of Homeland Security - John McCain (Blogger: Erick B)--Allowing more immigration to occur while keeping the bad guys out.
Sec. of Treasury - Larry Kudlow (Blogger: Jeremy of DP)--Free markets and a pro-growth strategy.
Sec. of Labor - Pat Toomey (Blogger: Fay)--Putting unions in their place while hopefully calling for the abolishment of the department.
Sec. of Commerce - Thomas Sowell (Blogger: Madison Freedom Fighter James)--Will promote free markets, open information, and more outside contracting within the department.
Sec. of HUD - Norm Coleman (Blogger: Anno Domini)--Reducing department drastically. Moving housing subsidizing to more efficient demand-side programs (supply-side, public housing===bad)
Ambassador to France - Nancy Pelosi (Blogger: Badger Blues)--Banished to lament about job security and family farms.
Ambassador to UN - John Edwards (Blogger: Texas Hold'em Blogger)--Let them be annoying and waste their time in a useless organization.

HT: Art Rasputin Red State Diaries

Immigrants Should Be Seen As Assets

2006-04-16T11:59:00.000-05:00

The immigration debate has sputtered on for a number of weeks here in the public and on the blogosphere. Many bloggers have been denouncing illegal immigration as "criminal" and leading to American unemployment. Could the right UW blogosphere be trending upon excessive legalism and anti-capitalist sentiment here? While I want to see the laws in our country enforced (even though I disagree with a number of them) and I want to see labor force participation of the native and immigrant population at high numbers, there are more important underlying issues that need to be discussed further in this debate.

1. Immigrants and world workers should be seen as equal players in the US and global labor markets. Why is someone that was born in Wausau, WI entitled to a job more than a person that was born in Monterrey, Mexico? If a computer programmer is willing to work for $20,000 in Delhi versus $50,000 in San Jose, where should an entrepreneur further his web design business? In America, in some circles there is still this disposition towards entitlement in that we all deserve good jobs. We've seen this through the anxiety and xenophobia connected with the outsourcing of jobs to India and China. We've seen this through anti-Latino sentiment when this segment of people our chosen for jobs in construction and agriculture because they work harder for the same or less pay. In our country of luxury, we must realize that in order to continue to be successful we must increase our productivity, education, and work ethic. We also must be willing to see the vast majority of immigrants as people who simply want to share in our dream of hard work and success, not as outsiders or inferiors.

2. There is a main argument that immigrants come to America to leach off of our government social services and health care. Yes, illegal immigrants have posed a burden on some local governments, especially in the southwest US. The way I look at it though is that this problem is simply a symptom of the problems of our large and expanding government. In reality, no one should be receiving free lunches in the way of health care, welfare, and other entitlements from the state. America has welcomed this problem because it is sucumbing to the socialist tendencies of Europe. Let's put all people on equal ground by making them pay for their food, health care, and services thus we won't have to worry about these individuals being dependent.

3. For possible national security reasons, let's create some type of ID system at border checkpoints, so that we can track previous criminal records of individuals (from their former countries) and have numbers on immigration in to our country. I know that civil libertarians shutter at this type of proposition. The government would have limited information on particular individuals and could only do further background checks with warranted suspicion. In reality, this system would be easy to implement, fairly inexpensive, and hopefully would help the US get rid of possible terrorist or other trouble makers that would be more of liability than an asset. I also believe that far fewer people would try to cross the border illegally and simply would go through the checkpoints.

Looking at basic wage rates in countries like Mexico, Cuba, and other less developed nations, it's extremely logical to why people want to move to the US and why the US simply hasn't moved their immigration quotas to fit demand. When people are making about $1 per hour across the Rio Grande River in the factories in Mexico and they could be making $7-8 flipping burgers in Texas, what will people naturally do. They will move to where the better jobs are. Why we as Americans think we are entitled to certain jobs and entitled to keeping people out of our country who want to work is outside my values and logic? Illegal and legal immigrants continue to help our country flourish economically by performing essential research and occupying the physically hard and grueling jobs. These people should be seen as assets to our economy and country, not criminals or invaders.

Chris Dols for ASM Engineering Write-In

2006-03-27T02:18:00.000-06:00

Working to rearrange the means of production through the ASM student body?

Information found on Offsides facebook group

Various Tidbits

2006-03-25T15:57:00.000-06:00

Walmart Shrugged

But James Domenico of San Francisco......describing Wal-Mart as a "rapacious and unrelenting competitor that routinely, as company policy, drives smaller competitors out of business."

Sounds like James Taggert instead of James Domenico.

HT: NY Times

Being a Patriot is Pricey
Sick of your blogger domain name and need a address of higher profile, Grant of the Beacon and James (Stanford) are selling their Patriotblog domain name for........$2,500 via Ebay. Sounds a little overpriced to me but I can't say I know a lot about the internet domain market. I wonder how much people would be willing to pay for Timmyscape......any takers???

The Sickening Reality of the Republican Party--from Arlen Specter
One of the few liberal Republicans left in the Senate had something to say about his party colleagues this week:

"The Republican Party is now principally moderate, if not liberal"

This was in response to increase of the debt celing to $9 trillion and the Senate passing a record $2.8 trillion. Sad thing is that Specter's words are true. I hate the reality of our national government and the National Republican Party but what are we suppose to do??

ASM Campaign Folly
The ASM campaign trail is filled with candidates claiming "fiscal responsiblity". This rhetoric is usually claimed by most if not all candidates of all different slates. Whether they are really fiscally responsible though is a legitimate question. Now in 2006, candidates are moving beyond fiscal responsiblity towards making actual claims of returning money to the students. And no, this isn't David Lapidus, Kellie Sanders, or someone that actually could make this claim based on their record....proceed to SAP's candidate Sree Atluru's facebook campaign site and read the following:

3. Being fiscally responsible and making sure to get money back into your pockets.

What?? If SSFC this last year had 17 Sree Atluru's, the students would not be getting any money back this next year and SEG fees would have gone up. She continuously voted with FUSE members (Knox, Edwards) against most if not all cuts, did not propose cuts, and basically sat silent during the last few budgets of the year including UWRCF and CFACT. Unless some dramatic political or fiscal change of philosophy, the only pockets that Sree is fattening are the GSSF groups. Props to Badgerzach, NotQuiteRight, for helping return money to the students for next year.

Shameless Plug for Robin Hood Slate
The one group of students that has a record of standing up to GSSF interests is the Robin Hood Slate and we're against funding excessive student group salaries, trip request, social gathering requests, food requests, etc. The historic model has been to make small pithy cuts or give whatever the student groups want in terms of funding. Our candidates are here to change that. Our candidates understand that ASM Student Government should be used to support practical ventures such as keeping the UW Administration off the backs of students, funding an economical textbook rental plan, etc. Student government's main roles should not include lobbying state and national issues or promoting forms of social justice. You pay $600+ a year in SEG fees and with the election of our candidates, hopefully we can lower these fees and can lead the campus with respect and pragmatism.

Special Advocacy:
1. Vote Craig Nipple in the School of Business. Rath's voting record on Nominations points towards obstructionism and on ASM Council, shows that he's not moderate but rather liberal. Rath should not win in the most conservative school on campus. Nipple assures a solid voice of fiscal responsiblity and small government.
2. Vote Adam Putzer or Amy Reinke in Letters and Science. These 2 candidates especially need our votes where other candidates have enough of backing to surely get on Council (ie Lapidus).

Republicans Must Not Be Hypocritical On Life

2006-03-22T22:31:00.000-06:00

One of the easiest ways to degrade your political opponent on either side of the aisle or whatever point on the spectrum is to accuse them of being hypocritical. For instance, easy points to criticize the left are:

1. Pushing for low-income housing while putting growth controls on development.
2. Not supporting international trade agreements and claiming support for third world poverty efforts.
3. Pushing civil libertarian positions on drugs but then at the same time pushing nanny state positions on tobacco and food/obesity.

These are simply examples and its clear that often positions a political party or member takes can be seen as contradictory. One of the positions the left and the public at large can see as hypocritical is the dominant stance of the Republican Party on life, particularly abortion and the death penalty. The Republican party will most likely in the near future not abandon its stance on abortion (to do so would be political suicide) yet it should should move towards a conclusive pro-personhood stance advocating against the death penalty.

Brad V layed out the major reasons for opposition to the death penalty in terms of its ability deter, punish, or remove a threat. Obviously murderers are not a threat to society if they are sentenced and forced to serve life in prison. While prison is fairly tame in our modern society, who would actually want to sit there for life and is not dying (albeit 10-20 years later) a easy opt out? I'd rather fry for 1 second in an electric chair than spend decades more in prison. The fact is there is no evidence that the death penalty actually prevents homicide, especially when you consider that many of the people who commit murder are not mentally stable. While considering the effectiveness of the death penalty in stopping homicide, we also must consider how much it costs to prosecute and put someone to death. According to the death penalty information center, Texas spends an estimated $2.3 million dollars per case. In other states it costs even more per case due to the extensive legal process involved. From a cost-benefit case, this is not financially intelligent especially when looking at other possible uses such as increased law enforcement. While touching on the determent and financial aspects, another issue that I won't go further into is wrong decisions (check out Northwestern's study) and executing innocent citizens.

The ultimate issue though for Republicans is whether they see justice in the death penalty and do they find it moral and ethical to take someone's life even if they have done a horribly bad thing. Many will take "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" position but is the way our society should run and is this a moral or even Christian position. When someone hurts you physically, mentally, possibly even financially in a wrongful manner, the next move should not be to get back at them or get even. It should be to address their sin openly and ask them for repayment in a "sorry" or other justified manner. If legal issues were violated and can't be settled personally, then the answer is to obviously go to court and find retribution. While a murderer may not ever be able to pay the people they hurt back for killing someone in their family or close friends, compassion and forgiveness should be our main response. In the following passage, Jesus's main point was to expose the hypocrisy of the Pharissees. But I believe this passage is important and strikes a precedent of the kind of compassion and forgiveness we ought to show also.

John 8

¹But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. ²At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. ³The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group ⁴and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. ⁵In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" ⁶They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. ⁷When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." ⁸Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

While there are passages in the Bible that show pro death penalty tendencies (Genesis 9:6), the Bible does not offer strict guidelines to the procedure. In fact, the Bible does not offer much guidance to what role the government should play in our society. However, the Bible does advocate justice, compassion, forgiveness, etc. and in my opinion, we should let God handle life and death, not society. People can be transformed through hearing the Gospel and time, prison, and grace often does change people. While protecting society and advocating justice, Republicans must also be consistent in promoting pro-life views and supporting the existence of individuals. The hypocrisy on life within conservative circles must end.

Campus Political Posters Are Hilarious

2006-03-22T01:45:00.000-06:00

Recent Thread from the Varney article in the Herald:

Anonymous....ie Timmyscape (March 21, 2006 @ 9:24pm):

Thank you Eric Varney for being the leader the campus really needs. Instead of focusing on useless social justice activities and educational lobbying, ASM is actually making a difference on the real issues affecting the campus. The Robin Hood Slate elected an excellent chair and hopefully will again use their power to elect smart and articulate campus leaders this next year.

Anonymous (March 22, 2006 @ 1:05am):

"ASM is actually making a difference on the real issues affecting the campus."

What has Varney done to make a difference on campus?

Textbooks- oh wait, that's Academic Affairs and volunteers.
Bar Age- oh wait, that's Vice Chair Rath and volunteers.
SAFEcab- oh wait, that's Rath and volunteers again.
Military parades- oh wait, that was Sivret and volunteers.

Facilitated worthless council meetings? That's something I'll give him credit for.

"Instead of focusing on useless social justice activities and educational lobbying"

So what you're saying is, students shouldn't know their rights, there shouldn't be diversity (white-only school?), gays should be treated as second-class citizens, poor kids-those most in need of a hand up-should be kept at community colleges where they belong, and students should just put up and shut up, and not try to shape the world they're about to go off into? I guess if we don't like it, we can just move off to France, I hear their students are happy about the new job laws.

All Robin Hood seeks to do is elect more mindless flag-waving McCarthyists and try to cut every program that is valuable to students until only a private university is left. Oh wait, they still want to fund CFACT.

I think there are legitimate criticisms of Varney's chairship but I think he has done a decent job objectively leading Council Meetings, focusing on the few issues that ASM should be taking on, and giving good media bytes. You have to love the crap coming right out of the ass of this anon poster. "Still want to fund CFACT".....um.....CFACT's budget: Lapidus "No", Schulz "No", Harbin "No". "Textbook===Academic Affairs"....wait a second, Varney came up with the financial cash flow statements that will probably actual propel this program forward. Do you think any of the other Academic Affairs staff would have had the knowledge to do this...no way! Have fun reading the rest of the pitiful post.

CAFTA, NAFTA, SHAFTA

2006-03-16T20:13:00.000-06:00

Every once in a while I spot a bumper sticker that really catches my attention and make me realize how many misguided people there are in our society. Driving back to our condominium in Frisco (CO) after sking in Breckenridge, I was stuck behind a Suburban that had an extremely intelligent sticker reading "CAFTA, NAFTA, SHAFTA". While the goal of freer trade has been promoted by the majority of economists, politicians (Democrats, Republicans) and educated elite, it seems as though public opinion and political actions are moving in the direction of protectionism and antiglobalization. Last summer even with Republican majorities in both Congressional houses, it took a huge push by Bush and Republican leaders to get a very small trade deal passed in CAFTA. This year Schumer and Graham proposed a bill placing tariffs on Chinese imports of 27%. While the antitraders throw out rhetoric about currency valuation, labor standards, environmental standards, etc. , what they really worry about is a neoliberal world in which some American workers and industries might lose their artificial comparative advantage. For instance, one of the main special interests that showed their political strength last summer when CAFTA was up for vote was the Sugar Industry who did not want to lose their artificial advantage (through historic tariffs). They lobbied many house of representatives in southern states into voting against the bill. Sugar tariffs cost the average American family an average of $20 a year and all to benefit an industry of about 38,000 workers ("International Economics" by Krugman). When I wrote my representative Ron Kind in voting in favor of CAFTA, I got a lame response that the deal did not include labor or environmental standards. Does he expect poorer countries such as Honduras or Panama to put in place high air and water quality laws and minimum wage laws when people of these countries simply need jobs in order put food on the table and a roof on their heads? While I clearly wish that developing states were able to put stricter environmental laws in place and had higher average wages, giving them a level playing field especially in terms of the world's largest export market is so much more important to their quality of life and future development. There's also certainly a sense of fear in middle America and the public majority in terms of outsourcing of jobs and Mexican inmigration. It seems that instead of taking the proper actions such as upgrading their job skills, seeking more education, and welcoming hardworking Latinos who keep our economy running, they fear global competition and a larger supply of unskilled workers. This probably should scare the high school drop-outs who fumbled the ball in terms of their education but it should not scare the majority of the American public who have already have a huge advantage in terms of education, language, and skills. The fact is though that overall, these inmigrants are getting paid $8 instead of $1 an hour, have an apartment roof over their head instead of a shack, and are starting to experience the American dream. From a utlitarian perspective, a free global economy with open borders and open trade is clearly the right choice. From an objectivist perspective, for the government to choose favorite industries and constrict people's geographical choices is wrong. Moving the US and the world towards neoliberalism is the fair and ethical choice, contrary to what the America public and paleocons say.

The Qualitative Left

2006-02-12T14:39:00.000-06:00

Sorry about my lack of posting the last couple of weeks. I’ve had lots of things on my mind, lack of motivation at night, David Lapidus County Board work, an inability to finish posts, and other poor excuses. I’m going to try to be a little bit less rhetorical in the future because I’m much more interested and focused on the real issues and real status of our society today politically, socially, religiously, etc. than loosely throwing out partisan talking points or irrational criticisms. Thus, I’m sorry if I have offended others in previous posts. The following piece has been in the works for quite a long time but I’ve finally finished it. While numerous writers have looked at extreme liberal thinking and have tried to paraphrase their encounters generally, they have not come up with an accurate label for these far-left individuals. Labels tossed around include “socialists”, “moonbats”, “limousine liberals” and “Hollywood left” but none of these terms really accurately describe the thought process of the far left. You can call the liberal elite of this country anything you really want to but I’m going to coin this demographic “The Qualitative Left”.

Who these people are?

One of the quickest things I picked up on campus, both within the classroom and outside discussion is that the left loves to make claims about conservatives and big business and will offer talking points consisting of ignoring the poor, destroying the environment, caring only about money, and the list goes on. These same people will speak harshly about Republicans who aren’t in favor of increasing the minimum wage, want a more equal tax policy, don’t want more social welfare programs, want to drill in the Artic. But are these people usually able to discuss issues objectively and understand why raising the minimum wage might be detrimental to the business climate, why a tax policy may be hurting investment opportunities, why social welfare programs in the past have not proven to always get people out of poverty, and why drilling in the Arctic may be wise to keep oil prices down? No, and very often you will be talking to people of the “qualitative left”, a mass of demographic that pulls disproportionably from woman, minorities, liberal arts professors, social service professionals, teachers, artists/creatives, and nonprofit activist types.

There are many factors that are central to forming people’s political beliefs and typical answers will include parents’ political beliefs, religious beliefs, geographical upbringing, and education. I think one of the key components is your college concentration which not only helps form your worldview but also is an indication to what type of thinker you are. All people think both quantitatively and qualitatively but the Qualitative Left tends to be draw from liberal arts majors based on humanities and less math intensive social sciences. The data from Facebook reflects that students in more qualitative majors will be more liberal and the more quantitative and career-oriented majors are more conservative (or less liberal). These liberal arts majors are where the Qualitative Left draws their strength from and these students will be the teachers, artists, professors, nonprofit activists, social workers, etc. of the future.

Quantitative Majors:

Real Estate= Lib (31) VLib (3) = 34; Con (41) VCon (1) = 42

Finance= Lib (60) VLib (6) = 66; Con (85) VCon (10) = 95

Math= Lib (106) VLib (38) = 144; Con (35) VCon (2) = 37

Accounting= Lib (76) VLib (9) = 87; Con (76) VCon (6) = 82

Mechanical Engineering= Lib (125) VLib (22) = 147; Con (137) VCon (9) = 146

Physics= Lib (64) VLib (18) = 82; Con (15) VCon (2) = 17

Civil Engineering= Lib (31) VLib (6) = 37; Con (17) VCon (4) = 21

Economics= Lib (211) VLib (33) = 244; Con (137) VCon (12) = 149

Qualitative Majors

English= Lib (387) VLib (32) = 419; Con (62) VCon (3) = 65

Political Science=Lib/VLib= NA (Exhausted Search Engines, estimation over 1,000 each category); Con (229) VCon (24) = 253

Art= Lib (149) VLib (58) = 207; Con (17) VCon (0) = 17

Social Work= Lib (90) VLib (24) = 114; Con (5) VCon (0) = 5

Journalism= Lib (397) VLib (71) = 468; Con (74) VCon (5) = 79

Education= Lib (114) VLib (20) = 134; Con (24) VCon (1) = 25

History= Lib (399) VLib (122) = 521; Con (116) VCon (11) = 127

Sociology= Lib (247) VLib (96) = 343; Con (42) VCon (6) = 48

Nursing= Lib (169) VLib (22)= 191; Con (78) VCon (3) = 81

Marketing= Lib (90) VLib (7) = 97; Con (35) VCon (0) = 35

Management/Human Resources= Lib (20) VLib (1) = 21; Con (12) VLib (0) = 12

The data comes from Facebook and rests on a number of assumptions. First, the sample is representative of the real political proportions of the major. I think Facebook is a fair assessment since a large percentage of the student body is on the site. Second, the sample of UW students can reflect the trends of other schools in the US and thus our society in general. Obviously, you look at every UW class 30 years later there will be fewer liberals and more conservatives but the general trends will most likely still exist for most majors. Third, the “quantitative majors” are filled with “quantitative thinkers" and vice versa. There are obviously many exceptions to all students in all these majors but I think this generalization is fair. Fourth, the data leaves out moderate, libertarian, apathetic and other political data. It would have taken more time to get the data and I think looking strictly at the right versus the left should provide an accurate assessment of generally where the Qualitative Left study and are trained.

Problems with Qualitative Thinking

There are many problems with qualitative thinking in terms of public policy. First, in terms of looking at policy decisions from a cost-benefit analysis and exploring the trade-offs of particular legislation, qualitative thinking leads a person to believe that particular legislation is either good or bad. To the qualitative left, they see a tax policy such as the ending the estate tax as “unfair” or “a give-away to the rich” because it would effectively give wealthier people (who have large estates) the right to not be taxed again on their financial assets. These same individuals would fail to understand the argument that these individuals have already paid taxes on this sum of money or that private-sector investment and private giving might substantially increase. Quantitative people can obviously disagree and can make sound arguments pro estate-tax or anti estate-tax but the problem is the qualitative left often cannot even debate or begin to understand the issues.

Second, when discussing the merits of a particular policy in quantitative terms, the qualitative left will change switch the discussion framing the issue emotionally in qualitative terms. I experienced this ploy often during SSFC meetings and one particular instance stands out. When we were discussing the merits of SAFEwalk in terms of financial dollars per walk, hours on duty, and whether SAFEcab could be a more cost effective alternative, members of FUSE kept bringing up woman’s safety using the language of “a rape should be prevented at any cost”. Maybe the city of Madison should create a police state with thousands patrolling the dorms, apartments, and streets to ensure that no woman ever gets harassed or sexually assaulted….sounds awful cost-effective and wise in a society of limited resources. Safety isn’t even one of the main issues where qualitative thinking is normally applied. Topics where qualitative thinking is more often applied are the environment, housing, welfare, taxes and military.

Third, the qualitative left in general puts much more weight in evaluating public policy decisions on a social level and factoring in other qualitative variables. Social variables are very hard if not impossible to measure, even more difficult than environmental variables. Thus, the idea of triple-line accounting (economic, environment, social) is so hard to implement in a cost-benefit analysis. But even within triple-line accounting, the environmental and social costs need to be quantified and often the left will refuse to do it. They will refuse to try to quantify these variables because they’d rather that the social and environmental costs/benefits be put ahead of fiscal issues or they don’t have the ability themselves to even estimate these variables. If we have absolutely no ability to estimate the social or environmental costs/benefits, I believe that they should not be included in any analysis. Here’s a quick example of the left putting excessive emphasis on social and community well-being. When hearing about a plant of a large company closing in their city or country, they think solely about the people who are going to be losing their jobs and not about the efficiency of the economy, the possible gain to shareholders, or effect of people in another geographical vicinity gaining jobs. Typical blame will be placed on greedy management rather than restrictive union rules, low productivity, or a change in the economy. Sympathy will go out to the workers who lost their job and people will lament the loss of social ties and future of the community. The losers will be emphasized and any gain to particular stakeholders will not be mentioned. The discussion of the alternative (ie socialism) will not be discussed but surely aspects of capitalism will be criticized. Why? One possible reason: comparative advantage probably isn’t even in the vocabulary of the qualitative left.

The idea of the difficulty in engaging liberals in political discussion has been well documented by conservative writers including John Leo, Ann Coulter, Dennis Prager, Jonah Goldberg among others. This is because of a number of reasons but it most definitely stems from the qualitative thinking of many in the far left. Go to the central hubs of the far-left blogosphere like The Huffington Post or Daily Kos and this pattern of thought will be reiterated. Why actually discuss the trade-offs and central aspects of legislation when you can throw inflammatory comments and make unsound but rhetorically witty comments? It’s because the left’s ideas often do not make sense quantitatively and hold little objectivity. Being outnumbered in a qualitiative left bastion of thought, educated conservatives and libertarians can continue to win debates because of the ability to think logically, numerically, objectively. Hopefully, the Republican Party can fully return to being an objective party with an emphasis on fiscal restraint, social restraint, and clear quantitative thought. The Democratic Party in its current state with its far-left electorate and supports will never advocate rationale and objective policy.

Evidently the Supreme Court Changes America's Values

2006-01-29T15:28:00.000-06:00

Spoken from the popular Illinois Democratic Senator:

We need to recognize, because Judge Alito will be confirmed, that, if we're going to oppose a nominee that we've got to persuade the American people that, in fact, their values are at stake.

Since when did the Supreme Court change people's values and dictate what the American public see as right and wrong. Obviously, the Supreme Court and the Judiciary is behind discriminating against black people, disposing of fetuses, selling assault weapons, taking people's homes, sodomizing others, and denying certain people civil rights. What's really behind the shit that goes on in our country is not the courts but rather people, sinful people. Laws don't dictate values, morality does....but this is why liberals often determine their sense of right and wrong based on what's legal rather than by what is moral.

**Additions 1/30/06
First, to see another's intellectual support for the last fairly controversial statement please read the Prager's article.
Second, I did not mean to make such a bold statement without additional proof and I thought Prager's article was enough. I'll explain further... I did not mean to label "liberals" or "democrats" as immoral people at all but rather that coastal far left (probably 20-30%) in this country tends to derive their sense of right/wrong from themselves (personal experience/feelings), the law, and science rather than a religious or philisophical text. I know that there are a number of Democrats and left leaning individuals who believe in God or are principled/moral people. In fact, there's a strong contingent of the evangelical left at my church (Blackhawk E-Free) and I respect their political ideals (though on a number of fronts I won't agree with them mostly due to my economic/philisophical beliefs). But let's face the facts, there's a huge divide morally in this country which is mostly set along geographical/political lines. Here's a hypothetical study, many of the sort which have been done before revolving around morality. You ask a sample size of 100 people questions revolving around moral relativism, moral absolutism, God, etc. and go to the bluest of places (Portland, Berkely, Madison, West Manhattan, DC, Boston, Miami) and then to the reddest of places (Atlanta, Dallas, Salt Lake City, suburban Milwaukee, Tulsa) and see how their answers vary. You will find that on average that not only do people's views on politics and religion change but their morality is often based on entirely different things. The blue places will have a much more relativist stance with their beliefs not derived from God but rather from personal experience and society. The red places will have a much more absolutist stance with their beliefs more likely to stem from Biblical principles.
So indeed, you can be very liberal, Christian, and believe that the government should be a strong economic distributive force and be very permissive in terms of marriage, drugs, abortion, speech, etc. This is okay from my perspective if one can rationalize their political beliefs strongly and many people can. But obviously if they are a strong Christian (ie take the bible's teachings seriously) and if they are very politically liberal, then they are justifying the government not taking action on the basis of morality which brings me to my last and final point: Most people in the United States want the government to legislate their morality--both on the left and right. Generally, the left wants the government to impose state health care which they see as a public good and personal right. They like freedom in terms of drug use because they do not see drugs as immoral. They don't want religious thought in public schools or the public square because they'd rather see our society be extremely secular than faith based. On the other side, the right wants to see drug use curtailed because they see it as a sinful act. They don't want gays to be able to marry or even have civil union rights because they see gay relationships as immoral. They want abortion to be banned because they see a human being at conception. My point here is that people want to legislate their morality on others but even when the Supreme Court makes a decision, does it really change people's values on a subject? Not really because often the laws and statutes don't reflect the whole range of perspectives. I believe that the majority of this country derives their morality from something much deeper in the way of religion, philosophies, and social norms rather than the Supreme Court. So when Obama made this false statement, I wanted to share my opinion. I did not mean to label certain groups but the generalizations are clear and I feel I've backed them up fully now.

Thank You Grandma: A Little History Lesson

2006-01-23T23:10:00.000-06:00

Forwarded a great email by my grandma. It rings with truth.

Beer, The Wheel And General History

Humans existed as members of small bands of nomadic hunter/gatherers.
They lived on deer in the mountains during the summer & would go to the
coast and live on fish and lobster in winter.

The two most important events in all of history were the invention of
beer and the invention of the wheel. The wheel was invented to get man
to the beer. These were the foundation of modern civilization and
together were the catalyst for the splitting of humanity into two
distinct subgroups: Liberals and Conservatives.

Once beer was discovered it required grain and that was the beginning of
agriculture. Neither the glass bottle nor aluminum can were invented
yet, so while our early human ancestors were sitting around waiting for
them to be invented, they just stayed close to the brewery. That's how
villages were formed.

Some men spent their days tracking and killing animals to BBQ at night
while they were drinking beer. This was the beginning of what is known
as the "Conservative movement."

Other men who were weaker and less skilled at hunting learned to live
off the conservatives by showing up for the nightly BBQs and doing the
sewing, fetching and hair dressing. This was the beginning of "the
Liberal movement". Some of these liberal men eventually evolved into
women. The rest became known as 'girliemen.'

Some noteworthy liberal achievements include the domestication of cats,
the invention of group therapy and group hugs, and the concept of
Democratic voting to decide how to divide the meat and beer that
conservatives provided.

Over the years conservatives came to be symbolized by the largest, most
powerful land animal on earth, the elephant. Liberals are symbolized by
the jackass.

Modern liberals like imported beer (with lime added), but most prefer
white wine or imported bottled water. They eat raw fish but like their
beef well done. Sushi, tofu, and French food are standard liberal fare.

Another interesting evolutionary side note: most of their women have
higher testosterone levels than their men. Most social workers, personal

injury attorneys, journalists, dreamers in Hollywood and group
therapists are liberals. Liberals invented the designated hitter rule
because it wasn't "fair" to make the pitcher also bat.

Conservatives drink domestic beer. They eat red meat and still provide
for their women. Conservatives are big-game hunters, rodeo cowboys,
lumberjacks, construction workers, firemen, medical doctors, police
officers, corporate executives, Marines, athletes and generally anyone
who works productively. Conservatives who own companies hire other
conservatives who want to work for a living.

Liberals produce little or nothing. They like to "govern" the producers
and decide what to do with their production. Liberals believe Europeans
are more enlightened than Americans. That is why most of the liberals
remained in Europe when conservatives were coming to America. They crept
in after the Wild West was tame and created a business of trying to get
MORE for nothing.

It should be noted that a Liberal may have a momentary urge to respond
to the above, before simply giggling and forwarding it. A Conservative
will be so convinced of the absolute truth of this history that it will
be forwarded immediately to other "true believers."

BadgerZach Wrong on Lenten Booklets and Religion

2006-01-20T00:54:00.000-06:00

In the CapitalTimes yesterday, UWRCF made the frontcover with their lawsuit against SSFC. The issue of student government funding religious organizations is clearly a touchy issue as "the separation of church and state" loomed largely in the back of my mind when first hearing the UWRCF's eligibility. The fact is though from the 2000 Southworth Supreme Court Case, no group may be turned down for funding whether religous or not and the viewpoint of the group should not be taken into consideration. Members of SSFC love to make a big deal about not funding church services but seem to like funding other religous ceremonies like pow-wows. This fact is neither here or nor there however. Following the precedent of Southworth, SSFC can fund religious activities and indeed we funded UWRCF's youth group service (Alpha-Omega similar to Campus Crusade's Primetime), bible studies, and other clearly religious events. The committee did make a few mistakes, particularly on the Lenten Booklets and rent. I don't think the committee was consistent on rent but it is a complex issue....let's go to Lenten booklets. Here's what BadgerZach had to say in the Capital Times:

It's a slippery slope for the Student Judiciary to rule that we have to pay for Lenten booklets that are handed out at a religious ceremony.

I agree that it is a slippery slope for the SJ to rule that the commitee have to pay for Lenten booklets. But the fact is that we funded every other speech literature that was put out. I voted "yes" to the cut because I was under the impression that it was simply a handout that the Catholic church put out in their building, written by outside Catholics. I did not know that the devotions of the Lenten booklets were written by students and passed out around campus (Moral Majority referred to my comments to Tim Kruse in this op-ed). These two facts makes it similar to other types of speech literature like "The Voice" by JCC or Mecha's newsletter. Committee members should not discriminate on the type of literature that is being passed out. Inconsistent are we BadgerZach....

They're pulling the religious card, and I don't think that's necessarily right.

Yes, UWRCF is pulling the religious card and very good reasons. Who grilled them continuously about prosletyzing, religous worship, etc. in both the eligibilty process and budgets??? The whole committee but to point out 2 members who were excessively critical....BadgerZach and Sree Atluru. UWRCF took an excessive amount of questioning and cuts because many members of the committee are anti-religion and the traditional spenders were unwilling to stand up for them. The fact is that a lot of the line items wouldn't have been cut or would have been up for much more discussion had it not been UWRCF.

I hope that ASM Student Council can correct SSFC's ill-advised decisions and restore the funding that's consistent. I am pessimistic however because the committee made a series of great cuts that may be harder to get through Council and UWRCF's budget may end up being too large for my tastes. We'll have to see....

The Corruption of CFACT and Peter McCabe

2006-01-17T21:52:00.000-06:00

On a liberal campus, there are few conservative groups to counteract leftist propaganda and thought. Nearly 6 years ago, CFACT (Collegiates for a Constructive Tomorrow) first put its footprint on the University of Wisconsin Campus. With its main objective to promote nuclear power and free-market environmentalism, a clearly right of center organization now had an opportunity to influence the campus on junk science and excessive environmental regulation. Where I stand environmentally is definitely a mixed-bag but I do stand with CFACT in being an advocate of nuclear power, consumers making environmental decisions, and other particular points. So why would I vote to minimally fund an organization that I somewhat agree with and speak critically of their organization? A number of reasons but it starts with their lack of activity and the corruption of their leaders and in particular, Peter McCabe. The corruption of this organization must be brought to light and with this post hopefully the blinds will open slightly.

Exhibit A: Peter McCabe and also Lindsey Ourada

A wealthy coasty from the Northeast, Peter McCabe is welcome as are all out of state students as they clearly add to the geographical diversity of the campus but also the diversity of experiences and dialogue. What isn’t welcome is the manipulative and selfish persona that many people also in the College Republicans and across campus have come to know. While Peter McCabe may fight for personal property rights on the environmental front, from personal experience I have seen that he does not value physical goods that belong to other people. Last summer at a party, he thought it was okay to take a grill that an owner had on his deck and keep it for his personal gain. Peter McCabe has a history of not only stealing goods from individuals, he seems to also like to steal from UW's students. He wants not only a $35,000 position for himself in the following year but how about also 4 positions for buddies and a trip to Mexico, all paid for by students. His character can also be evaluated on the front that he does everything in his power to dramatize events and take down people that stand up for what is right. The way he has unfairly attacked Kellie Sanders (who has been found not guilty) and is trying to impeach the entire SSFC committee (minus Goessl and Frey) also shows the lack of values integrity and virtue. The fact that him and Lindsey Ourada, both former SSFC members, gave us clearly a sub par budget filled with excessively high numbers, vague descriptions, and ridiculous requests and then proceed to not explain their budget, ridicule the committee, and then sue a number of members shows that both of CFACT’s core campus leaders are dishonest and greedy.

Exhibit B: History

The history of CFACT on UW’s campus is not one of major difference or activity. For instance, the few speakers that CFACT have only attracted at most 50 to 80 people, far lower than their projections of 1,300 for their major speaker series. The main essence of their group rests on their internship program but my question is how much do the interns really do? Former interns have said that they only did about 2 hours of work for an entire semester and got 3 credits for it. Is this an honest internship program and do these interns really deserve credit for the little work they put in? This is clearly working the system for personal gain on both CFACT and students. Obviously a certain fraternity got word of this great deal and signed on in droves (how else do you that their internship program expanded dramatically to around 60 or so students). I don’t know all the facts but further research and investigation needs to be done to see what CFACT’s intern program is really all about. Most likely the program is only about free credits. When CFACT came in asking for money for internship events, the only previous event that Lindsey Ourada could verify is a dunk tank, a dunk tank that they used to dunk hippies in. Sounds pretty hilarious until one realizes this is what CFACT is asking $10,000 for. So from the facts that CFACT has given the SSFC Committee and from other insider sources, CFACT has had very little if almost no impact on campus for the last 5 years.

Exhibit C: CFACT’s 2006-2007 Budget

CFACT came in within a dishonest budget and here are some of the highlights:

--$7,500 for a trip for 7 to Mexico

--$100,000 for 4 speaker honorarium (Yes, they expect to get 1,300 people at each event)

--$10,000 for dunk tanks

--$160,000 for 5 professional staff positions (Yes, I guess college student organizations need to have professional staff…. and not only do they need a professional staff person, they need 5.)

Let’s also add little/no job descriptions, lack of hiring policy, identical speaker descriptions, a blank request form, no description of the Mexico trip, no end of the year report, etc. This was not a budget worthy of anything but the minimum. Also, let’s add to the fact that CFACT is a contract group, giving McCabe and the leadership almost complete control of the money. No way! Try again next year CFACT when you can actually give the committee a detailed plan and strong justification for use of SEG fees.

If I were a national CFACT executive, I would make sure that I put in place honest and hardworking leadership for each chapter. Has the CFACT leadership placed strong student individuals in place, obviously not. If CFACT wants to compete with WISPIRG in the marketplace of ideas, they better earn their keep through strong programs. Their current and historic state says otherwise.

**Update 1/27/06** Additional/New Information on CFACT
--After meeting w/ numerous CFACT leaders I want to alter some of the statements I made in the above post.
1. Indirectly attacking Peter McCabe's geographical history and sociological background was unfair and fairly unobjective of me.
2. The lack of hiring policy is due to CFACT's contract group status (ie they are not required to have one).
3. The end of the year report for CFACT was lost by SSFC leadership and CFACT did provide one.
4. Pete McCabe and Lindsay Ourada do not desire positions with CFACT next year, with McCabe planning to enter armed service duty and Ourada teaching. The professional staff requests thus are not directly self serving.
5. CFACT has put in more safeguards and requirements in their internship program (specifically attendance rules). I still am not convinced that the CFACT internship program is very educational, hands-on, or demanding.
6. Their projection of 1300 for their internship events was based on a CFACT-sponsored speech that John Stoessl gave at UNC. This projection was not explained at all though in CFACT's hearing and still in my mind is not a fair or scientific number.
7. I respect CFACT's staff for challenging the campus with new ideas and their responsiveness to a number of my questions. I still however have issues with their budget, motives, and honesty during the SSFC process.
8. I believe I was too critical of Pete McCabe's character and I owe him an apology. I still do not agree with a number of things he has done but I might have been slightly judgemental/untactful in my analysis.

My Budget Philosophy

2006-01-05T00:46:00.000-06:00

Previous posts have indicated my displeasure surrounding SSFC and in general their lack of fiscal philosophy and consistency. I’ve dedicated a lot of time thinking about what exactly I stand for and what others seem to stand for on the committee. The way I view SEG fees and the way others view SEG fees collided on numerous occasions last fall. This trend of philosophical and political clash will probably continue. For both my sanity and others that are involved or have been involved in this controversial process, I need to lay out where I stand in terms what should most likely be funded and what most likely should not be funded.

1. Social Events should not be funded.

If you’re just a common joe on UW’s campus your social life consists probably of a couple things. One, going out on either Thursday, Friday, or Saturday night (or a combination of the prior nights) to a house party, frat party, or bar and allocating a number of your hard earned or parent earned dollars for both refreshments and cover charges. Second, you may go see a movie, concert or Badger sports game that also hits your wallet. Third, you may be part of a student organization and after the game or the meeting you guys get some food/drinks paid by either your yearly dues or your pocketbook.

Now get this, MCSC wants to throw a ball with food and dance paid for. Oh yeah, and also Campus Woman’s Center wants to throw a “Woman’s Concert” down outside the Union. What if you’d rather join another student organization such as the Real Estate Club and go to their due-paid socials or what if you’d rather go see a Phish concert instead of the “Woman’s Concert”. There are no educational components to these and other events that student organizations demand funding for. How about allowing students to choose what they do in their social time rather than having them inadvertently paying for special events? Allowing SEG fees to go to events of strictly a social nature is inexcusable and says a lot about what ASM’s and UW’s priorities are. But see how the SJ ruled on Monkeyhoes and that is the current state of the system.

2. No handout that is not primarily educational should be funded.

Non-educational Handouts are a much smaller expense than social events or salaries for most student organizations but they are all the more an unreasonable expense. Take condoms for example. A number of student organizations budget for this line item (LBGTCC, SOL, CWC) when there are clearly condoms available a block away at Walgreen’s. Another example of a noneducational handout are pens. Both ASM and CWC asked for these in order to advertise but what really do these do to advertise. Are people really going to be interested in your organization by seeing your name on pens? The main function of a pen is to write and clearly there are a number of stores selling pens on/near campus. If anybody really needs condoms or pens, they will go purchase them at a store. If SSFC members don’t feel like the market is adequate in terms of providing these items, they need to take an economics course, get their hands out of students’ pockets, and get a brain. Handouts that are educational should be deemed adequate because literature is often as effective as a program in presenting a message or information. No matter what the message is and whether religious or not, it deserves equality in funding.

3. Student salaries should be only for a selected few that go above a certain amount of hours (10-12 hours) of volunteering. This measure goes mainly for activist organizations.

I’ve talked about this subject with a number of other SSFC members and 4 of us do understand that activism work should be primarily of a volunteering nature. Whether you’re working at a church in children’s ministry, get petition signatures to save the rainforest in Brazil, running a meeting of a student organization, or putting on a program to support “your” cause, aren’t you doing more of an act of service rather than an act of compensation. Sure full-time church workers, environmental activists, and non-profit personnel do get paid (often much lower salaries than the private sector) but should students working 10-20 hours get paid for activism. Surely not. I can understand compensating a couple leaders who are supervising a large staff and have to put in extra hours. But again, we are talking about registered student organizations…. This year many people on the committee think it is fine to have large staffs for activist organizations (and I use activist in a neutral stance). There are many organizations and SSFC members who see paying student employees as vital to the programs of these organizations. But again if you do not have student volunteers putting on a specific program, should it really be put on at all. Because in reality, if students demand a educational or recreational service won’t the college or the private sector put it on? Again I’m not calling for the abolishment of student salaries or stipends as a whole but the labor budgets of many organizations are preposterous and unnecessary. If the organization is vital to the direct educational (GUTS) or transportation (SAFE) needs of the students, then it should be funded. Exempting a few organizations from harsh cuts, activist salary funding needs to be reformed dramatically.

4. No funding to programs or line items that do not fit the main mission of a particular group.

This was one of my main pet-peeves on the committee when SSFC failed to reject funding requests that did not fit the mission or main objective a group. MCSC is probably the biggest offender of any group. They asked to put on programs/trips that were strictly labor, tuition, and share-governance related and SSFC I believe did not vote to cut any of these programs. Therefore, a group that centers on diversity/multiculturalism is granted money to spend on items that aren’t central to what their group is about. So…essentially it doesn’t matter what type of group you are. You can put on a program about anything and get funding for it. I fought against funding these types of items all year. Sadly, few others really agreed or understood my rationalization.

5. Trying to limit Food/Drink to a bare minimum unless it is essential to the educational or cultural aspects of the event.

One area the committee was tough on all year was food/drink and I have to commend most of the moderates for signing on to these line item cuts. We still funded to food/drink to a small degree (especially if its part of the educational/cultural part of the program) which I guess philosophically I have a problem with. I do agree though with the statements Saar and Kiernoziak made about food and what its purpose really should be.

These are obviously starting points and there are obviously all sorts of different cuts that need to be made to different line items. I try to stick to these criteria but I am not ideological to the core on these rules. It will take a lot of convincing however for me to abandon these principles in any particular situation. Any other ASM or SSFC current or former member, please add other principles that should be added. Thanks.

Christmas Gifts

2005-12-26T02:20:00.000-06:00

In recent years, I have not been a happy recipient when opening gifts because the economics of gift giving saddens me. My main opposition is that there is no so-called “efficient gift” in the any exchange. Never will there be a gain in utility from a gift exchange. There can only be “0” or no gain in utility and this exchange is often in the form of money. With money, the recipient can use the gift in the most efficient manner to serve their needs. Whereas with gift certificates, the recipient is constrained to a particular store/set of stores and does not allow the recipient to serve their core interests. Other possibilities where utility may not be lost are when an individual finds an extreme deal and due to imperfect information an individual may not have made a transaction. Another possibility is when a long-distance relative or friend sends or brings a regional item or a gift not available in your area. An example is a friend brings you a Dave Matthew’s Band t-shirt (that they got at a concert) or my grandma bringing Seroogee chocolates from eastern Wisconsin. These gifts are efficient in the sense that the recipient may not have access or strong access to a particular gift.

Given that gifts in most cases bring a loss in utility for individuals across the US, I have a tough time sitting around the Christmas tree opening presents. So instead of thinking about the loss in utility in the micro-level (my family) and the macro-level (the United States and other nations that celebrate Christmas), I try to focus on God and his gift in his own son, Jesus. Ignoring economics, there are a number of things that makes God’s greatest gift to us so awesome. This gift and any gift have 5 main characteristics (props to Dad for the outline):

An Expression of Love

Romans 5:15 (NIV) ….how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!

To a sinful world, God did not have to send his son. Yet, God did send his son to defeat sin and give everyone the freewill to accept the love of his son.

Meets a Need

Romans 5:16 (NIV) Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.

God met the need through his son because of man’s “many trespasses” or sins commit throughout his/her lifetime. The fact is that an individual cannot earn salvation or a relationship to God by our own willpower, goodness or righteousness. We need God and the gift of his son Jesus met this need.

Lasting Value

Romans 5:21 (NIV) …so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The implications of accepting the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ not only are of extreme importance in this world but the life to come in heaven. While gifts received this Christmas will only be last a limited time on this earth, the gift of Jesus is forever for those who believe (according to Revelations and the rest of the New Testament).

Costly Sacrifice

Romans 5:7-8 (NIV)

Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous man, though for a good man someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

Jesus’ bore the ultimate price of a painful death and execution on the Christ. Obviously, other people on this earth have led painful deaths too. But, Jesus’ was truly not guilty and was never guilty of a sin in his lifetime even though a mortal human being. He also had the ability to avoid his death but clearly he knew that this was his ultimate mission, to be a human sacrifice for humanity.

Surprise!

Romans 5:1 (NIV) Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we^[a]have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ..

The relief and euphoria one feels when accepting Jesus into your life is not only life-shattering and mind-blowing but also a surprise. When an individual begins to trust in the God of Abraham and biblical values rather than on themselves and religious/secular values, he/she will be surprised on how their outlook and perspective on life changes.

*I hope that you can celebrate the gift of Jesus and all other minor gifts this Christmas and Holiday Season. The analysis is short (a much longer dialogue could have be added) and if anyone has any questions please comment.

**I am not criticizing gift giving as a whole and I still like to give/receive gifts. I think that there definitely is something besides the pure transaction of giving/receiving gifts. From a purely economic standpoint, it does bother me to a point.

Patriot Games: Libertarian Republicans Rising Up

2005-12-21T11:38:00.000-06:00

The Patriot Act is currently blocked in the Senate with our friend from Janesville leading the charge. The real strength in the opposition is not from the Democrats on board but rather the Republicans who took a stand in the name of curtailing government intrusion and protecting civil liberties. These individuals are the minority libertarian Republicans in the Senate and include Lisa Murkowski (AK), John Sununu (NH), Larry Craig (ID). Some recent quotes:

"In my state, I think there's pretty strong support for protecting civil liberties during times of war and peace." --John Sununu

"Folks, when we're dealing with civil liberties, you don't compromise them," --Larry Craig

“With a few modest but critical improvements, like making sure that when the government seeks library records it has to show that those records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy, we can give the government the powers it needs while also protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens.” --Russ Feingold

Looking at the bill, here are some controversial parts:

Information Sharing

Sec. 203(b) and (d): Allows information from criminal probes to be shared with intelligence agencies and other parts of the government.

Roving Wiretaps

Sec. 206: Allows one wiretap authorization to cover multiple devices, eliminating the need for separate court authorizations for a suspect's cell phone, PC and Blackberry, for example.

Access to Records

Sec. 215: Allows easier access to business records in foreign intelligence investigations.

Foreign Intelligence Wiretaps and Searches

Sec. 218: Lowers the bar for launching foreign intelligence wiretaps and searches.

“Sneak & Peek” Warrants

Sec. 213: Allows "Sneak and peek" search warrants, which let authorities search a home or business without immediately notifying the target of a probe.

Material Support

Sec. 805: Expands the existing ban on giving "material support" to terrorists to include "expert advice or assistance."

I personally do not know where I stand on a number of these issues and do not know how much power the federal government should have in terms of surveillance and intelligence gathering? I do know though that Congress should be looking at this bill with a critical eye and should not pass it blindly or simply because the White House is pushing it. The country needs to continue to take precautionary measures in order to be safe but excessive and unwarranted surveillance and intrusion is not what our country is about. The bill hopefully will be amended so that FBI and CIA intelligence gathering is lawful and fair, keeping the civil liberties of this nation in mind.

Brief Foreshadowing

2005-12-14T19:58:00.000-06:00

Busy, busy, busy. Finals are getting in the way of everything.

First, I will wait to blog on the CFACT decision because it's precedent that what you write on the blogsphere is fair game for judicial evidence. Pete McCabe's willing to get anything on his hands to incriminate me. I will wait to blog about the decision.

Second, in response to many of people in ASM, I will be commenting more on SSFC and specifically on my budget principles.

Third, I will also be putting out a post during break (so soon) titled: Objective Christianity: Defending the Resurrection. Particular bloggers like to criticize the religion and all religions for that matter. I feel I can make a strong case for why it is objective to think Jesus did rise from the dead (and therefore some may conclude he is the son of God). I can't wait for responses.

Anyways, good luck on finals to all!!!

Current State of ASM: Moving Student Government Right

2005-12-10T02:24:00.000-06:00

Since last spring, conservatives have been winning major victories on campus. There have been several special triumphs to note.

One, we have one of the first conservative chairs in Eric Varney and the campus and conservatives have have benefited from having an objective mouthpiece and leader of the organization. Varney’s response to UW’s Party School Ranking:

“It just shows that we work hard, but we play hard also” Someone that is honest and not a tool for political correctness is someone I can definitely respect.”

Varney’s response to SSFC’s decision on SAFE:

“University of Wisconsin Transportation blatantly failed to follow the proper procedures, resulting in the end of a valuable and popular service in SAFE Cab. Shame on them.”

“Last year, SAFE Cab provided 13,100 rides to students in need, while SAFE Walk only had 1,075 uses. At budget costs of roughly $194,000 and $116,000 respectively, it is apparent that SAFE Cab is a more cost effective and widely used service than its counterpart. SAFE Walk is an important program as well, but it puzzles me why UW Transportation would tout one service so highly over the other, especially with contradictory statistics.”

Instead of making an apology to the students about SAFE, he criticized UW Transportation. This was a great political move and one that garners my respect. Having someone at the top who knows what government should be about (providing essential services) and not about social activism has been great. While Varney has not been extraordinarily active this semester, he has been a good spokesperson, a fair chairman, spoke out in favor of SSFC’s decision on SAFE, and most importantly filed the lawsuit against SLAC.

Second, the Robin Hood Slate won a number of races in a convincing fashion that should not go unnoticed. In the spring, Ryan Scannell whooped up on the competition in the Agricultural Race (600 to 90) and sent Eyal packing (this had other implications also). Brandon Sivet led the way in the L&S with the most votes for the school, Jackie Goessl represented in Education, Ross Olson picked up the spot for the SON, I picked up over 1700 votes in the SSFC race, and others won in convincing fashion in their respective schools. The fall freshman race was even more exciting. Even though the CR’s decided to endorse one of the two conservative candidates, both won dominating other representatives who claimed their racial diversity made them “the” candidate for council. This huge win along with upcoming political star David Lapidus coming close against Kellie Sanders (a loss by only 60 votes) has also solidified the CR and Robin Hood presence on campus---(Kellie you are awesome too).

FUSE is worried and should be terrified about the 2006 spring elections because their support is dwindling and the conservative election machine is strong. The students are and should be coming to grips that GSSF groups are wasteful and that many people on council and SSFC are simply insiders for these organizations. Here’s a recent quote in the Madison Observer from former Diversity Chairman Ryan Sarafolean:

The thing that makes me nervous is that ASM, in general, is moving in a more conservative approach as we have seen lately and that scares me a bit. When the Student Service Finance Committee denies organizations funding that do benefit students here on campus, it makes me nervous about ASM’s direction. We have done a great job for the most part in our past at keeping it a democratic body, but right now I think students in general are taking these opportunities for granted and many do not get involved. (December Issue)

The far left is scared. Programs that aren’t cost effective might start to be cut. Big diversity which is built on large student salaries, huge corporate budgets, and programs that are only social in nature are already starting to be manipulated and sliced into. Radical campaigns such as Transgender Neutral Bathrooms and Worker’s Rights may not have votes or funding in the future. Essentially, there is the strong possibility that socialist activism may not be supported by the students through their tuition in the future.

Third, Nominations Board has been active in selecting not only strong candidates for SSFC and Council but conservative candidates. The first important candidate they selected was Chrissy Harbin who has been a key addition (as have David and Kellie) to restoring fiscal sanity to SSFC. She has brought strong economic arguments and a reliable fiscal conservative position to the table. The second and last main candidate was Leah Moe. A fairly stealth candidate who is not a well-known College Republican, was chosen by Nominations amongst numerous candidates including well known leftist Andy Gordon. Please thank Mary Hegi for heading the effort in bringing more conservative leaders to ASM.

Fourth, mentioned above several times in the article, SSFC has been tougher and brought the budget total to I believe 12% less than last year. Obviously voting “no” to CFACT was a major step and denying specific organizations eligibility (Legal Information Center, Polygon) helped bring the total down but SSFC was also tough on many of the other budgets. Specifically, the committee was harsh towards UWRCF, Student Leadership, JCC, SAFE, and others. Big diversity was essentially preserved for the most part but APAC took some heavy blows and MCSC was brought down significantly also. These particular groups and others like SOL, LBGTCC, Mecha, are still overfunded because insiders stifled real reform this year. We can always hope for next year. The group was brought further to the right during the second half of committee though because of the significant additions of Sanders, Lapidus, and Harbin. The spring is bright and the non-allocables might be actually be fun.

The future is bright for conservatives and particularly the Robin Hood Slate. The name will most likely change but the principles will not. Hopefully, conservatives students will continue to rise up and strong candidates will appear. If not, I’m going to recruit them. With a lead already present (2 to 0), conservatives will look towards winning the spring elections with the expectancy of putting in place real reform in 2006-2007.

Our Generation: Lazy and Apathetic?

2005-12-01T19:20:00.000-06:00

Often I think about how our generation (the so-called Echo Boom) will be remembered in history and what type of impact we will have on America in the coming years? Already certain people are labeling our generation as lazy and apathetic, a product of the digital and video game age. I am not quite sure what to think or to believe but it’s interesting to hear what our elders are telling us.

For instance, my uncle has said told me in the past that our generation does not have the work ethic and stamina due to its reliance on video games and TV for recreation rather than outdoor games and other physical activities. This quite possibly is true in that many of my roommates and friends would probably be much more physically active and educationally productive if Halo was still code for a ring of light, the name Madden drew sighs of annoyance, and Mario was synonymous with “pathetic R&B
crooner”. Yet this is not the reality for much of our generation, specifically men and the hours of virtual fun continue to stack up. Maybe men and for that matter woman will step away from the controller once kids start popping out and quite possibly engage more in conversation, exercise, and print but somehow I think this will not happen. Also, do video games, DVD’s, and TV shows keep us from working, staying in touch with the outside world, and being physically active? Our generation has also labeled politically apathetic by writer Matt Towery of Townhall.com. One of his comments:

As a whole, I think younger Americans are less passionate and focused on issues related to government, policy and other "hard news." Studies show that younger people are shying away from newspapers. They are instead getting word of national and world news as it flashes by on the margins of their Internet providers' home page, or when by chance, they channel surf past a cable or broadcast television news show.

He also speaks much further on how our generation is historically illiterate (read the article The Dividing Line). Do his comments hold significant weight however? Obviously here in Madison many students stay up with the news, are watching CNN, and understand the issues fairly well. However, do students and others our age really participate
and understand what’s going on currently in the US and world? I don’t know exactly because I choose to surround myself often with politically read individuals. I do know that few students read the newspapers and many would opt to watch John Stewart over Wolf Blitzer or Brit Hume. This leads me to believe that “yes” our generation is staying up on certain current events but few really understand the true political
issues well.

Another interesting perspective comes from Steve S of Letters in Bottles once said to me that “there are the 10% on each side of the aisle that really know the issues and there’s the rest of the populace”. Do most individuals our age understand what the privatization of Social Security means? Do they have clear policy explanations on why they hate President Bush other than he pollutes “the environment”, is too "religious”, or doesn’t like black people? Can they name their Congress representatives?

This isn’t a statement piece I guess but I am curious of others opinions. Are we lazy and are we apathetic (in general and comparatively to other generations)?

Conservative Factions and Thought

2005-11-21T22:39:00.000-06:00

Different Types of Conservatives: Where I Fall Ideologically and Why

Within the Republican Party and inside right wing politics, a number of different factions exist and conservatives disagree all the time. All one needs to do is peruse the blogosphere and divisions exist amongst Republicans on particular social legislation, the size of government, the decision of going to war in Iraq, and basically any political or societal issue. The divisions have been magnified as we have seen Republicans spar in the National Government over tax/dividend cuts, the nomination of Harriet Miers, pork-barrel spending, social security and also within SSFC as big spending “conservatives” have battled fiscal hawks over cuts to salaries, programs, and budgets on Student Service Finance Committee. On September 30, the Economist gave a unique look at particular divisions within the United States conservative movement. Further commentary is needed on where I stand and of course it’s fun to label and place particular bloggers and UW Republican individuals into the particular groups.

• Small-government conservatives v big-government conservatives. Mr Bush has embraced all sorts of big-government programmes (from supercharging the Department of Education to creating the huge new Medicare drug entitlement) while trying to keep small-government conservatives on side with tax cuts. But this was a formula for fiscal disaster. It also failed to placate purists who believe that the federal government has no business running schools or pushing pills to pensioners.

In my opinion it’s hard to label yourself a conservative if you don’t believe in and fight for smaller government but look at our “buddy” in the White House increasing Washington’s power not only abroad but domestically. Look at Bush compared to Regan in terms of department spending (given the data is only for Bush 2000-2003).

Percent Change in Real Outlays in First Three Years
Department Reagan Bush
Agriculture -13.2% 8.5%
Commerce -29.0% 9.6%
Defense 18.6% 27.6%
Education -21.8% 60.8%
Energy -19.6% 22.4%
Health & Human Services 9.0% 21.4%
Housing & Urban Dev. -3.7% 6.1%
Interior -4.6% 23.4%
Justice 1.2% 11.0%
Labor -29.4% 56.0%
State 9.5% 32.5%
Transportation -13.0% -1.3%
Treasury 31.1% -7.0%
Veteran Affairs -3.9% 29.4%
Total Outlays 6.8% 15.6%
Sources: Budget of the U.S. Government and Mid-Session
Review for FY2004.

I do applaud President Bush for cutting taxes and attempting to maximize taxpayer’s social security accounts but I don’t appreciate increases in the federal power in terms of education and health care. I really don’t like the increase of any particular area of the federal government (beside national security when need be). Within student government, I have stood for fiscal conservatism intended to limit the burden on student taxpayers. Too bad big government conservatives (Goessl, Frey) have stood in the way of real reform in terms of limiting student groups to fewer salaried positions, putting on events that pertain only to their mission, and cutting outright waste. Big government conservative also at a national level have blocked reforms that in the long run would lessen the government’s role and spending in social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and cutting pork. I can’t place anybody on the blogosphere in the big government category but other libertarians such as Mark at Opiate of the Masses joins me in hating the federal state.

• Conservatives of faith v conservatives of doubt. Doubters don’t think that the federal government should interfere in people’s private lives. They don’t want Washington meddling in states’ rights to legalise euthanasia or medical marijuana. Conservatives of faith believe that the federal government should encourage civic virtue. Under Mr Bush they have had the upper hand. The Justice Department has been aggressive in imposing its views on the states. The poster-child of the conservative movement on Capitol Hill at the moment is Senator Rick Santorum, a staunch advocate of family values.

I am most definitely a conservative of doubt for many reasons. First off even though I may disagree with particular choices people make in terms of lifestyle I don’t believe that the government has a right to intervene unless an adult’s actions affect others (and in particular kids). I really don’t believe also that legislation makes a large difference in curbing immoral behaviors. Instead I think that the laws we often put in place hurt taxpayers (ie drug-users in jail, excessive police enforcement), hurt Christian and religious witness, and make secular liberals hate conservatives and Republicans. The divide can be verbalized in terms of Judeo-Christian versus secular values or historic versus new-age values and the clash produces hot-button issues such as abortion, gay marriage, drugs, and flag burning. What I really wish is that people would simply follow the God of Abraham’s laws. Then there really wouldn’t even be any discussion about legislating morality. To read articles from a conservative of virtue, try Brad V over at Letters in Bottles.

Insurgent conservatives v establishment conservatives. The conservative movement, rooted in the south and west, has been deeply hostile to Washington. But electoral success has created a Washington-based Republican establishment, which spends its time doling out goodies to its buddies and expanding federal power. Mr Bush has managed this relationship by presenting himself as an anti-Washington Washingtonian: the son of a president who prefers to spend his time in Texas. The insurgent wing seems increasingly unconvinced.

Being a conservative outside the Beltway and hating large federal government, I would label myself an insurgent conservative as would most of my colleagues at College Republicans and within the blogosphere. The cronyism and handouts within the current White House and Republican dominated legislature makes me sick and abhorred. The excessive pork, the poor nominations, and the increasing federal government makes me wish for a divided government where far less would get done and hopefully spending contained. I can’t label anyone inside ASM or the College Republicans an establishment conservative because nobody has federal power but clearly politicians such as Tom DeLay, George Bush, and Ted Stevens fall within this category.

• Business conservatives v religious conservatives. The latter are waiting keenly to see whom Mr Bush appoints next to the Supreme Court. Business conservatives are worried that religious people have already got too much. Mr Bush’s stance on stem-cell research will cost America its competitive edge in biotechnology. Add to this their concerns about Mr Bush’s reckless fiscal policy and you have the making of a business revolt.

Too often, the Republicans have focused their energies on social issues appealing to the religious right and social conservatives. Evangelicals do have a strong hold on the Republican Party and this power has been applied through Bush’s decisions to hold government spending on stem cells and the introduction of the national gay marriage ban. I do hold some socially conservative views (I am in fact an Evangelical) but I am by far much more of a business conservative than religious one. In my view, government’s main objectives are to provide essential services that the private sector cannot provide (infrastructure, education—its been moved to a public good in the 20th century, and national security), intervening in market failure (externalities), and protecting rights of individuals. Thus, the government should steer clear of excessive regulation and advocate low taxes, privatization, free trade, open borders, and establishing the right to work would all be in my platform if I ran for Congress. I basically would follow within the Club for Growth model in making sure that the US and the world can continue to expand economically and business opportunities are open to all. While many of the religious conservatives are also business conservatives in the UW College Republicans, a couple clear member of this faction would include E-Board member Lavonne D and Jenna over at Right off the Shore. Business conservatives include myself, Mark at Opiate of the Masses, and Jeremy at Daily Perspective.

• Neo-conservatives v traditional conservatives. The former have an expansive vision of America’s role in the world—a vision that has come to include not just nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq but also the transformation of the Middle East. But traditionalists balk at the hubris of this vision. How can conservatives who believe that government power is fallible rally to the idea of transforming an entire region?

Conservative politics especially in Washington have moved towards a hawkish foreign policy especially within the Executive Branch. This may be a result of 9-11 but I think this ideology has been mainstay within Beltway Insiders at least since Regan. I am a traditional conservative in the sense that I would prefer that the US be selective in its conflict overseas. I believe that conflicts should be looked at on a cost-benefit basis and to me, unless something dramatically changes in Iraq, the $200 billion and 2,000 US lives were a mistake. I want Iraq to succeed as a democratic and sovereign nation but somehow I “doubt” that US military action can directly change the hearts and minds of a culturally and religiously different people. I would love to have democracy and liberty spread across the Middle East but somehow I feel that the US military acting preemptively is questionable and most likely is a poor investment. I am by no means isolationist and believe that the US does have a role in helping and protecting the world but I think its role should be much more limited than what is desired by many of the right elite. In searching for a neo-conservative point of view, look no further than Bob over at Madison Freedom Fighter.

Random Thoughts

2005-11-04T01:42:00.000-06:00

Today I simply wanted to address my last posting and number of other topics that have been cycling through my mind (in a Tom Sowell fashion).

Partisan games are a detriment to government at any level. This last week games have been played by liberals both the National Government and SSFC. Whether it be shutting down public government sessions to the media or repeatedly asking for role call, immaturity and devious actions are uncalled for even in the harsh environment of politics. Representatives that serve the public should be ashamed when their motives are to taint their opponents, distort the truth, or scheme other unethical actions. Conservatives have been guilty in the past (ie Bill Clinton Impeachment Trial) so “no holier than thou” attitude should be held. Instead of playing games, groups of any part of the political spectrum need to be focusing on the issues and working efficiently for change.

Brad Vogel has a list of good ideas on how to reform SSFC and the SEG fee system. I do not know which I prefer but I do know that the system is flawed. The current system is leading to progressively higher SEG fees and higher budgetary requests from GSSF groups. The issues revolving around VPN, mandatory participation, and an unlimited pot of money make my blood boil. My stance within the given system has been to be consistently fair with each group and stand for steady financial principles (even when others do not).

All week I have been pondering the issues revolving around what role values have in determining social policy. Dennis Prager writes in many of his columns of secular, Judeo-Christian, and Muslim values as the main core value systems here on earth. In the US, the battle is clearly between Judeo-Christian and secular values. I would like to propose values that are neutral but I am unsure whether that is essentially the same as secularism. Values and therein laws that are strictly based on science may often lead to policies and societies that are Godless and cold. If we start to place our faith in science alone, human life is devalued, animals can be placed on the level of humans, it is okay for humans to be selfish, and materialism/experience reigns as the central reason for life. Whether the government though should be run according to a particular value system is up for debate? Yet, the government ultimately does have to choose a value system or a mix of value systems when constructing law and order. I am talking in circles but the reason for my last posting was to test where the government’s underlying values when creating social policy. One can argue that with the United States often Judeo-Christian values have been central to law and order. The ACLU disagrees and prefers not only values that irreligious but are extensively secular. I am not sure about where our country is headed in terms of values/norms but I do feel if people’s right to prayer, speech, gun ownership, and privacy are starting to be constrained, we are definitely headed the wrong direction.

Advocating Conservative Values yet Libertarian Social Policies

2005-10-30T22:20:00.000-06:00

One of the biggest barriers existing between today’s conservatives and liberals especially on campus is the issue of values. In the United States, the vast majority of conservatives prescribe in some way to Judeo-Christian values which include moral absolutes, personal responsibility, choosing life, rejecting materialism, putting man above nature and other animals, and many other values that stem from Biblical principles. The vast majority of liberals hold secular values that include moral relativism, equating female equality with sameness, equating humans with animals, worshipping nature, and placing feelings above doing “what is right”. These underlying values produce the greatest amount of friction and quarreling between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, and religious and nonreligious. For instance you rarely ever hear a liberal spout their hatred of conservative who are advocating smaller government or free trade but rather you hear them calling conservatives “religious right activists”, “heartless businessman”, or “intolerant racists”. On the other end conservatives accuse liberals of being “stupid hippies” or “godless self centered hedonists”. Values are probably the most important political contrast between Blue America and Red America and will continue to play a huge role in politics.

While I feel that biblical values are central to the future of our country and to the world, enacting them on the public through extensive laws and force is not the way to move people towards Christ or a Christian or Jewish faith-based society. Often the religious right takes positions that clearly restrict freedom and the ability of people to make choices. Examples of vices that many conservatives want restrictions on include doctor-assisted suicide, drugs (specifically marijuana), and other individual centered destructive behavior. So while liberals deride social conservatives for passing laws that promote morality and restrict sin the left promotes their own version of decency.

Laws are the Left's vehicles to earthly salvation. Virtually all human problems have a legal solution. Some men harass women? Pass laws banning virtually every flirtatious action a man might engage in vis a vis a woman. Flood legislatures with laws preventing the creation of a "hostile work environment." Whereas the religious world has always worked to teach men how to act toward women, the secular world, lacking these religious values, passes laws to control men.—Dennis Prager

Instead of taking a neutral stance in terms of morality and social constraint, liberals love to put into law rules that fit their moral stance. Two real examples come to mind from within Madison. First, the Madison City Smoking Ban was put into place in order to keep people safe from second hand in bars and taverns. This law restricts the choices students and adults make when they enter smoke filled bars and allow the government to put more restrictions on business and the health of its citizens. Second, SSFC passed condom line items for LBGTCC, Campus Woman’s Center, and Sex Out Loud giving students a “thumbs up” in terms of bedroom activity making ASM Student Government an advocate sexual behavior. Liberals on SSFC and ASM Student Council would be outraged if the school placed restrictions on particular sexual behaviors on campus but love it when the state advocates their own sexual beliefs.

So both conservatives and liberals want to move the government to support their ideals socially. Conservatives in the United States mostly are moved by Judeo-Christian values in determining policy focusing their effort to eradicate particular vices. Liberals are centered on secular policies which are often geared towards compassion, equity, fairness, and health. From both sides of the aisle, government is used to place restrictions on individuals and advocate morality. Why can’t government simply take a step back and let individuals be judged for their behavior by God?

"For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil." Ecclesiastes 12:14

"And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment." Hebrews 9:27

Christians must stand up for what is right and deride sinful behaviors. Yet, I feel that as mere humans we are not here to place direct restrictions on people’s actions if they are not hurting anyone but themselves. Behaviors such as stealing and murder obviously hurt others in society and therefore punishment is warranted but why would we regulate drugs or other self-centered actions? As a Christian, our role is to bring the light of Christ in our actions and our words. In a more restrictive environment, secularists simply see Christians as police agents and narrow-minded religious zealots. In an open environment, Christians lead by example in not engaging in sinful behavior (not doing drugs, not being selfish, being truthful and honest, etc) and speaking out against certain actions especially when the state is uninvolved. God loves freedom and he gives us the choice everyday to follow his commands and accept the gift of his son Jesus. If God gives us personal freedom in making these critical decisions, let him be the one who judges, not the state. I am an advocate of Judeo-Christian values but allow the government to restrain itself from personal morality decisions.

Joy

2005-10-27T09:41:00.000-05:00

The withdrawal of the Harriet Miers nomination brings a sigh and awe to both conservatives and liberals across the nation who had extensive doubts about Bush’s close friend being a Supreme Court Justice. Without a judicial history and clear judicial philosophy, across the red blogosphere pundit after pundit felt Bush’s choice was bent towards cronyism and made unintelligently. While she probably would have been conservative vote on the court on abortion and business issues, her lack an engrained constitutional philosophy I feel would hurt her tremendously. The last thing we need on the court is another O’Connor who shuffles back and forth, reading the Constitution differently for each issue and case that comes before the court. What the Supreme Court needs are more people that are going to take its original words seriously and serve with consistent principles and judicial ideals. George Will summed up the main problem with Miers extremely well:

In their unseemly eagerness to assure Miers' conservative detractors that she will reach the ``right'' results, her advocates betray complete incomprehension of this: Thoughtful conservatives' highest aim is not to achieve this or that particular outcome concerning this or that controversy. Rather, their aim for the Supreme Court is to replace semi-legislative reasoning with genuine constitutional reasoning about the Constitution's meaning as derived from close consideration of its text and structure. Such conservatives understand that how you get to a result is as important as the result. Indeed, in an important sense, the path the Supreme Court takes to the result often is the result.

We can be thankful that Miers withdrew her nomination today and be hopeful that Bush will nominate a man or woman of great judicial knowledge and a reputation of judicial conservatism and restraint.

SSFC Committed to Getting Involved in the Dorm Bedroom of Students

2005-10-25T00:31:00.000-05:00

Tonight, SSFC decided that we should fully fund condoms, condom cases, lube, etc and there was no discussion about whether these are valid uses of student's money or not. Everyone on the committee has no objection about getting involved in student's dorm room besides me. I was the only one to raise the point that students should buy their own condoms, that student's should take responsiblity for their actions, and that students who buy their own condoms or choose not to have sex should not have to fund those that do take advantage of the service. No one even debated the amendment that I put forward to cut a line item that struck condoms from an event. No one else raised the point that having student's collectively fund this is wrong. I am absolutely pissed that when a budget comes before the committee about sex (LBGTCC, Sex Out Loud) that nobody is willing to make legitimate cuts on their services. Fiscally conservative members (Saar, Frey) were even unwilling to drop the condom cases down for Kiernoziak's amendment. Our student money should be going to legitimate resources like education, transportation, etc., not to encourage and fund people's sexual activities. At least there were members in attendance that agreed with me yet they were not speaking at the meeting. In terms of both LBGTCC and Sex Out Loud, the committee loses their integrity and responsiblity in terms of allocating student fees wisely. If this abhors anyone else, please comment.

The Issue of Safety and Security is an Economic Policy Issue

2005-10-18T23:11:00.000-05:00

Sorry about my absence on the blogsphere recently. I'm currently swamped with work. I did manage to write this piece last Friday and I am hoping it is published in the Badger Herald. This weekend I will be writing an article advocating open borders for the US.

Last week, the Student Service Finance Committee had to make a hard decision on whether the SAFEwalk service was overall beneficial to campus given its steep costs per walker. The service maintains that the two central components of transportation and safety. With regards to the transportation service, SAFEwalk does not perform well in terms of serving a large percentage of the student body where the SAFEride and SAFEbus have shown to be much more widely used. No one on the committee was vouching for the service to be saved on efficiency or transportation use grounds.
The main premise then in opposition to cutting the SAFEwalk program was the component of safety. Without clear evidence and statistics to backup the claim of SAFE officials, employees, and supporters that SAFE is making the campus more safe, it is hard for me as a committee member to assert these claims as being fully valid. That being said, the main argument to support the SAFEwalk service on the basis of safety then is that safety is priceless and if we could only save one woman from being assaulted or raped, it would be worth it. This illogical assertion needs to be addressed because in full in order to be able to make wise policy decisions.
Within the realm of economics, there are a number of tools used to justify or make public policy decisions. Two specific tools are particularly pertinent when evaluating a safety or security decision. The first is the precautionary principle, a tool often used in environmental economics when determining what level of a specific pollutant is deemed to be both safety conscious and economically viable being based partially on science and partially on opinion. According to definition, it is supposed to be used when there is a “reasonable suspicion of harm, lack of scientific certainty or consensus must not be used to postpone preventative action”. In applying it to SAFEwalk, what is the adequate level of safety and crime for how many walkers are needed in a specific area to be the “eyes and ears” of campus and prevent crime in a given area. Government or SAFE itself would then make the decision based on the crime level that keeps people and property relatively safe. Even by setting a precautionary principle in place, crime will still occur and low-level pollutants will hurt particular people and the particular level and therefore costs and benefits should be calculated and used in the analysis even if costs and benefits are not the main criteria. The precautionary principle is designed however then to lower the likelihood of harm to the public.
The second tool is cost-benefit analysis which weights the cost and the benefits of an action while accounting for time through discounting. Cost-benefit analysis is particularly popular in the financial world but it is also used when making individual purchasing decision, environmental policy decisions, and is applicable in many decisions a particular individual makes. Applying the tool to security, one would need to weight out the costs of patrol officers or security officials with the overhead of the program and then designate the benefits of prevention. The costs are easy to evaluate. The benefits are not. In order to define the distinct benefits of SAFE, we would need to evaluate the benefits a SAFE employee stopping people from damaging property (possibly $200 for a street sign) or the benefits of ending an assault which clearly is very difficult (maybe $500,000, $1,000,000 or any particular number that the department or government chooses to value it). The fact is that if you do not put a value on stopping even an abhorrent act like rape, then you cannot evaluate the opportunity costs of the decision. For instance, if we put all of society’s taxes and stock into stopping rape/assault with security and technology, then we will have no money in this hypothetical “police state” of ours to regulate environmental quality, provide social services, carry out government, fund national defense, and do all the other things that make society run.
The argument I am merely trying to make is that in public policy, officials cannot try to view certain aspects of people’s lives or even an individual’s life itself as “priceless”. With any policy, government needs to put a price on the cost and benefits of the service being provided whether it be police protection, transportation infrastructure, or pollution controls. Right now actuaries have already determined what your life is worth in the case you want to buy life insurance. Homeland Security officials quite possibly could be taking this actuarial data into account when determining where to place specific security measures. The quality of your health might be being evaluated at this current moment by the Environmental Protection Agency Staff when deciding air quality laws and the fact there are coal power plants on or near your place of residence. If we cannot put even place high numbers of dollars on safety, government and public officials have no way of evaluating many important policy decisions. As a committee member of SSFC, one of the main points I had to consider is whether SAFEwalk as a safety service is worth over forty dollars per walk (to the students). I had to evaluate whether this money could be better used elsewhere in the name of transportation and safety and also had to determine whether SAFE indeed does make the campus a safer place. The committee made the decision and I stand by it.

Political View Comparison

2005-10-13T00:03:00.000-05:00

You are a
Social Liberal
(60% permissive)

and an...
Economic Conservative
(76% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Capitalist

Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

UW Conservative and Liberal Types

2005-10-09T17:17:00.000-05:00

UW Political Segments

Making your way from Humanities to Agriculture, different types of political people abound at the University of Wisconsin. The greater majority of these people lie left of center and their issues, majors, persona, and lifestyles clearly differ depending on not only their personal preferences but what leftist segment they fall into. Conservatives also exist on campus in many forms. These categories of people are not mutually exclusive as many people may fall into multiple segments. These descriptions are simply social commentary and not meant to be offensive. I wrote the majority of these description a month or two ago. They are meant to be fun and are written in a David Brook-esque type of way (ie read Bobos in Paradise or Paradise Drive). Comment if you feel the stereotypes of certain segments are innaccurate.

UW Liberal Types

Natural Idealists

Wandering around Science or Birge, you are bound to bump into the liberal types who not only enjoy the environment but they clearly revel and worship the earth. Walking around in Birkenstocks, a faded Phish or geographic t-shirt, and generic cargo shorts/pants, their dedication to keeping the planet clean and green is unmatched. Typically majoring in some area of environmental studies or natural sciences, natural idealists not only spend their academic duration celebrating and learning about the water, earth, and life but also often get involved in active groups such as WISPIRG or the Sierra Club. Their dedication to the environment also shows in their typical summer jobs where they lead rafting trips, camp counsel, lobby green at governmental centers, etc. Politically, they often hold pessimistic views on global warming and free trade, ridicule big business, celebrate family and organic farms, and give an uncompromising view on things environmental.

Feminist Enthusiasts

Around Bascom Hill and Humanities, you are certain to see the modest dressing intellectual females walking to some liberal arts lecture. Abounding in disciplines such as Woman’s Studies, English and other humanities, these females will often hold a similar outlook on both men and politics. In many ways, they feel threatened by Patriarchal societies and feel that the glass ceiling must be smashed, traditional gender roles should be ignored, men should be educated about rape, and abortion needs to be available. Coming from a variety of socioeconomic backgrounds, they hold alliegance to many of these feminist values and spend their time volunteering and working for organizations such as PAVE, Campus Woman’s Center, and other organizations that fight rape, inequality, and suffering. Politically, they hold pessimistic views about men, business, and traditional Christian values while working towards woman’s rights, abortion rights, minority racial rights, and racial/economic equality.

Creative Artists

Art in many forms is celebrated and held in high esteem not only at UW but other campuses across the country. Varied in dress, stature, and gender, creative artists abound in the music, art, theatre, communications and other humanities departments across campus. Whether it be singing in Redefined, watching a play in Vilas, helping run a concert at the Union, or sculpting a pot inside Humanities, their lives revolve around creating, designing, and facilitating representations of our world. These are the people who truly dislike the mass commercialization of music (ie pop music), homogenous cookie-cutter suburban architecture, and any form of art done in uniform un-thoughtful and unaesthetic fashion. With their passions abound in the artistic world, they often try to ignore the reality and are hostile to the hard analytical business world that awaits them once college ends. Their career paths and mindset are then to live out their theatrical fantasies on Broadway, start their own art studio in a city like San Francisco, help record music for an Indie record label, or teach art/music at a private performing arts school. They hope for a more a soft world where people can follow their artistic dreams and live plentifully even if this means ignoring the market for their ideas and work. Not torn then to any specific liberal agenda (environment, woman’s issues, race), they hold people and their ideas in high esteem and wish for a peaceful, creative, and economically equal world.

Concerned Socialites

A segment of liberals hard to point out on the UW campus, you will not find these individuals wearing Abercrombie & Fitch t-shirts, Ugg boots, or status clothes that would display a materialist aura or show their money. Spread out amongst a variety of disciplines including sociology, social work, political science, and other social sciences/humanities, concerned socialites believe that we must work towards the greater good of humanity both as individual consumers and government to achieve social ideals and goals. These social ideals would often include economic equality (often to the extreme of socialism or communism), upward mobility of the lower class, environmental sustainability, racial equality, etc. In order to maximize social welfare, they often have grandiose visions of the government (at all levels) playing a large role in redistributing wealth, organizing and regulating businesses, and celebrating diversity and equality amongst ethnic groups, religions, genders, and peoples. Maybe the most intellectually liberal and racially diverse segment of the population, they also tend to be geographically from central cities or inner suburban neighborhoods. Creating a more collective and government ran society is their ultimate goal and often their post-collegiate efforts go towards serving in non-profits, governmental agencies, and other nurturing and activism professions that will hopefully achieve their political desires.

Compassionate Females

A large group of females with their origins in traditional families from suburban and rural America, their movement towards more liberal politics lie in their drift towards nurturing and helping professions. The segment varies from J-Crew Langdon party girls to more traditional Old Navy farm girls. Commonly found in academic areas like nursing, teaching, social services, and other majors, they find themselves in traditional female helping roles in the 21^st century workplace. With a genetic predisposition to being compassionate, kind, and loving, their worldviews often revolve around not only some form of Christianity and God but also the idea that a softer, less harsh society is ideal. Often their assumptions of conservative thought and Republicans will be ones of selfishness, intolerance, and disregard for others. A more moderately liberal segment, these woman are the probably the most susceptible to becoming more conservative once they get married due to their often more religious worldview, traditional family upbringing, strong work ethic, and less embedded leftist ideals.

Conservative Types

Independent Masculines

Off of Bascom Hill, numerous UW collegiate men are readying themselves for professional careers in engineering, business, or agriculture. Whether sporting Ralph Lauren Khakis and a Tommy Polo or Levi’s Jeans with a Badger T-shirt, these men adapt their attire to work/class and social situations. Many type-A and other motivated individuals, they see themselves as champions and drivers of the world through developing new products, providing essential services, and creating efficiency in what they see as a competitive and hard world. Committed to solidifying their place in the 21^st century job market, free time is often spent in internships/Co-Ops, preparing for MCATs and graduate level tests, and networking within clubs/organizations. Their value of hard work, self-sufficiency, and individualism translates to a more conservative and less government worldview. Valuing the free market, empowering people to succeed, and harder nose to criminal activity, they traditionally see government as an institution that’s role is not to help people but rather to provide essential services like infrastructure, education, and law enforcement.

Religious Traditionalists

Dispersed through the campus and in a variety of majors, a significant minority of religious conservatives exist on campus. While they may be hard to pick out externally and geographically, look towards specific religious studies classes and inside St. Paul’s, 3650 Humanities Thursday nights and other specific spiritual events. Most likely not counter-cultural, excessive piercings, tattoos, and alternative clothing are not the norm for most Religious Traditionalists. Carrying traditional Judeo-Christian or Islamic worldviews, their political beliefs most often stem from orthodox social views. Valuing and finding truth in the historical texts of the Torah, Bible, or Koran, they draw clear moral absolutes which blend into public policy. Standard ideals include pro life, anti gay marriage, and other ideals that would hopefully curb sin within society. Though many religious traditionalists may believe in other conservative ideals such as self-reliance, free markets, and a more hawkish military, they maintain their confidence in the Republican Party due to the platform on social issues.

Common Heartlanders

From Weyauwega to Waukesha, many young college conservatives follow in the footsteps of their parents in dedication to right-wing principles and values. Fairly mainstream, designer clothes or counter culture attire are not in the wardrobe for Common Heartlanders. Studying a variety of disciplines, they are fairly spread out across campus. While not being totally abiding to neoliberal orthodoxy of Independent Masculines or religious principles of Religious Traditionalists, they find themselves resistant to extreme political and social change of most sorts. They essentially believe in traditional America pledging allegiance to domestic businesses, frugality, hard work, the Armed Forces, God, and family. They see government in a less positive view and feel that people should be running their own lives, not Washington. Certainly not the ideologues of the neoliberal or religious right, they may feel threatened by overbearing liberals and choose not to talk politics. Their conservatism is more out of parental upbringing and culture than religious or economic truths.

Upper-Class Coasties

Easily visible at a bar like Johnny O’s, walking down Langdon Street, or attending a normal college lecture, the outward appearance of the upper-class at University of Wisconsin gives way to many common stereotypes amongst the student body. The party and pop/materialistic culture of the segment can be seen by packed fraternity parties, designer pop-collars, Brought up not only across the country in blue blooded suburbs like Scarsdale (NY), Irvine (CA), or Potomac (MD), many so-called Coasties hail from Midwest money and grew up in wealthy suburbs like Edina (MN), Winnetka (IL), and Bloomfield Hills (MI). So whether the label holds geographical merit, this segment of UW students holds many of the same values which translate to politics. And whether you’re an ally or adversary of the lifestyle and culture of the common Coastie, a major segment of this population have conservative streaks whether actually conscious of the politics involved or not. While they may not hold the strong religious or moral beliefs, they do believe that the money they make is theirs and it should be theirs to spend. They may not be making this money currently and are receiving their education through inheritance or parent bank accounts yet there is a desire to maintain the money, lifestyle and power they used to. Even if they do consider themselves liberal at this stage of their life (probably because of specific social issues like pro-choice, anti gay marriage, anti religious right, etc), they are most likely to move and vote right in the future. Why? Getting jobs through good connections or good grades once done with college, they will want to maintain their edge in society and their adolescent lifestyle. Why would they support higher taxes, labor unions, protectionism, welfare, and anything revolving large government? Doing so would be against their economic self-interest though I know due to cultural and social beliefs many Upper-Class Coasties will vote Democrat. Due to culture, the least likely to move right will be Jews due to their continued support for the Democratic Party (though there are many Jews that are conservative). Yet there will be a sizeable number who will vote Republican in the future as they gain experience from work in the private sector. This segment’s conservatism comes from both their parents and culture rather than strict economic or religious thought.

Janice Rogers Brown: A libertarian Supreme Court justice would be nice

2005-10-01T15:06:00.000-05:00

As Bush contemplates his final decision for Sandra Day O’Connor’s seat on the court I would like him to remember his promise to bring someone of Scalia and Thomas’s judicial philosophy to the bench. I would also like him to remember a specific member of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, Janice Rogers Brown. Known for biting words of dissent in numerous court decisions and her words in “A Whiter Shade of Pale”, a 2000 speech to the University of Chicago Law School, she will surely be attacked and “borked” most likely by the Democrats if selected by Bush. An African-American female, she surely fits the diversity model the Democrats and some Republicans want in the next Supreme Court nominee. Her judicial philosophy however will not run with many members in Congress or the liberal interest groups. Here are some comments by interest groups:

“Justice Brown threatens to wreak havoc on worker, consumer, environmental and civil rights protections from her seat on the D.C. Circuit”—Alliance for Justice

“Justice Brown’s entire career shows that she has no respect for the federal regulatory process or for the role of the federal government whose laws she would administer, particularly laws that address the long-standing problems encountered by racial and ethnic minorities, women, workers, seniors, and others.”—Congressional Black Caucus

Here are some quotes by Janice Rogers Brown:

"Discrimination based on age is not, however, like race and sex discrimination. It does not mark its victim with a 'stigma of inferiority and second class citizenship' (citation omitted); it is the unavoidable consequence of that universal leveler: time."-- Stevenson v. Superior Court 1998

"The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society — both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce — makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony."⁸Collectivism sought to answer a different question: how to achieve cosmic justice — sometimes referred to as social justice — a world of social and economic equality. Such an ambitious proposal sees no limit to man's capacity to reason. It presupposes a community can consciously design not only improved political, economic, and social systems but new and improved human beings as well.—“A Whiter Shade of Pale”

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."³ He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.—“A Whiter Shade of Pale”

"If we can invoke no ultimate limits on the power of government, a democracy is inevitably transformed into a kleptocracy - a license to steal, a warrant for oppression."—another speech

Is Janice Rogers Brown an extreme libertarian? Yes. Would she be what many would consider an “activist” judge who would ignore precedent in many cases? Yes. But would she bring back to the Supreme Court Bench what the Constitution (in my opinion) was originally written for and currently supposed to be interpreted? Yes. This is not endorsement by any means but I feel she would be an asset to the court by restoring the government to a background in public life where it should be. Also reasons why I think it would be great if she were nominated:

1. The liberal outcry here at Madison and during the hearings

2. Her quotes would be intelligently debated both in the hearings and in the public arena

3. A libertarian voice in high judicial office

Brad Vogel: A Voice for Reform Should be Praised

2005-09-20T19:58:00.000-05:00

Though I have just gotten to know Brad through my short stint on Student Service Finance Committee (SSFC), I know his presence will be missed on the board and his legacy in fighting for students and reform in ASM will carry on. Being involved with ASM since his freshman year, he has been strong voice for conservative and apathetic students pressing for an objective student council and student judiciary while insisting on financial responsibility within SSFC. Quick highlights of his ASM career include his controversial removal/resignation from the Student Judiciary (September 2004), his fight to cut fat on the ASM budget (January 2005), and then his $1,000 salary cap proposals (April 2005). Even though many of his proposals failed within the confines of traditionally liberal Associated Students of Madison and Student Service Finance Committee, he continually fought for what he deemed right and voiced his concerns amongst extreme opposition. Leaving as a seasoned and clearly pained veteran, I and many others salute you for putting the students first and being an honest, kind, and important member of SSFC and ASM. Your actions speak louder than words.

While he went out with a short, hard hitting, emotional speech last night at the Memorial Union, personally I feel like he could have went out with a bigger bang had he answered questions. Answering questions would have in my opinion led to good discussion fiscal discipline within SSFC and the merits of his ideology.

Here are a few of words from his speech:

“Additionally, I feel a bit more confident of … the composition of the committee,” he said. “I think there are several members who are willing to stand up on a fiscally responsible position for students.”

In a prepared farewell address to the committee, Vogel said SSFC’s concept of viewpoint neutrality is a “sham.”

“Intended on paper to protect the free speech of student organizations, the system, in reality, stifles the free speech of every UW-Madison student,” Vogel said. “Elected representatives are prevented from speaking freely on behalf of constituents to make fiscal decisions.”

Vogel followed with more critical remarks.

“The current [segregated] fee system is little more than an elaborate dance around the core issues,” he said. “It’s also a poor lesson in government for future leaders.”

Feel free to check his blog (Letters in Bottles off the Local Political Escapes link) where Steve and Brad write about various topics including international politics, political economy, local Wisconsin politics/events, etc.

Mendota Beacon Article with further analysis

2005-09-19T17:03:00.000-05:00

Here is my article from the latest Mendota Beacon (http://www.mendotabeacon.com). It is fairly similar to the previous posting “Who will I Serve? The Students” but it has been altered and edited. I wrote the op-ed because of a request from the staff. The following article also has the comments from the website (2 by possible someone on our committee and one by me in response the first posting). I will then address the second comment and will make further remarks.

SEG Fees On the Rise

A need to serve the students with fiscal responsibility

by Tim Schulz

September 13, 2005

In the middle of your first calculus problem set, it suddenly hits you. The University of Wisconsin fall semester has begun. But classes and homework are not the only things that have started. Associated Students of Madison (ASM), “your student government,” has also begun doling out part of your tuition.

As you begin to scavenge for money to pay your tuition bill, realize that $331 or nearly 10% of your mandatory payment to UW-Madison goes toward Student Segregated Fees (SEG fees) each semester. At $662 a year, SEG fees have increased even faster than the normal part of tuition (8.9% versus 6.9%). While the average UW Joe may not be a part of any student organizations or his/her student organizations may not get any SEG fee funds, SEG fees are not optional due to the 1999 Supreme Court decision Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System vs. Southworth. Students’ real power, then, is to elect Student Service Finance Committee members and ASM representatives that share their financial and political views.

Essentially, the goal for SSFC is to allocate student fee portion of tuition in a fiscally responsible manner to groups that meet certain standards. Yet, the committee is fairly divided in terms of what this means. For certain members of the group, SSFC is a committee to help and support organizations in promoting social justice and educational issues on campus. For other members, SSFC is a committee where finite student tuition money needs to be used efficiently and accountably to serve not only the major student organizations but the entire student body.

Within ASM, the Student Services Finance Committee allocates about $100 of each student’s fees, while Finance Committee allocates a much smaller portion. Last week, SSFC began hearings on eligibility for what will probably be 20 to 25 student services groups receiving funding this upcoming fiscal year. Total funding may approach 3.5 million dollars.

The beneficiaries of SSFC funds include diversity (Multicultural Student Coalition, MECha), women (PAVE, Campus Women’s Center), and other educational groups such as Greater University Tutorial Services (GUTS) and Legal Information Center. Last year SSFC went over budget considerably, helping lead to the increase in SEG fees. You would think that ASM student representatives and appointees on SSFC would try to control spending in a responsible manner in the hopes of curbing tuition increases. Recent history and the current composition of the committee make this hope dubious.

Clear financial ideological differences exist between committee members. While I will stand tall in serving the students and their interests with fiscal prudence and efficiency, attitudes and conversation amongst committee members indicates others will not.

As an SSFC member I can promise you that:

1. Elected by the students last spring, my main priority is to serve their interests rather than specific groups. Observe the name: “Student Service Finance Committee”.

2. In my view, this money is not anybody else’s money but the students’. This money has not been entrusted to a handful of groups to allocate amongst themselves. Neither should it be entrusted to SSFC Committee Members who are members of these groups or are beholden to the interests of these groups.

3. My job is not to meet with organizations and tell them how to use their money. My job rather is to look at their budget and make changes and cuts so tuition money is used wisely and effectively.

Feel free to contact any SSFC members with questions or concerns. Also voice your opinion for responsible SEG fee allocation by speaking at open forum during meetings on Monday and Thursday 6:30 Memorial Union TITU.

--Tim Schulz, Elected SSFC Member

Tim, its pretty obvious to us all what your true intentions on SSFC are, which is defund groups that don't share your political ideologies. You may try to cover that up by calling yourself a libertarian but we see through it. Its no wonder why the only 4 people to vote against the LGBTCC were the 4 most conservative members of the committee. Yet I bet that when groups like CFACT come to you with their budgets you and the other conservative members will no doubt take less scrunity then you do with other organizations. The simple truth of the matter is that groups like CFACT offer nothing for this campus in terms of services they provide, Just take a look at their end of the year reports from the last few years they will tell you themselves that they do no do nothing compared to the amount of services other groups provide, yet they are continued to be funded because of conservative people like you. If you really want to save students money then you will not offer groups that do nothing to provide for students on campus and use VPN when allocating funds to the other organizations that you dont support in your own views but who actually provide tangable services to the UW community.

We see through you

The reason I voted against LBGTCC was not because I disagree with their views or ideology. Their application clearly states at many points that the center is for "LBGT students and their allies". This statement in my view is breaking criteria #3 of the 13 criteria. My main objection to both LBGTCC, the Women's Center, etc. is that their central purposes are to provide a so called "safe zone" for students on campus. These so called "safe zones" are unnecessary and a misuse of our tuition money Why do people need to hide their views and their real self….especially at the expense of students’ money? Aren't students at University of Madison supposed to be open and tolerant, sifting and winnowing to find the truth. No persecuted group whether it be gender, racial, sexual, or religious needs to have a "safe zone" at the expense of the students.
When I wrote an op-ed last spring I was accused of being a tool for C-FACT. I will be as objective as I am with any other organization that asks us for money. In fact, my environmental ideology even does clash with C-FACT's. So do not make me out to being a pawn of this conservative group.
I do support groups that actually provide tangable services to the UW community. This is why I feel these central groups like LBGTCC and Women's Center should be funded less while groups like 10% Society and PAVE deserve a larger share of funding (even though I know that 10% Society is not even a GSSF group).
My central objective is to hold these groups accountable and make sure that we do not go over budget for this year.

Tim Schulz
twschulz@wisc.edu

I understand where you may be coming from, having a problem with the LGBTCC stating that their services are open to LGBT students and their allies, but if what you are saying is true about Madison being a tolerent, open campus where people don't have to face discrimination is true then infact everyone would be considered an Ally right? but the fact is that no matter how open we see this campus to be, LGBT students are still subject to discrimination. But really thats besides the point. The point is that when considering whether or not you think that safe zones are necassary you are taking into account the View Point of the organization, which in doing so you are violating VPN. And my advice being to watch what you say at the table so as to not get caught and have it called on you again this Thursday when debating the CWC eligibility. People will be watching and there are plenty of people that would like to see you removed from council, but that would be a tragedy to us because the girls in the room need some eye candy.

We see through you

I want to first address the following comment:

“if what you are saying is true about Madison being a tolerent, open campus where people don't have to face discrimination is true then infact everyone would be considered an ally right?”

I do not understand how tolerance of a certain group or opinion is synonymous with being allied with this group or opinion? The definition of tolerance on dictionary.com reads :

“The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.”

The definition of ally according to dictionary.com is either

“To place in a friendly association, as by treaty” or “To unite or connect in a personal relationship”.

While I believe people in Madison will truly listen and respect that specific groups have different views and lifestyles from them, they often will not affiliate themselves, associate themselves or stand for the beliefs of these groups. This is fine. Would you expect NARAL activist to associate themselves with the Life Society in protesting Planned Parenthood? Would you expect the International Socialist Organization to affiliate themselves with the College Republicans? Obviously not. But we should expect tolerance and openness even in disagreement.

Second, I am accused of violating VPN for disagreeing with funding “safe zones” or unnecessary campus centers. How is this a violation of VPN? I clearly have nothing against the particular views of any specific organizations but rather find funding organizations that’s main purpose for existing is to provide a social area. Providing social outlets and entertainment events should not be what our student government and student’s money are about. Our financial resources should be about providing educational channels through which students will continue to challenge their belief systems and advance their knowledge outside the classroom. We also need to fund resources that are critical but are not easily funded privately (legal information center, rape crisis center, etc.). Many people on our committee though feel that our money is best spent on social justice activities, entertainment activities, and student salaries. I do not. I will clearly be viewpoint neutral but ultimately on funding decisions value judgments are inevitable.

Third, I want to address the following statement:

Attacking my political beliefs was the first mode of discrediting me and my article. If I was true libertarian, I would clearly believe that Associated of Students of Madison was unnecessary and that students instead of paying SEG fees should fund their own health care (through UHS), recreation (UW Rec Sports), and every other group they are in. Libertarianism believes that government’s role is only to provide vital public goods (road/utilities, national defense, tort system, etc) and even education should be privatized. Now I am obviously not that extreme and believe that the student body collectively helping to foot the bill for some student groups on campus is in the interest of students. Defining libertarianism aside, I am going to look at your criticism from 2 possibly different lenses. The first possible lense is that I am lying by listing myself as libertarian on Facebook and that I believe in all Republican causes along with being a part of the right wing conspiracy. I reject this notion because there are many ideological differences that separate me from the Republican Party as a whole (stem cell research, death penalty, big government spending (ie Bush), hawkish military policy, civil unions, etc.). I do not need to list anymore issues. The second possible lense is that I am not truly libertarian since I voted against LBGTCC. This would imply that I am against the LBGT movement and that I do not like homosexuals or their allies. This notion is also false because I do believe in equal rights for gays through civil unions and am not a homophobic bigot. What I disagree with is funding organizations that are based on safe zones and a social meeting place.

World Economy from an 8th Grader

2005-09-19T16:28:00.000-05:00

This weekend I got the privilege to spend Saturday with my family out on a series of lakes near Waupaca, Wisconsin. Small talk mixed with the occasional deeper conversation, my little brother Dave and I got to shoot the breeze and he brought to the table a series of quick comments that shocked his economically infatuated brother.

His first comment was in response to a conversation me and my uncle were having about his business overseas in China. Dave, an 8^th grader said,” I know a lot of other people don’t like that we get a lot of our products from China but I do because we get cheap stuff.” While not being introduced to the ideas of comparative advantage or any real economic theory yet, he does at least see how the world economy operates with production moving to lower cost labor markets. He is enthused by the fact that he can go and get a decent stereo at the nearest Wal Mart for $40 or a new 19” television from Sears for $120. The fact is that most people in consumer driven America are happy that we have low prices. They are excited that with advances in transportation, logistics, and international business that companies like Wal Mart, Best Buy, Target, Home Depot and others can deliver products at cheaper real rates than ever. While liberal critics demand tougher environmental laws, more stringent labor regulation, criticize big-box store business, and critique lower and middle class America for being selfish and unsophisticated, they fail to see how the world economy and hypercapitalism has helped in bringing prosperity to the everyday American by keeping prices low and fighting inflation. While much of the liberal commentary is valid to some degree, they do not acknowledge the benefits of overseas labor, big box stores, and the innovation of business.

His second comment was “I think it is interesting that most of our factories are moving overseas”. He did not say this with a negative or positive tone but with an unopinionated voice. Now the real fact is that we still do have a large manufacturing base in this country. A large section has been moving overseas since the 1970’s and the percentage of the US population employed in the sector is much smaller than it historically was during the middle of the 20th century. In late 1960’s the percentage was around 35% but as of 2003 the percentage was hovering around 20%. We will always have a manufacturing base in this country but economy's future is not in tangible production. Its future is in the new information economy whether that be research, creation, or facilitation of knowledge. My little brother knows this is the way our economy is headed as I do too. Yet, many people in America especially the uneducated and various liberals live for the Keynesian Welfare manufacturing state when incomes were more equal, the father worked in the factory (40 hours a week) and production was stable over time. They fear that with the need for more education in the information age, many uneducated people will be left behind and our society will continue to weaken. Their answers are often more manufacturing jobs, increased unionization, more trade restrictions, high taxes, adding social programs etc., where my answers are making education affordable, providing job training programs, and continuing neoliberal policies which spur growth (low taxes, free trade agreements, open immigration, less regulation, etc). I think if my brother understood in full these economic concepts he would agree with me. Drawing from his statements, he at least has a head start in fully understanding the world and its business structure than all the economically illiterate students of Madison.

See Your Funds Go to Unnecessary Organizations

2005-09-12T23:44:00.000-05:00

A night of promise ended in a night filled with reality…. I thought that we might have an actual chance to make some noise and bring real debate on the need for the LBGT Center. We got cut off early and were unable to really change anyone's opinion. I voted against their eligibility based on clear language in the application that the center is for "LBGT students and their allies". The reasoning had merit but I obviously see how others looked past it. I do not really care that much that they got eligibility but my main issue is providing student funds for “safe centers”. I have huge issues with this and I will continue to stand against the idea and funding of these places.

The clear view amongst the committee is that the LBGT community, female community or any other minority group of gender, sexuality, religious, or diversity needs a “safe zone” of their own supplied to them by student’s tuition. Give me a break. Our tuition money should be spent on essential student services rather on providing a special place for groups to get together for community, discussion, etc. My main question is why the LBGT community or any other group can’t meet at the Ratskeller, College Library, Union South or any other public rentable room on campus. I believe that University of Wisconsin-Madison is a place of tolerance, openness, and respect. Why do people need to hide their views and their real self….especially at the expense of students’ money? I will have to vote “yes” I am expecting of the Women’s Center but I will continue to make my point against “safe centers”. I can not live with myself openly funding this junk but I guess I have no choice.

Anyway, here are my political results on some random quiz I took online probably a few months ago. Where am I the most conservative….you guessed it….fiscal issues. I guess I can’t help being a stingy bastard on SSFC. I will continue to be..no doubt. I believe in spending money where it is most efficient and important and many of these extra activities obviously are of little real significance. Why do we really have to cut classes and lose good professors because we can’t pay them? One of the reasons is because we can’t control SEG fees…sad!!!

Your Political Profile

Overall: 70% Conservative, 30% Liberal

Social Issues: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 100% Conservative, 0% Liberal

Ethics: 75% Conservative, 25% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Southern Comfort Fiend

2005-09-06T00:03:00.000-05:00

Substitutes can be found for nearly all our thirst quenching needs. Whether it be Pepsi and Coke, Beast and Natty, Rockstar and Red Bull, Powerade and Gatorade, Tropicana and Florida’s Orange Juice, distinct beverage purchasing decisions are often made by comparing prices on very similar drinks. But there clearly is no substitute for one finely made bourbon that satisfies with its natural cough syrupy taste. Its name is Southern Comfort.

Developed by M.W. Heron in 1874, the drink has stayed true to its recipe for now longer than 125 years. With its origins in New Orleans, I can safely say that not only is a southern appetite in my blood (grits, fried chicken, black-eyed peas, jambalaya), a Dixie thirst runs through me also. Other notable events in its history also include a gold medal at the St Louis World’s Fair in 1904 and personal endorsement of rock star Janis Joplin in 1967. With such significant expert and celebrity accolades, how could I not want to put down glasses of this tasteful yet soothing intoxicant?

While I can say that I enjoy the black label Southern Comfort 100 proof as much as the traditional white label 70 proof, processing straight 100 proof rocks the liver of this 180 pound German light weight. This is why I often choose the standard bottle as it is often cheaper also. Plus why would I substitute drinking a smaller glass when I could satisfy my taste buds for a longer duration. Choose the white label if you are in the Ben Regner or Mike Foster weight classes but I strong suggest the black label if you are of Reuben or Empey status.

There is one way and only one way to drink Southern Comfort and that is on the rocks. If you mix this cherished substance with another lesser swallow, flavor, jolt, and dignity will be diminished to the nth degree. Let’s face it, mixers are for wankstas, bitches…period. Go ahead and try dabbling Southern Comfort with coke, cranberry juice, or tonic water. You have been warned and I accept no liability.

There is no other alcohol you can sit around and sip like Southern Comfort and my allegiance will hold till the day of my death bed. My 1.75 may sit around my cabinet for a month or two but every week or two at least a small glass needs to flow down my throat. I don’t know how every can get off drinking the same lame Jack, Bacardi, and Smirnoff when there’s just nothing like a little southern bourbon. Try to substitute Southern Comfort and die.

UW-Madison #1 Party School: A Schulz Perspective

2005-08-23T18:33:00.000-05:00

This morning around 8AM I was called by a writer from the Eau Claire Leader Telegram to talk about UW-Madison being #1 in the party rankings. I conversed with him about UW-Madison drinking and the alcohol climate while still half asleep. Hopefully I will not be verbally crucified by my friends and others when I return to my humble abode up north. Here is the article:

UW-Madison tops party school list
Tim Schulz knows drinking alcohol is ingrained in UW-Madison’s culture, with packed bars and house parties a common sight on weekends — especially during Badger games.

“Almost all the houses are throwing parties around the stadium,” said Schulz, an Eau Claire resident who will be a senior at UW-Madison this fall.

UW-Madison topped the list of the nation’s party schools Monday despite a decadelong effort by school officials to reduce its reputation for heavy drinking.

UW-Madison has ranked among the top party schools on the annual Princeton Review report in 13 out of the 14 years it has compiled the list and was No. 3 a year ago. Meanwhile, Brigham Young University was tops among “stone cold sober” schools for the eighth straight year.

Schulz, the son of Mark and Lynette Schulz, plans to graduate with a degree in economics. His sister Alison is going to be a sophomore when classes resume on Sept. 2.

While the administration opposes the ranking, Tim Schulz said the No. 1 ranking is a source of pride for many students.

Though the school has an association with drinking, he said it shows students have fun but also perform well enough to warrant high marks for UW-Madison in academic rankings.

UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley dismissed the report as “junk science that results in a day of national media coverage.” But the chairman of the campus student government said many students would take pride in the rank considering its other reputation as a top academic institution.

U.S. News and World Report ranked UW-Madison No. 34 among national universities in its annual survey last week.

“It just shows that we work hard, but we play hard also,” said Eric Varney, chair of the Associated Students of Madison.

The list — which is not affiliated with Princeton University — is based on on-line surveys of more than 110,000 college students and included in the Princeton Review’s “Best 361 Colleges.”

The top party schools rankings are based on survey responses regarding alcohol and drug use, hours of study each day, and the number of students in fraternities and sororities.

Schools often put down the list, while the American Medical Association has urged Princeton Review to cease putting it out, saying it legitimizes students’ drinking.

Lynette Schulz said the ranking as a top party school didn’t factor in to the family’s decision to have their children go to the same school her husband attended.

Still, she feels there is some basis for the rating.

“There is a lot of partying going on, and it doesn’t always make me real excited about it,” she said. “But it’s a good learning experience as well.”

Lynette Schulz and her son, Tim, agree the key to staying afloat at UW-Madison is to keep drinking in moderation and study as needed.

Robert Franek, who wrote the report “The Best 361 Colleges,” said students look for more than just a classroom experience when they pick a college.

“The mission is very simple — to provide information to make the college search palatable for a student and all of them to find a school that’s the best fit for them,” he said.

UW-Madison has long had a reputation for heavy drinking, ranking No. 3 this year for the amount of beer and hard liquor consumed. Still, the school touts its nine-year program to cut down on binge drinking they it says had led to a drop in students who drink to excess, fewer admissions to local detoxification centers and more freshmen who say they don’t drink at all.

Who will I serve? The Students

2005-08-23T14:22:00.000-05:00

This last weekend the Student Service Finance Committee (which I was elected to last April) had its annual retreat which had its share of controversial moments and discussions. One inter-group conversation of particular note was the question of whether it was our obligation as committee members to have lobbying/discussion sessions with GSSF groups (the groups that are eligible for SSFC funding)? One member (Rep Kiernoziak) expressed her opinion saying that we were not obligated to meet with these GSSF groups and that it was for the groups’ benefits and not ours. Then quickly two other group member voiced their opinion on how we should be obligated to meet with these groups for lobbying sessions and that we as committee members were the main beneficiaries. I spoke after reaffirming Kiernoziak’s opinion that we were not obligated to meet with these groups and that lobbying was primarily for the GSSF group’s interests. One member of the dissenting side quickly tried to end discussion either because she did not want things to get heated or she did not want to fight a losing battle. This small quarrel about a fairly trivial issue is really about a more important issue. The real issue is about who we are serving as SSFC members: the GSSF groups or the students?

Here is why I am serving the students:

1. As an SSFC elected official, I was chosen by the students to represent them and their money on the committee. The rest of the representatives were either elected directly by the students, came out ASM Council (which all were elected), or were appointed by elected officials through the Nominations Board. We were all chosen indirectly or directly by the students so I feel it is our job to serve them. We were not chosen by GSSF groups to allocate their money.

2. This money is not anybody else’s money but the students. Every student pays SEG fees each year ($612 out of tuition) and SSFC has the power to dole out around $100 to $200 of it out to groups on campus. This money has not been entrusted to GSSF Groups to allocate it amongst themselves. This money also should not be entrusted with SSFC Committee Members who are members of these groups or are subject to the interests of these groups. The money should be entrusted to people that are completely objective and will use the money to fund groups making a difference on campus. If not then the money should not be used at all and given back to the students.

3. My job is not to meet with the GSSF groups and tell them how to use their money. My job rather is to look at their budget and make changes and cuts in order that tuition money is used wisely and effectively. I will meet with GSSF groups if they want to speak to me but I am not required to by job description. I can make my own decisions on budgets without speaking to them and that will probably be the case for many of the groups.

4. Observe the name: “Student Service Finance Committee”. I am not a member of the GSSF Service Finance Committee or the Special Interests Finance Committee. I am not sure if all committee members are part of the Student Service Finance Committee but I can assure you I am.

I will continue to influence the committee to work towards serving the students. The money you pay in for SEG fees should be used responsibly. I will fight for complete objectivity within the committee and make sure your money is not being fed to groups in the name of special and selfish interests.

Political Conversation on Campus

2005-08-10T17:54:00.000-05:00

It is easy to get into political conversations on the UW campus whether it be at a coffee shop, the classroom, or house party. What is not easy to do is to take conservative positions on issues in these political discourses. When you may simply be taking a pro-business or pro-life stance, extreme scrutiny of not just your position but of you as a person begins to take place. Explicit and implicit judgments of greed, intolerance, narrow mindedness, and disregard will thus inhibit constructive disagreement and discussion. Instead of listening and considering particular points or statistics, many Madisonians will simply get emotional and resort to generic liberal talking points such as:

“Don’t you care about the poor”

“Not everyone can succeed in the world”

“All people deserve equal rights”

“A woman can decide what to do with her body”

“The tax cut was a give away to the wealthiest Americans”

“We need to be tolerant of everybody”

“We need clean air and water so we must stop polluters from damaging our environment”

Instead of providing objective evidence to back up their points they resort to language that contains little substance and is rather based on feelings and sentiment. John Leo, a conservative writer for US News & World Report captured his discussions with liberal colleagues in this way:

Finally, I reluctantly report that liberal friends basically reject give-and-take political discussion. Their positions are typically posed in the language of feelings or the language of rights. Either way, there is nothing much to debate--feelings are personal and rights are beyond the reach of argument and majority decision making. My liberal friends are polite and tolerant, but their opinions reflect a body of remarkably settled thought that leaves little room for dissent or new ideas. To their token conservative friends (that’s me), they seem ever more isolated from the thoughts and concerns of their fellow Americans.

The truth is that many liberals on UW’s campus are as intolerant and narrowminded as conservatives across the country. They do not listen to objective evidence unless it supports their opinion and they tend to shy away from media outlets and particular people that may challenge their views. However, I do know certain individuals that lean left who do listen to differing viewpoints, like to challenge their beliefs, and understand people differ on the role of government. The important point to draw from this piece is that in order to have legitimate political conversations we must be speaking in statistics and logic rather than rhetoric, feelings, and emotions. Hopefully, many of the leftists on campus will learn to sift and winnow and converse with objectivity and understanding rather than with emotional rhetoric and personal attacks.

Hate Capitalism--Head to the Sociology Department

2005-08-05T00:29:00.000-05:00

Liberal Class of the Year Award: Sociology 125

--"Socialism is the only way"---Erik Wright

Actually he did not say this but go on his class website and see how his class is run, the articles posted on the site, and the lecture powerpoints. How could you come to any other conclusion? Here are the main ideas that he wants you to get from his course. Biased?? I'll let you decide.

Sociology 125 Website: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~wright/Sociology-125-2004.htm

TEN BIG IDEAS FROM SOCIOLOGY 125
1. The U.S. is a Hypercapitalist Society: The U.S. is extreme on most dimensions of capitalism.
2. The market: Markets are not automatically efficient; they have inherent irrationalities.
3. The Market and Freedom: Markets both enhance and restrict freedom.
4. The Prisoners Dilemma and free riders: These are pervasive issues in contemporary society and undermine optimal levels of social cooperation.
5. The Market & Prisoner's dilemmas: The relatively unregulated markets in the United States intensify prisoners dilemmas and free riding problems.
6. Inequality and poverty: Poverty is an American tragedy because it constitutes a clear case of avoidable suffering, especially in the lives of children.
7. The incomplete revolutions of Race and Gender: In the United States over the past forty years there has been significant movement towards race and gender equality, but continuing forms of eliminable discrimination continue.
8. Democracy: American Democracy is real, but crippled by the political power of wealth and money.
9. Social Institutions can be Otherwise: We must reject TINA.
10. Alternative futures: There are many possible futures. Human flourishing will be enhanced by extending and deepening democracy in egalitarian ways.

Mendota Beacon Wannabe???

2005-07-31T03:17:00.000-05:00

I stumbled upon an article linked off the mainpage of townhall.com called "Not Your Mother's Tupperware Party" and I was surprised to find an article detailing liberalism inside the classroom here at the University of Wisconsin. The editorial featured Dr. Jane Collins of the Women Studies Department 103 and how the class 's message was not only considerably pro-choice but also very representative the entire leftist agenda .

We were merely to digest and regurgitate the indoctrination-heavy suggestion that the words "reproductive rights" and "abortion" are synonomous.

Political legislation regarding abortion grossly misrepresented on a final exam, we were told of the evils of the American health care system, and were taught to regard the birth control pill as manna from heaven.

The author's experience hits home with me as well as many others throughout the university who study the social sciences and humanities yet feel class material, readings, and professors are excessively biased, especially on the left. My classes have not been slanted in terms of reproductive policy but much more towards economic and environmental politics. I encourage everyone to check out the article:

http://www.campusmagazine.org/articledetail.aspx?id=55a64818-51ff-4cc6-93ad-40db90cb1fa1

My biggest surprise was that the article was written by none other than Mac Verstandig, editor of the Badger Herald. The funny thing was though that the article said he wrote for The Mendota Beacon. When has Mac ever written for the Beacon...lol. I'm sure everyone on the Beacon Staff will get a kick out of this. Congrats go out though to Mac for writing a fantastic article about the excessive bias in the UW classroom.

Have Faith in John

2005-07-20T20:44:00.000-05:00

Yesterday was filled with mixed emotions as stories were coming out first about Edith Clement and then at around 7:00 seeing the headlines about John Roberts being chosen. I was kind of disappointed by Edith Clement’s mixed record and her comments on previous court decisions. Glued to the TV and internet for most of the day, I was fairly surprised when Bush chose Roberts contrary to the buzz about it being a woman from the 5^th circuit court. After listening to the commentary and perusing the blogs, I am certain that Roberts will be an excellent justice and will follow the Constitution instead of interpreting cases in a more liberal manner. Here are a number of reasons why I am excited about his future tenure on the bench and why he was an excellent choice:

1. Roberts seems to be a strong man of intelligence and integrity and will not waver from his conservative roots. From his previous decisions and litigation it seems clear that he will not follow in the footsteps of Kennedy or Souter. The Bush Administration has much more knowledge than the public does about Roberts through people like Kenneth Starr (who Roberts worked with closely), through privileged government documents that he wrote himself when he was a government lawyer, and of course his private meetings with the individual. Though there is little of a paper trail on Roberts, I feel that we should have confidence in Bush’s assessment and in his previous statements that he would choose someone in the mold of Scalia or Thomas.

2. While the jury is out on whether Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade, it is fairly clear that he will be a pro-life judge. One positive sign is that he has advocated for President HW Bush against Roe v. Wade. He was a lawyer for the administration and had to argue against the court decision yet this is one good sign. The second positive sign is that he said in his address, "I also want to acknowledge my children, my daughter, Josie, my son, Jack, who remind me every day why it's so important for us to work to preserve the institutions of our democracy". This statement becomes more meaningful when you realize that his children are adopted and gives evidence to his respect for life. One last positive sign is that he is married to the former Executive Vice President of the group Feminists for Life. One possibly negative sign is that during his confirmation hearing for the DC Appeals Court he commented “that Roe v Wade was settled law”. The fact is however that as an appeals court justice, you are required to uphold decisions of the Supreme Court. In making this statement then, he does not say that he agrees with Roe v Wade but simply that he will uphold the decision by law. When you are a Supreme Court justice however, you not only interpret law but make law so who knows whether he agrees with the Roe v Wade precedent or not. I think it is fairly safe to say though that in most cases heard he will air on the side of life.

3. Roberts is extremely confirmable with support from lawyers on both sides of the aisle. A series of quotes an article online illustrate this (http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1108389946956):

E. Barrett Prettyman Jr., a longtime Roberts fan and lifelong Democrat who worked with him for years at Hogan, says that if anyone can be both judicious and predictable, Roberts can. "He respects the Court greatly, and would not ignore precedent," says Prettyman. "But if there's a loophole or a distinguishing factor, he'd find it."

Another person who might otherwise be a critic of Roberts is a longtime friend. Georgetown University Law Center professor Richard Lazarus, an environmental law advocate, was a classmate of Roberts at Harvard Law School and roomed with him when they first came to Washington 25 years ago. "John Roberts and I are very good friends, and I think very highly of him as a person, lawyer and judge," says Lazarus with care. "After that, I have to bow out."

Mark Levin, author of "Men in Black," a new conservative critique of the Supreme Court, sees no conflict and is a fan of Roberts. "In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."

Roberts is respected by and gets along with liberal lawyers which proves that he is not ideologically combative, is open-minded, and is respectful. A man who is undoubtedly considerate, writes decisions based on facts instead of ideology, and consistently fair, it will be hard for the Democrats to criticize and attack his character and record. The lack of paper trail and short record on the appeals circuit also plays in to his favor. If the Roberts was an ideologue, had a long record, and was criticized by many inside the Beltway, there would be a long and hard fight with a possible filibuster. However, the cards are clearly in his favor.

I and many others are very thankful that Bush picked a conservative and yet confirmable nominee. This selection for the Supreme Court and his future selections were of upmost importance to me as a voter as well as to much of Bush’s conservative base. After the questionable Iraq War, large increases in government (education, health care), and lowering of environmental standards, I can feel like I still got my moneys worth on my vote (even though I live in WI) due to the excellent appointees he will continue to nominate. I have faith that he will be an excellent judge for decades to come and will provide intelligence, leadership, and originalist ideals to the court. Who knows, maybe we’ll even get Janice Rogers Brown when Rehnquist steps down….won’t those hearings be hilarious….would anarchy occur both on Capital Hill and Bascom Hill…we’ll wait and see.

Washington DC: Where my Final Resting Places Lies

2005-07-16T18:09:00.000-05:00

When you step inside the Beltway, you step amongst the institutions and people of power. I learned that early when I ate my first meal at the National Student Leadership Conference in the summer after my junior year of high school (2001). I had just gotten on to the campus that Sunday evening before many of the conference attendees arrived. I sat down with my bowl of cereal and began to ate. Three or four others joined me after a few minutes and one of the girls looked very familiar. It was in fact Christy Romano of the famous Disney Channel Show “Even Stevens”. So talk about weird and inherently awkward. I asked the guy across from me when she left if he knew who she was. He had no clue. I can’t remember what I said to her but it was clear the rest of the week that I was there that she definitely thought she was “the shit”. Who would have known that Hollywood had invaded Washington. Others at the conference were not famous TV actors or actresses but they boys and girls of privilege from across the country and the world. The main demographic were sons and daughters of wealthy doctors, lawyers, and businessman who had the parents that would fit the $3,000 dollar bill for the conference. The experience was amazing in that not only do they have a wealth of experiences and knowledge (meaning many of them had traveled a lot and attended strong schools) but that they cared about what was going on in the world and could easily converse for hours about it. I was on that campus with future political, business, and societal leaders that will shape the country in the future. Years later I would return back and be blessed with an even more amazing experience in the summer of 2004.
After getting my acceptance into the JPSM Junior Fellows Program, I was ecstatic about getting to live in Washington for the summer for free and experience the city in whole new way. Getting located at George Washington University near Georgetown, the Mall, Dupont Circle, Rock Creek Park, etc. put me right in the heart of the city with hundreds of other interns. Throughout those 3 months last summer, I made many great friends from throughout the country including Ron, JPSM buddies (Steve, Hardcore, Gerry, Paul, others), Grant, and many others. Some of my most interesting conversations were not with my friends but with random people I talked to on the subway, at a party, or random interns and citizens I met through playing ultimate Frisbee. The greatest thing about DC is the diversity of the people whether that be geographic, ethnic, or political and their obsession about making an impact on our society. In one instant I may be hanging out at a Regan appointed Mormon circuit court judge’s home in Virginia and the next night I may be drinking beer at a row house downtown with a bunch of bureaucrats discussing urban planning policy. The amount of intelligent and interesting people doing intriguing and exciting work is infinite in the DC Metro Area.
Spend enough time in Washington DC and you’ll bump into senators, make connections with popular writers, and surely get a better taste at how diverse and exciting the United State people are. While the city may not be the most beautiful place to live, have the nicest weather, or have the glamorous appeal of say NYC, Miami, or San Francisco, the area stands out to me because of its diversity of people, its political and powerful connections, and its host of athletic, cultural, and intellectual opportunities. It may not be where I end up next year, in 10 years, or by the time I’m 50 years old, but I intend to spend my final days in Washington……

Systematically Dissecting Unions: Introduction

2005-07-10T01:12:00.000-05:00

A creation of the 19th century and industrialization in the Western World, unions in the United States and Europe have been negotiating with business for the rights of workers for over 150 years now. Unions emerged when workers often faced long days (often 12 to 16 hours) and were subject to unsafe work conditions. These collective institutions pushed for major reform in the areas of child labor, workweeks, and vacation time which helped the average worker. While unions did provide an important intermediary between business and labor and were instrumental in lobbying for a number of pieces of legislation, their subsistence has led to interference in the labor and economic markets, a culture of laziness (for certain union members), increased capital mobility, and inherent inefficiency. In an era of increasing technology, soft intellectual labor, and fairly strict government labor laws, the question is whether unions in industrialized nations such as the US have outlived their primary societal functions and need for existence? The quick answer is “yes” which will be reflected in the rest of the series.

Next: Interference in the Labor and Economic Markets

The Potential Power of Kelo vs. New London

2005-07-04T13:47:00.000-05:00

The issues involving eminent domain have consistently placed government and public planners versus private property holders over what kind of power the government has and should have in acquiring land for redevelopment, public infrastructure, and parks/open space. In the constitution, the 5th Amendment reads in part "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” Throughout most of America’s history this meant large public works projects such as utilities for the Tennessee Valley Authority or the US interstate highway system. In 1954, the Supreme Court ruled in Berman vs. Parker private projects meet the definition if they have a “public purpose” which in this decision meant urban renewal. This last month, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. New London that “public use” includes the acquisition of property for economic development. In the case, 5 households refused to sell their property to the city of New London, Connecticut The ruling extends government power to not only use eminent domain in acquiring property for roads, parks, and urban renewal but for any project that could bring in more revenue such as a hotel, apartment building, or industrial plant. How and how often local and state governments will act in obtaining property for redevelopment using this decision is a mystery for now but likely citizens and property lawyers will continue to battle municipalities for their home and land. A number of specific issues revolving around this ruling and eminent domain in general need to be addressed.

1. Full Compensation of Property Owners
If municipal governments are going to take property for public uses or especially for economic development, owners deserve more than appraised value of their property. The summation of the costs and stresses of moving, finding or building a new home and existential value warrant property owners high compensation for their property. In my opinion, 125 to 150% of the appraisal value should be the least the government can do to accommodate its displaced citizens.

2. Government’s Free-Reign on Transfer of Property
The ruling essentially allows government to be able to transfer property from one owner to another no matter who these 2 owners are. Judge O’Connor spoke in dissention, "the specter of condemnation hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Should there be limits and constraints on what types of transfers between land uses and densities can occur? The open ended ruling the court gives does not prohibit specific government transfers so in essence the state could take your house and let someone else build a bigger house on your lot. Not a retail store, apartment building or industrial plant but simply a bigger house that would provide more tax revenue to the government. There needs to be limits to the transferring of property.

3. Will the Government Use the Ruling for Good?
Historically when developers have tried to redevelop certain urban areas, acquiring properties has been a very difficult task. Often homeowners will hold out for purely selfish interest and will not see benefit of denser residential structures, new office buildings, or other large real estate projects. Individuals thus can inhibit progress by holding land that is needed for the city to function and expand intelligently. In these cases, municipal governments will now be able to use the power of Kelo vs. New London in order to obtain land to densify and redevelop specific urban areas. With the ruling, there is also the possibility for corruption and greed within the government. For instance, certain powerful individuals may be able to manipulate and use the government to obtain land for their own personal benefit and agenda.

These and a number of other issues will be addressed in future court decisions. Time will tell whether this ruling will stand and how municipalities and states will use the ruling.

Social Security: Moving it Forward with Private Accounts

2005-06-26T14:35:00.000-05:00

When President Bush stepped forward this winter with the goal of bringing feasibility and reform to Social Security, there was the hope and expectation that Congress could come forward with a bill that would satisfy politicians on both sides of the aisle and the general public. He never presented a specific plan but encouraged the idea of voluntary private accounts that would make up 1/3 or 4% of the social security payroll tax. Ever since his initial suggestions about reforming the system and adding private accounts, there has been consistent negative publicity (AARP and other groups) and clear opposition from Democrats even though a bill has yet to be drafted and brought to Congress. To be fair, the public has also been very wary of private accounts according to many polls and many Republicans have also been hesitant to support them also (ie. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina). While the public and politicans are currently skeptical about the idea of private accounts, their benefits far outweigh the costs in my opinion. And while private accounts may not be the answer to Social Security’s solvency, they offer many advantages to the current system. Specifically, 3 main advantages stand out:

1. Higher Rate of Return- The average interest taxpayers are getting with their money in regular Social Security Accounts is around 1.23 percent per year. This is in contrast to the average stock market return of close to 10% over the last 2 20-year periods. With the mutual funds in private accounts, all diversifying risk will be minimized and only market risk will affect the accounts. Therefore, these mutual funds will go up and down with the market and over several years, average returns of much greater than 1-2% are likely.

2. Personal Property- With the current system, if a worker dies before they retire the money they have been taxed for Social Security their whole life stays with the government. The money they put into payroll taxes is not transferred to their family or given to a charity or organization of their choice. With private accounts, the 4% or particular percentage of payroll tax accumulated would be able to be passed down to family or the recipient of choice. Also since this 4 % is the worker’s property, he or she can choose (out of a series of mutual fund choices) the fund that they feel is the best investment in their personal situation. This choice gives them not only the freedom of investment but the opportunity to learn more about other financial options outside of the Social Security system.

3. Promotes Ownership- As the global and information based economy continues to hit middle and lower class America with stagnant real wages, smaller pensions, and less financial security, the need to save and invest for retirement is crucial. In order to save and invest, the government should be promoting the ownership of assets such as stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. for a financially secure tomorrow. For many Americans, the only asset they own is their house. Allowing taxpayers to own a private account as part of their Social Security payments will not only give each worker an asset they own but also a chance to earn a far higher return for retirement.

While opponents tout the transaction costs of private accounts (financial fees, changing the system) and volatility of the market, the movement towards a privatized system seems positive for the aforementioned reasons. While there will be transaction costs, giving workers an account where they can earn a much greater rate of return that they tangibly own seems to far outweigh the costs. Addressing volatility, the market may be especially volatile in the short-run but when saving for money for more than 2 decades, return has always been positive and is much greater than what the government currently pays out. The public may still have doubts about private accounts and the Democrats may want the same New Deal government ran system but what we need is change as our system must move forward into the 21^st century. A system that provides freedom and financial opportunity is much better than a system of welfare and government control.

Initial Offering Timmyscape 50.0

2005-06-26T01:15:00.000-05:00

The time has come for my thoughts and ponderings to get posted on cyberspace. I plan to blog on several different topics this summer (and in the future) and hope that a few bored/nerdy/intellectual/political souls read and comment on the things I have to say. Many of the subjects I will tackle will be based ideas encompassing neoliberalism, new urbanism, Christianity, etc. Some posts may be of your interest and others may not so feel free to read selectively. I look forward to be fact checked, ridiculed, and rhetorically slaughtered in your comments online and in-person so feel free to disagree with points or assumptions I'm making. The night is young, the weather is humid, and the writer is dehydrated...I need a drink.