The Hillsdale Forum - Fall 2007-08

the

hillsdale forum fall 2007

Volume V, Issue I

Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is:

Why Hillsdale’s Values Are No Where to be Found Inside the Dining Hall

Full Story Page 10

the crawler

2

Fall 2007

it is everything you ever needed to know...and some things you

With Liberty and Justice (and Health care) for all... by James Nesbitt

details. The information provided on her website constantly refers to what the plan will There is little doubt that by now you and will not allow, but it proposes no specific have read about the latest crisis preparing bills or updates to laws. Consequently, we to pummel our country. That crisis is our are given little knowledge of how the legal deteriorating health care system. With code will be changed to meet Mrs. Clinton’s elections looming (as they always seem demands and little assurance that the plan to do), every candidate in contention has has concrete limits. Mrs. Clinton claims that part of the health developed a way to fix our broken system. The most vocal is Senator Hillary Clinton, care crisis is caused by overpayment of HMOs who has already unveiled her grandiose plan, and other Managed Care Plans. What she which will seemingly solve all our health never admits is the reason such organizations care woes. But although many people have exist and receive overpayments in the first heard of Mrs. Clinton’s plan, few people place: The requirement for private health actually know what it is. I urge you to go to care to conform to inefficient government Mrs. Clinton’s website (www.hillaryclinton. bureaucracy and regulation. The HMO com) and read it for yourself. It is so lacking Act of 1973 is a major contributing reason in detail that it hardly can be called a plan, to the continued need of HMOs in the first although perhaps this shows Mrs. Clinton’s place. The Act gave grants to HMOs at true genius. It is hard to analyze and attack taxpayer expense and required employers to a plan that has no specifics. However, if you offer HMOs as a health care option to their do not feel like expending such effort on such employers. This government intervention a fruitless hunt for fact, I will outline some of into the free market of health care has the more disturbing issues of her health care contributed to the current HMO problems of which Mrs. Clinton speaks, but you will ideas for you. Mrs. Clinton’s plan is titled “The American never hear a whisper of it from her camp. One of Mrs. Clinton’s objectives is to rope Health Choices Plan.” Perhaps this is a joke? An increase in consumer choice is never all Americans into the system, including the produced through government intervention. responsible citizens who currently are able The choice to which Mrs. Clinton refers is a to manage their health care without the need tightly controlled sets of options from which of taxpayer support. This requirement will the consumer is allowed to choose. A free force Americans who are currently selfreliant and market has no managing their set of options; own health care the choices to assist those available to who cannot. As the consumer Mrs. Clinton are unlimited. puts it, “This A n o t h e r plan ensures disturbing that all who ideal is strewn benefit from throughout -Hillary Clinton the system the document, share in the offering some responsibility general insight into Mrs. Clinton’s ideas about government. to fix its shortcomings.” By benefit, Mrs. Her plan “gives” Americans the choice. Clinton simply means participate. She will Those choices are a government grant, not require those who currently do not participate a freedom. This fundamental view of the in our failing government health care system purpose of government offers a glimpse of not only to participate, but to bear the burden what Mrs. Clinton will do not only in health of fixing its shortcomings. The possibility for success rests on the assumption that care, but in whatever arena she can control. One thing Mrs. Clinton does not give to Americans who currently can produce results Americans is the chance to make an informed on the free market can and will continue to decision. She apparently does not have do so when forced into a socialist one. An issue Mrs. Clinton does not touch is the much confidence in the common voter’s critical thinking abilities; the downloadable burden and restrictions on personal life such a plan from her website is full of large, color system will inevitably cause. Since personal pictures and charts, but offers few important Continued on page 3

“ This plan ensures that

all who benefit from the system share in the responsibility to fix its shortcomings

”

A Maine restaurant is considering removing its “naked lunch” from the menu after two citizens complained, calling it “inappropriate.” The lunch offers a free sandwich to anyone willing to jump from the dock naked. Officials recently found 10.5 ounces of Ecstasy hidden inside a Mr. Potato Head as he shipped from Australia to Ireland. New York City’s WABC will welcome Don Imus back to the radio beginning December 1, 2007. Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Joe Biden, Gov. Bill Richardson, John Edwards, and Rep. Dennis Kucinich all officially withdraw from Michigan’s January 15th primary. Monday, the first round of Baby Boomers become eligible to receive Social Security benefits—let the race to retirement begin! A teacher is suing his former employer who fired him after discovering a YouTube video of him painting with his bare buttocks. (Sit in paint, sit on canvas. Repeat as necessary.) Fraternities across the country are fighting back against the “frat-boy” image by bringing new activities such a yoga and wine-tasting into their chapters.

A Pennsylvania man was jailed after trying to pay for groceries with a $1,000,000 bill. A recent study by Cornell claims that people tend to consume 35% more calories when dining at “healthy” restaurants. Claiming that it produces germs that aid in the digestion of food, scientists say that your appendix is not so useless after all. Google’s stock shoots up to over $600/share, officially making the Google empire worth more than Wal-Mart. Fred Thompson debuts at the GOP Debates, but the spotlight fell on the Romney-Guiliani battle over fiscal issues. A poor marriage could lead to severe heart problems later in life… literally… doctors say that fighting couples raise their risk of heart disease. Philippine medical officials are outraged after finding themselves the subject of a joke on a recent Desperate Housewives episode. Moments after the show ended, a petition for an apology was already circulating the internet. Saying that they make children “late for class,” Principal Victoria Sharts has banned hugging in her urban Chicago middle school.

news

theHillsdale forum

Thompson Declares Candidacy!

Emilia Huneke-Bergquist

Old news? Maybe, but how much do you know about this rising conservative star? by Nathan D. Lichtman

Julie Robison Editors-in-Chief Mary Kate Cavazos Subscription Manager Brian Johnston Martin Kraegel III Kate Martin Christina Miller Stohn Nishino Scott Rozell G. Stolyarov II Staff Writers Matthew Cole Calvin Frieburger Nathan Lichtman Jeremy Marshall John McNamara James Nesbitt Heather Shell Dave Wasmer Contributing Writers

h

forum The Hillsdale Forum is a student publication distributed four times throughout the school year. Questions? Comments? Submissions? Contact The Hillsdale Forum: [email protected]

On September 6, 2007 a man from Tennessee posted a video on the internet that could ultimately lead to the re-vitalization of a major political party, and keep the direction of this country from skewing too far from what is right. The man, though seemingly not a man of high political notability, is trying to be elected President of the United States. The man is Fred Thompson. Revitalizing a political party represents a two-part undertaking. First, one must be able to be a person of such high charisma that he can convince people that their political alliances belong with his party. Secondly, he must redefine what the party believes in. The model for the charisma and emotional capacity required to convert and re-align believers with a political party is Ronald Reagan. Reagan, the fortieth US President, was known for his ability to turn anyone into a friend, to shove aside any negative claim, and to promote hard-core stances without sounding irrational. It can be said that Fred Thompson is akin to Reagan. They have a similar background; Reagan an actor in several movies, Thompson an actor, most recently recognized for his performance on the popular television show Law and Order. They both have

Hillary from page 2 burden and restrictions on personal life such a system will inevitably cause. Since personal health issues become public expenses in a socialist system, regulations regarding our personal lives will eventually be forced upon us. John Edwards has already cautiously advanced the idea of requiring citizens to visit the doctor on a regular basis for checkups. The rationale for these requirements is that proper preventative health care will incur fewer costs. However, under this plan the following scenario is far too tangible: health care lobbyists will pushing for regulations requiring examinations of body parts you didn’t even know existed, corrupt politicians will receive their rewards from lobbyists by passing the regulations, and doctors will gain from crammed waiting rooms full of a public attempting to abide by the law. The American public, however, loses. With all these deficiencies, why would anyone seriously consider Mrs. Clinton’s proposal? The quality Mrs. Clinton’s plan

3 seems to have that attracts voters is its effect on each individual voter’s pocketbook. Voters are attracted by the fact that her health care plan will reduce their direct out-ofpocket expenses. However, this belief lacks prudence. The truth is that the money to pay for health care has to come from somewhere. Whether you pay directly to your insurance company or whether you pay through a sales tax here and a gas tax there, you are still paying for the services you have used. There is no doubt that our health care system is in dire need of improvement. However, it is generally agreed that improvements are made by removing the defective parts of a system. Our current health care system is choked by government policies and extending those policies to the entire system will only make things worse. Mrs. Clinton’s plan contains the argument of compassion that often captures the emotional side of the voter, but let’s not allow her to love us to death.

cartoon courtesy of USBCI Education Foundation, 2007

h

forum

CONTINUED ON PAGE 8

SHORT STRIKE CAUSES MICHIGAN STRESSES

by Jeremy marshall

For the first time in 37 years the United Auto Workers called a national strike against General Motors. UAW President Ron Gettelfinger announced that, effective September 26 at 4:00 AM, the strike was recessed. The UAW and GM bargaining teams had reached a tentative agreement as of 3:05 AM that same morning. Workers resumed work the same day, starting second shift. If needed, skilled tradesmen could be called to work earlier. The strike lasted 41 hours. The last nationwide strike took place in 1970, and lasted 69 days. A limited strike was called in 1998 at two plants in Flint, Michigan. The 1998 strike lasted 54 days. The tentative agreement, pending member ratification, would shift a significant

portion of $51 billion in unfunded retiree health benefits to the Voluntary Employees Beneficiary Association, which is a trust is run by the UAW. GM will pay new hires a “second-tier” wage. GM and the UAW are withholding agreement details. This wage will be less than current employee wages. GM hopes to close the wage gap between foreign auto makers and themselves. The Detroit-based auto maker currently pays $25 more per hour than foreign competitors. Agreement details are being withheld until reviewed by a national council meeting and sent to membership. “There’s no question this was one of the most complex and difficult bargaining sessions in the history of the GM/UAW relationship,” commented GM chairman and CEO Rick Wagoner. “This agreement helps us close

the fundamental competitive gaps that exist in our business. The projected competitive improvements in this agreement will allow us to maintain a strong manufacturing presence in the United States along with significant future investments.” UAW Members are voting over a couple weeks on the new contract. Gettelfinger hopes the GM contract will serve as a pattern for Ford and Chrysler negotiations. The two-tier wage system attracts the two auto makers for new hires because the second-tier is lower pay for new hires. GM is considering closing plants in Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. The company is also thinking of building a new engine facility in Flint, MI to replace the outdated Flint North factory.

spotlight

4

GUNS IN AMERICA

by martin kraegel III

not, is conspicuously lacking when it comes to guns and the Second Amendment. They simply feel, more or less, that the Second Amendment is anachronistic and that American citizens do not need to possess firearms, especially handguns or assault rifles. And while gun control has seemed to take a backseat as a political issue in the past few years, it looks like it could be coming back in to the fore, with the potential to be an issue of importance in the 2008 elections. A recent case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has the potential to be a landmark case in this regard. According to an article in The New York Times,

Seeking to redefine the Second Amendment, the case brewing in Washington D.C. could mean big changes for one of America’s oldest past-times

a “collective right” interpretation, with notable exception of the 5th Circuit Court. Both sides are eager to proceed to the Supreme Court, which they believe could decide on taking the case, now titled District of Columbia v. Dick Anthony Heller, by November of this year. The stakes are high because, since the court has not ruled on the gun rights implied by the Second Amendment since 1939, and now the question becomes “Whether the Second Amendment forbids the District of Columbia from banning private possession of handguns while allowing possession of rifles and shotguns,” a ruling could set wide-ranging precedents. However, notice the words of D.C. Attorney General Linda Singer, “Whatever right the Second Amendment guarantees, it does not require the District to stand by while its citizens die.” This quotation is interesting, especially when coupled with that fact that D.C.’s petition for review contains mainly gun violence statistics and not legal arguments as to why the Supreme Court should take the case. Aside from the emotional appeal, which is always typical, the argument is that citizen gun ownership is inherently dangerous. Only rifles and shotguns are “reasonable,” but if, say, the D.C. police are allowed to carry handguns, it is clearly a case of the government saying, in effect, “handguns for me, and not for thee.” Speaking of precedents, several courts have

Strange as it may seem, I have recently become a firearms enthusiast. Of course, I have always favored individual gun ownership as matter of principle and as a right enshrined in the Constitution’s Second Amendment. But my recent personal experience with the use of firearms has given me a greater appreciation of what it means to be one of the tens of millions of responsible gun owners in the United States. I always go to the state owned shooting range located near where I live in Indiana. Among the firearms I typically shoot are handguns, such the Beretta px4 Storm 9mm Lugar and the Walther P22. At Whatever right the Second the range I tend to encounter people that Amendment guarantees, more closely resemble it does not require the the stereotype of District to stand by while America’s gun it’s citizens die culture: hunters and outdoorsmen, many -Linda Singer of them veterans or current members of the Armed Forces, wearing bush hats, boots dated September 5, 2007, the court voted 2-1 and camouflage pants. They shoot a wide to strike down a District of Columbia law that array of weaponry including more military banned all private ownership of handguns oriented guns such as the AR-15, MAC90, by individuals, excluding police officers. The semi-auto AK-47, and the Uzi pistol. Despite case, Parker v. District of Columbia, was their rough exterior, they are usually friendly, brought by six D.C. residents who believed knowledgeable, and if you ask politely, they the law violated their Second Amendment may let you try some of their hardware. rights. The court stating The purpose behind this personal anecdote is agreed to make an observation about guns in America. that the Second Gun Control Laws by State That is, that there is a very fundamental divide A m e n d m e n t rifles & shotguns/handguns an in America over guns. I do not believe I would included Michigan Indiana constitute what is thought of as the typical gun individual right to NO/YES NO/NO Permit to Purchase? user. Yet, to many liberals who favor stronger gun ownership, NO/YES Registration of Firearms? NO/NO gun control, the image they get is that of what and said that “once NO /NO I previously described: assault rifle wielding it is determined -NO /NO Licensing of Owners? as we have done militiamen, a “red-state” phenomenon pure NO/YES NO/YES Permit to Carry? and simple. The gun users I know put safety -- that handguns and responsibility first at all times, but it will not are ‘Arms’ referred surprise many that they also tend to have a to in the Second right wing, libertarian aversion to government, Amendment, it is not open to the District to ruled that the government is not obligated to especially that brand of liberal nanny-statism ban them.” The Second Amendment reads: “A protect individual citizens, including the District that advocates increasing government in well regulated Militia, being necessary to the of Columbia’s Court of Appeals in Warren v. the name of “safety.” To them, safety is their security of a free State, the right of the people District of Columbia (1981). The court stated responsibility and gun ownership is something to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” explicitly that it is a, “fundamental principle The District of Columbia has decided to of American law that a government and its uniquely American. Needless to say, there is appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme agents are under no general duty to provide nary a Hillary Clinton vote at the shooting range. The advocates of gun control, I believe, Court with the belief that the court was public services, such as police protection, to cannot relate to this. The enthusiasm liberals breaking precedent, noting that most other any individual citizen.” It is always a smug have for a plethora of rights, Constitutional or federal appeals courts have endorsed assertion of gun control advocates that guns

“

”

Fall 2007

are not necessary for self-defense because the police exist. This is clearly not the case when the police are not obliged to protect, and it is especially disingenuous for the District to arm its police with handguns, while denying its citizens the same right, especially in America, a country dedicated to the protection of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” To make matters worse, the same D.C. law that bans handguns also mandates that all rifles and shotguns be dismantled, locked, and unloaded in the home, and so the District of Columbia is in essence not allowing its residents to use guns for protection at all in a city notorious for crime, including homicides. As with so many other liberal political goals, the idea is that individual citizen is not competent to be responsible for his or her own safety and welfare. The framers of the Constitution had the opportunity to exclude pistols from the Second Amendment. They didn’t because, to quote Tench Coxe, a Pennsylvania statesman, “Their swords, and every other terrible instrument of the soldier, are the birth right of an American. ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” The militia in colonial America was every ablebodied male in the community. It is not the case that there was ever a doubt that the government would not be able marshal enough arms for its own military, as is the argument of the “collective right” theorists. Instead it a Ohio main right of a free people, NO/NO the idea being that just government derives its NO/NO powers from governed, NO /NO and that if the government NO/NO should fail in its duties the people may take their own action to defend their rights. That is why the Second Amendment and this particular case are so exceedingly relevant today. That is why I have always supported the Second Amendment as “the right of the people.” And if you asked any of the men at my shooting range whether they are the American militia, they would certainly reply in the affirmative.

commentary A French Lesson for America’s Grand Old Party h

forum

5

(Would you like a croissant with that?)

bynewt gingrich

guest columnist

It is time for some strong medicine for American conservatives and it does not get any stronger then this: if Republicans are going to have any chance of victory in 2008, they need to learn a thing or two from the French. That’s right. The French.

For Republicans in Washington, the election of Nicolas Sarkozy is significant not because he is a conservative but because he was a part of a deeply unpopular incumbent government. For those who are willing to learn, Mr.. Sarkozy’s win shows that it is possible to produce a decisive national decision in favour of more conservative reform when voters are faced with a choice between ideological failure on the left and bold solutions and bold leadership from a newly redefined right. Going into the election, the parallels between the incumbent French government of President Jacques Chirac and that of President George W. Bush were hard to miss. Mr. Chirac, who had been twice elected to serve a total of 12 years in office, was very unpopular. Frenchmen were tired of the

the Eiffel Tower

Chirac government. The contest was just what the 2008 contest in the US is shaping up to be: a classic “change” election. But the opposition on the left, the Socialist party, failed completely to capitalize on this desire for change. It nominated Ségolène Royal, who proved herself to be the candidate of the status quo, not of change. Most significantly, Ms. Royal was committed to keeping all the bureaucracies that were failing and all the policies that were creating unemployment. Still, with the incumbent conservative government so unpopular, the left would normally have been expected to win the election. But the conservative candidate, Mr. Sarkozy, won decisively because he is an aggressive, different kind of French political leader. He was able to overcome his association with the Chirac government by being a different kind of French politician. He proved himself as a tough, confrontational leader - a man who was not afraid to stand up to the French establishment that Mr. Chirac represented. In the campaign, Mr. Sarkozy not only argued that the French have to work longer hours, he called for an incentive for them to do so: no taxes on wages earned from working overtime. Critically, he said the

people must obey the law. Finally, he insisted that you could come to France if you wanted to learn to be French. This might not sound like much to the American political ear, but in a country that routinely accepts the burning of up to 15,000 cars a year by hooligans who, according to the elites, are simply “expressing their desire to disrupt society”, this was a jarring message. In a country that was very proud a few years back to have the first mandatory 35-hour work week in history, campaigning for tax breaks for overtime work was nothing less then transformational. The outcome of the contest proved that a majority of the French believe that without the kind of changes Mr.. Sarkozy was calling for, France’s stature and standard of living would disappear in a wave of lawlessness and economic decay. As for the opposition in the French election, much like the US Democratic party it is trapped by its commitment to big labour, big bureaucracy, high taxes and social values people do not believe in. Every time French voters seriously looked at Ms. Royal and the kind of politics she represented, she lost ground. The result was a surprising and powerful upset by Mr.. Sarkozy - a victory by a centre-right reformer, a member of the unpopular ruling

party, who came to personify change. Here is where American Republicans really need to pay attention. In France, voting for change meant voting for the party in office, but not the personality in office. And voting to keep the old order meant voting for the opposition, not for the incumbent party. If Republicans in the US hope to win the presidency next year, they had better find a candidate who, like Mr.. Sarkozy, is prepared to stand for very bold, very dramatic and very systematic change. Not only that, but they had better make the case that the leftwing Democrat likely to be nominated represents the failed status quo: the bureaucracies that are failing, the social policies that are failing, the high tax policies that are failing and the weakness around the world that has failed so badly in protecting the US. As Margaret Thatcher would say: “You have to win the argument before you win the vote”.

This article originally appeared in the June 12, 2007 issue of The Financial Times, and was republished with the express permission of both The Financial Times as well as Mr. Gingrich. www.newt.org

And now that we’re taking political advice from them... l us take a look at some of the other cool things France has given the world: hot air balloons (minority child not included)

Mayonnaise

the Etch-a-Sketch bicycles

Haute Couture

the Statue of Liberty

open forum

6

Fall 2007

Hillsdale, Love it or Hate it...it is Where You Are by matthew Cole Hillsdale is a college that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian values and a strong conservative background. Quite frankly I don’t see it. Don’t be mistaken, Hillsdale college as an institution is well rooted in conservatism. The students however, are far from anything that could be considered conservative. I came from Grand Rapids, Michigan, one of the most conservative major cities in the world. Considering that, I used to joke with my friends about leaving my tainted city and moving to Hillsdale, a sinless land of strong faith and good family values. I pictured a utopian paradise hidden away in rural America. I couldn’t have been more wrong. The first thing I noticed upon my arrival was the language. I swore once in my life and to this day still struggle with the guilt of having done so. On the contrary, students here are unbelievably comfortable using inappropriate language in everyday life. I had no idea that swearing at someone in the hallway was a type of greeting, nor did I know calling your classmates vulgar names was an accepted practice for displaying friendship. Not only is profanity disrespectful, it is a sin. James three warns us to be careful of what we say, and yet the people here who praise God with their lips are the same people who in different settings curse and take his name in vain. Furthermore, the amount of drinking on campus is disgraceful. I personally do not drink, but I acknowledge drinking as a socially accepted American pastime. However, although drinking itself is not a sin, getting drunk certainly is. Far too many students look forward to the weekends when they can go to parties and get stupid. Not only is drinking a bad choice medically speaking, but it

also opens up opportunities for many more sins. Corinthians 1:6 reminds us that our body is a temple and not our own, yet students continue to give into destructive bodily pleasures. Likewise, students, and even professors, seem to have a problem with drug use. I would think in this day and age with all the proven health risks as well as being morally condemned, drugs wouldn’t be a problem. Sadly, many students have already been expelled for possession of banned substances. I am further bothered by the professors who can be seen lighting up before class. How can they possible claim to be wise and knowledgeable teachers when they are too naive to realize they are killing themselves. I’m surprised that this school is known for studying the higher things when so many people have yet to discover the obvious things. Another disgusting feature of our school is the way in which women are viewed. Instead of acknowledging females as glorious gifts from God, many male students see them as nothing more than an object to be obtained, a mere piece of meat to be won. Instead of showing the young ladies of Hillsdale respect and treating them with dignity, many men regard them simply as trophies. The comments made about women on this campus are absolutely appalling. Additionally, I was totally shocked by how lightly sex is weighed here. I know America is going down hill, but since when did virginity become unpopular amongst conservatives? I have already been called “old fashioned” for expressing my desire to wait until I am happily married before having sex. Staying pure

is so easy and there are countless moral and health reasons for waiting for sex, but nevertheless many students have already corrupted themselves and continue to do so here on campus. I would like to believe that despite all the short comings of Hillsdale students, at least they are going to church and repenting their sins. But the truth is, many students aren’t going because they are either too tired or have a hangover from the Saturday night parties they attended. I don’t understand how students can go to a school like Hillsdale and behave the way they do without having unbelievable guilt. I accept that we all sin and even at this strong conservative school people will make mistakes, but we need stop using our position as sinners as an excuse for our bad behavior. It’s time we took some responsibility, for we are called to live in the world, but not to be of the world. I realize I will never find the paradise I long for until I go to heaven, but I was under the impression that we hold ourselves to a higher standard here at Hillsdale. I expected better.

#2 Each year, The Princeton Review Online release their Students Most Nostalgic for Ronald (in)famous lists detailing the Reagan good, bad, and ugly of college #5 campuses across the na- Future Rotarians and Daughters of the tion. This year, Thomas AquiAmerican Revolution nas stole our place as the #8 most conservative school in Students Pray on a Regular Basis the United States, but not #18 to worry, we can get it back Professors Get High Marks next year. In the meantime, #19 check out the other places Don’t Inhale we hold:

by John mcnamara I would first off like to personally thank Matthew Cole for clearly stating his beliefs; you clearly have strong character and do not allow others to influence you behavior. Cole comes to Hillsdale from the “major city” of Grand Rapids Michigan. Describing Hillsdale as a “Utopian Paradise”, Cole envisioned a land of sinless wonder where family values abound amongst the student body—a fishbowl environment where anyone who swore would quickly have their mouths washed out with liquid dial and be sent to their dorm room to think about what they had done. His view of a college is a place where students never drink too much, smoking is unheard of, abstinence is the only from of birth control, and the student body is tucked into bed early enough Saturday night in order to be up for church on Sunday. Cole accuses a majority of the student body of being foul-mouthed-naïvewomanizing-sexaholic-drunks and anyone who falls into this category is neither a Conservative nor Christian in the eyes of Cole…they should also wake up each morning with an unbelievable amount of guilt and run to repent. I was raised by Catholic parents who were both archconservatives. Though I consider myself

to be more moderate then the a majority of the students at Hillsdale I fail to see how knocking back a six-pack on Friday night takes away from either of these things. When did Conservatism become synonymous with sobriety? Allow me to remind you that even Jesus turned water into wine. Cole’s reasons for not smoking are supported by medical facts and I agree that smoking is terrible habit. I, too, find cigarettes to be repugnant and disgusting, though on occasion I will smoke a cigar. However, to condemn your fellow student for smoking is simply close-minded. Several friends of mine choose to smoke, and though it is not a decision I necessarily agree with, it is their body and their health. Professors, too, have the right to make this choice. Many of the professors on this campus are decorated scholars in their field who choose to smoke and you describe them as naïve. These are men who have already forgotten more than you know. One of these men was Dr. John Reist who is scholar of literature and theology and ordained clergymen as well as a pipe smoker. Reist, one of the men my late father said he would trade what he knew in order to learn what Reist had forgotten, said he agrees with Cole that smoking is both dangerous and hazardous to his health. He also reminded that W.C. fields once said, “A good cigar is a gift from God.” You describe women as Glorious gifts from God. I find these words to be somewhat old fashioned but to each his own. I was raised to both treat women with the respect and dignity they deserve, and I like to think that my parents did a good job instilling those values. Compared to other schools women are treated very

well here at Hillsdale College. I have seen males students give up their seat, help them carry things to their car, and walk them home on late nights. With few exceptions, the men here hold doors open, something rarely seen in today’s society. While I realize that most of these things are social graces, all too rarely are ‘they exemplified in today’s society. And, yes, there too are those students who wish to “hit and quit it,” but you are going to find those at every college in world, with very few exceptions. The students at Hillsdale College are for the most part intelligent, considerate, conservative, God-fearing individuals and should one of them choose to smoke, drink in excess, or engage in premarital sex it does not make them any less of a conservative or Christian. If you think students at Hillsdale College are that disgraceful, I suggest you visit Michigan State. Students there drink more, experiment with drugs, and men and women alike are nothing more than trophies won. The school you describe in your article is not Hillsdale College… The school which Cole depicts is not like any college campus I have ever been, it is one where people have regard others are only out for themselves. Cole seeks a college that does not exist and in my opinion never truly did. Claiming that he will not find what he is looking for until he reaches Heaven, I would guess is that even in Heaven there will be someone who swore in junior high, smoked in high school, drank too much in college and yes even someone who wasn’t “pure” when they were married. I find it disappointing that someone who has been at this college for such a short time as already judged it and condemned many of the fine students on this campus. I have been here nearly three years…whereas he is closing in on three months—gain some experience, until then, let’s hold off on the judgments.

8

Who Am I Voting For? by Scott Rozell

opinion

THOMPSON FROM PAGE 3 a similar speaking style: slow, focused, and rational. The Austin AmericanStatesman said that his, “towering 6-foot, 5-inch frame, basso voice and commanding presence”, could define Fred Thompson. Reagan and Thompson are also both are true conservatives, believing in limited government, a strong defense, and low taxes. Thompson may even surpass Reagan in his knowledge of how to win in the warfare that is politics. In 1994, Thompson proved his worth as a politician capable of winning regardless of the odds. He, with a relatively small amount of time, ran against a popular six-term congressman for a vacant US Senate seat. The polls announced that Thompson was 20 points below his opponent. Yet, instead of giving up, he took a bright red pick-up truck around Tennessee, meeting with people and listening to their needs. He wound up winning the senate position and went on to be re-elected two years later. While, overall, Thompson supports many conservative causes, his official web site, www.fred08.com, identifies his passions. He believes that Islamic terrorists pose an ongoing threat. Believing that the idea of federal entitlements represents an economic threat, Thompson also understands the “need for lower taxes to ensure our nation remains economically

Candidates are elected because they are moderate. Today in politics, the more moderate you are the more votes you can pull in. Elections have become choosing between a lesser of two evils; who is going to hurt the country the least? This mentality desecrates the ideals men like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, and Abraham Lincoln stood upon. These men desired to give an opportunity to each citizen for a better life, a chance to create their own success. Unfortunately, our government today penalizes success and laughs at the idea of rewards based on merit. It is time for a president to stop spouting politically correct propaganda to get into power. So who do I want to vote for? I want to vote for a man who will voluntarily step down from power, I want to vote for a man who says something is wrong and fights for what is right, I want to vote for a man who refuses the idea of social entitlements. Where did men like this go? They evaporated in the political heat of correctness. No one in this nation wants to offend anyone else. No one wants to stand upon absolutes. Everything is relevant in politics today. Everywhere in the world there are absolutes. Nature is built upon them, men once fought for them, and now governments mock them. There are absolutes in the world, there are absolutes in this nation, but they are being discarded at the expense of our country. To stand strong in today’s world we need a leader who will stand up for America. I want a president who will stand up and say terrorism is a threat to America’s foundation, that it will not be tolerated and will do everything in my power to cease it. I want conviction in their voice, I want to know they believe in America and the goodness of its people. I do not want a president who spends more on the unconstitutional pursuit of education than on national defense. I want a president who will take a firm stand against those who do not support us. I do not want a president who caters to the needs of other nations against ours. We do not live in a politically correct world. We live in a world where societies are raised to hate us, to despise us, and to kill everything which makes our nation great. How can we stand as a light unto the world when we refuse to light the wick of truth? How can a nation consult others which are not harmed by our enemies, which are not threatened by our threats, which do not hold the values and principles we treasure? We have a right to protect our nation, our values, our way of life. We have a right to fight. Why should we consult nations which hate us? I will vote for the man which stands upon our Constitution and does not bend it towards his will. I will vote for a man who has conviction in his voice. I will vote for a man which is concerned about being the best, not the elected. I will vote for a man who looks at Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan and says, “I will do better.” I will refuse to vote for anybody who does not wish to stand upon values and absolutes, who aims to please and not protect, who desecrates the legacy of our great leaders. I want the American people to exercise their right to vote, to stop laying down for the minority groups for fear of being labeled “politically incorrect.” It is time for our nation to elect someone who is looking to promote the United States, not play lame duck and hope the world smiles upon us as our doom lies above our head. Today’s citizens face unparalleled threats to our life, our liberty and our pursuit of happiness, and it is time they take their opportunity and change the course this nation is on. I will exercise my vote to do this.

competitive and innovative.” He recognizes the necessity of securing our borders. He believes in the strength of families. And, as the web site describes, he remains determined, “to remain engaged in the world while remaining true to America’s principles” Supporters of Fred Thompson explain that they are supporting Thompson for many reasons. Christopher Malagisi, National Grassroots Coordinator of the Leadership Institute and former Political Director for The Republican Party of Virginia, explained in an interview, “I believe he has the ability to bring together the presently disparate conservative coalition and has not alienated certain parts of it like other candidates. Any Republican candidate will need this in order to win the presidency. His star power will obviously help him as a national candidate and his already proven ability to utilize new media resources will spread his message in ways that have not been fully utilized before by presidential candidates. His positions on immigration, fiscal discipline, and entitlement reform should resonate not only with the conservative base but with the average Joe American demanding desperate reform within our government. And finally, I believe he is the only one who truly has a chance of beating Hillary Clinton in a general election since he has the proven ability to work across the aisle and has taken various independent positions that would resonate with Reagan Democrats and Independents,

Fall 2007 thus giving him a majority of votes come Election Day.” Not all these reasons, however, will guarantee a Thompson victory. He continues to have many struggles in this campaign. Entering the race later than most, he faces tremendous budget problems. Thompson was able to raise around eight-million dollars this quarter, while MSNBC is reporting that both Democratic Party frontrunners have raised over seventeen-million. Additionally, Thompson somewhat bucks the current social-Conservative trend toward banning gay marriage outright. He wishes for a constitutional amendment banning judges from legalizing gay marriage while still allowing for state legislatures to do so. While optimistic that his solution strikes a balance, Thompson conceded in an Associated Press article that some conservatives prefer their own wording. They are primarily concerned about marriage being a union between a man and a woman.” These issues seem to lack the strength needed to outweigh the positive impact he is having on The Republican Party but are issues that must not be overlooked either. While only time will tell, Fred Thompson seems to be the Republicans best choice in this race. Voters in the primaries will have to be the judges as to whom they wish to pose as their candidate against what is likely to be a strong Democrat candidate. Fred Thompson is certainly a valid option when considering this.

Back From Mac: by Nate Anderson

A long mass of Republicans stand in line, with a recent lecture still buzzing in their minds, and a book in hand. The venue is the Republican’s Mackinac convention, and after a rousing speech, the crowd lingers on, hoping that Newt Gingrich will scrawl his signature onto one of their books. Many hold one of the former House Speaker’s latest writings, Rediscovering God in America. The tract develops the thesis that America can boast of its amazing success only because of this country’s religious roots. Faith, morality and virtue are words that appear repeatedly throughout the text, and more importantly, all over this

Fresh from the Mackinac Island Republican Conference, one student examines the real reasons behind coming together

nation’s monuments. In the book, Gingrich tours D.C., pointing out the plethora of reverential and scriptural references. For example, atop the Washington Monument are printed the words Laus Deo, or praise be to God. Even after breezing through this pocket-sized guide, I suspect that any liberal would be stuttering over claims of Jefferson’s or Franklin’s secular views. Yet, as I stand in this line, among political allies, I am rudely reminded that there are political motivations that run even deeper than party lines. I hear a person say, ‘We’re here to make contacts and get power.’ I look to the speaker only to find a student,

continued on page 9

h

forum

GOING GREEN! by Dave Wassmer

On December 2 1942, fifty individuals in a converted squash court beneath the University of Chicago’s abandoned Stagg Field witnessed the birth of a new era of science: the nuclear age. At 3:25pm Chicago time, the nuclear reaction occurring inside the experimental core became self-sustaining, igniting the possibility of nuclear power. Despite its rather humble beginnings, that small reactor inside those makeshift laboratories birthed a technology that would be praised and hated, and one that would also become largely misunderstood over the coming decades. Yet, after over half a century of unapprised fear, nuclear power survives, now with the potential of being the most viable, efficient, safe, and ecologically sound source of energy capable of meeting the increasing global demand. One of the commonly cited concerns with nuclear power is dreaded nuclear waste. The rhetoric of Greenpeace, would have the average individual believing nuclear waste is an unsolved problem that proves to be the knockout punch for nuclear power as a whole; according to the organization’s website, nuclear power will “create tens of thousands of tons of lethal high-level radioactive waste”. Nevertheless, before we go shutting down all the nuclear power stations, which together supply approximately 20% of our nation’s energy, let’s put things in perspective. According to the latest statistics available (2002), a total of 47,023 metric tons of nuclear waste have been generated since the start of civilian nuclear power in the US, or roughly 1,400 metric tons per year. That certainly appears as a substantial volume. Just for the purposes of comparison,take a look coal waste. Fly ash, just one type of waste from coal power, amounts to around 100,000,000 metric tons per year – over three tons a second. In volume, coal power produces around 71,500 times more waste than nuclear power each year, while only generating approximately 2.5 times the electricity. Certainly, though, a volume-to-volume comparison is not entirely accurate. Coal waste is not radioactive, however, despite the legitimate hazard of nuclear waste, there is a substantial misunderstanding of the nature of this hazard in the public mind. Nuclear waste shipped off the plant facilities has a half-life of several thousand years, thus rendering it relatively safe to handle for short periods of time. Additionally, a technique exists to transform the waste into a stable, glass-like compound, which can be stored underground in stable geological formations until the radiation decays to safe levels. Yucca Mountain Repository, a site that utilizes this technique, could, alone, could contain all the US nuclear waste until the year 2080. Coal waste, on the other hand, contains heavy metals such as mercury or arsenic, which never decay, and will remain forever hazardous. Another major concern is the safety of the reactors themselves. Here, Greenpeace once again sets

opinion (Calm down Hippie Haters, it is in the radioacitve sense...)

the tone for the anti-nuclear advocates. Calling to mind the Chernobyl and Three Mile Island nuclear accidents, the Greenpeace website makes the claim that a significant increase in the use of nuclear power would “result in a Chernobyl-scale accident once every decade,” invoking an instinctive, irrational fear of nuclear power.. Chernobyl was, above all, a Soviet designed reactor. The Soviet designs, among many other flaws, featured no containment vessel – essentially, a massive wall to contain possible steam explosions, whereas, US reactors feature a containment vessel as well as state-of-the-art technology, which would aid in the prevention of future disasters. Simultaneously, Three Mile Island is popularly touted as our own nation’s failure. In truth, Three Mile Island was a success. Every safety measure that was put in place worked. No radiation was ever accidentally leaked. No one was killed or even injured. While the reactor core had to be shut down and scrapped, it was a perfect score for the safety procedures and implementations. Meanwhile, new reactor designs are implementing a new generation of safety features termed passively safe designs. These reactors use the inherent laws of physics involved with nuclear reactions to create self-limiting scenarios. In other words, in the physical world we occupy, these reactors cannot meltdown. The new General Electric ESBWR reactor, in a serious “loss of coolant” accident, “requires no operator action . . . for three days”. The final issue facing nuclear power is security. Because world-wide terrorism is a major threat, the idea that nuclear reactors could be used to deliver terrorists with an atomic bomb is enough to make many oppose the technology altogether. Once again, this view is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of nuclear reactors. Reactors require 2-3% enriched uranium, while uranium-based atomic bombs require 80-90% enrichment, a feat much more difficult to achieve. Plutonium, created in reactor cores, is also usable for atomic bombs. While this may be a concern among developing countries or rouge states, that should not limit the US from using the technology. In addition, the reactor cores themselves are designed to withstand extreme weather, earthquakes, and even direct aircraft strikes. In one test of a containment wall, a sample cross section was erected at the end of a track, to which an F-4 Phantom jet was bolted. The jet, fully loaded with jet fuel, slammed into the wall at over 500 mph, and though the jet was vaporized on impact, the wall remained intact. With the current outlook on fossil fuels steadily growing dimmer, it is time for the US to consider its alternatives. With renewable sources such as solar or wind unable to provide consistent, reliable energy sources, and the price of fossil-based fuel continually climbing, nuclear power is rising as the best choice for the US energy future.

9

-College Republican Corner-

We are only a few weeks into the year, and already, the CR’s have brought several awesome opportunities to campus including the Leadership Institute’s Grassroots Training and a trip up to this year’s MRLC.

In the near future, they plan on: a political movie night meeting with the local republican party and local republican candidates sending students to the New Centurion program in Lansing hosting viewings for the debates bringing in more speakers attending CR events at the University of Michigan and MSU Interested? Questions? E-mail: [email protected]

Mac from page 8

about 18 years old, who made the trip from his school in Minnesota. I can’t help but ask him to elaborate on these assertions. In less than a moment my mind finds enlightenment. Politics is about seeking power. Those with power are best able to seek the beneficial. The final topping makes it all palatable; what is truly beneficial is truly good. This student clearly believed that Republican strategies simply work better, or in other words, are more stable and productive. Such a link between the beneficial and the good has been outlined before, but it was often inverted in classical times. Every Hillsdale student reads a portion of On Duties. In this piece Cicero also argues that the beneficial and good only appear to contradict at times, reasoning that they are ultimately one and the same. Choosing the correct action begins with “whatever is right conduct” and ends with the “expedient.” He has little faith in “the false reasoning of unscrupulous men,” who seek to first identify the expedient or beneficial action. No mortal can reason from the beneficial to the moral. Whether Cicero’s position can persuasively be argued without bringing the eternal flames of hell or joys of heaven into the equation

is a different matter. The divide lies between the rational, self-interested individuals, who seek the expedient first, and moralists, who question the action’s righteousness first. It is difficult to find any greater fault line that runs through the Republican party, and it would be a hollow claim that maintained it does not run through Hillsdale also. Ludwig von Mises, a writer often defended in Republican circles, Hillsdale being no exception, writes in Liberalism that, “Everything that serves to preserve the social order is moral; everything that is detrimental to it is immoral,” and “improvement of his material condition...is the motive power of all human action.” Mises’ words are as much a gospel to some Hillsdale students as Cicero’s are to others. Those who find a friendlier home in the latter camp, should not seek to downplay this essential difference. They would do well to recognize that their deepest principles might resemble those of bleeding-heart liberals from the New School instead of their conservative cohorts. At least while these factually misguided souls drowned the state beneath the debt of their welfare programs, some notions of the passionate and selfless would remain.

10

arts & entertainment

Found on YouTube:

Let’s face it, YouTube has everything. Here at The Hillsdale Forum its our job to make sure you can find the best of the best... go ahead, laugh a little.

fall 2007

What Does SAGA Say About:

ECONOMICS?

ch sear

nt our acce y t o g u o to see y uthern 1.) Nice lary, Twang, So il back: H wards, d E n h o y? J ng Prett tyle i l e e F ) . 2 Hair, S to on Paul R t e g y Gallowa orm, Interview 3.) Can Paul, D n o R ? t i vis , Free nment 1 UF r e v o G r, 4.) Big ry, Tase r e K : 0 Speech

She couldn’t have done it without us, and we cannot do it without you!

by Heather Shell Capitalism. Laissez-faire Economics. Free Market Enterprise. These words ring through the hallowed halls of Hillsdale, echoing with the lofty ideals and the high-minded philosophies of those intellectual giants who have gone before us. These are the principles that Hillsdale College is built upon, the cornerstones of this great institution. They permeate the campus and are integrated into every aspect of the school. Aren’t they? My experiences would imply otherwise. There is a notable discrepancy between those lofty ideals held up in the classroom and what students contend with in our everyday lives. As you may have noticed, the food in our esteemed cafeteria at times leaves something to be desired, and, given the choice, I would often opt to purchase my meal from a different source. However, along with a liberal arts education, I am forced to buy from SAGA at least fifteen meals that I do not want at a price that I find slightly exorbitant. Honestly, anyone who has been to an event where SAGA Catering has provided the meal knows that our cafeteria is capable of so much more. I mean, has anyone else noticed that the only differences between “Cheesy Potatoes” and “Jazzy Potatoes” are the name and a day’s worth of desiccation? I recall the first time I realized that SAGA was not the high-quality eatery that I had

expected/hoped it to be. It was a few weeks into my freshman year. I was inching my way through the hot line, per usual, when I was startled by a large clattering from the tray of the student in front of me as he spilled his entire glass of Mountain Dew into the pan of green beans. I leapt back, expecting a surge of SAGA workers frantic to clean up the mess and supply their clients with a fresh batch of veggies. Alas, I was much disappointed. I think that al they did was slap a new sign on the plastic, renaming the soiled dish “Jazzy Green Beans”. Now tell me, how does this encourage Capitalism and Free Market Economy? We are forced to pay for an inferior product that I do not use half of the time. If only we could employ a pay-as-you-go system where you may purchase only what you want. I know, it is frighteningly reminiscent of a Free Market, but hey, a girl can dream. Who knows, without forced consumership, SAGA might even feel the incentive to provide a better product, and thereby earn the income that they now receive by obligation. Mmmm…smells like Capitalism. Capitalism and Free Market Enterprise are some of the highest ideals of our patriotic school, yet they fail to trickle down into the seemingly mundane details of our daily lives. While I appreciate hallowed halls and intellectual giants, I often think that those great ideas held high in the core of Hillsdale College would have just as much value at the lunch table.

--Let‛s Do the Math-Apparently, reading The Hillsdale Forum while intoxicated is not only difficult, but dangerous as well. Lindsey learned the hard way. But, while in rehab, she dedicated hours to reading the Forum, and learned to love being conservative. * Showing Celebrities the Light Since 2002. Help Us. * [email protected]

A 19/Week Meal Plan: $3,600/2(semesters) = $1,800/Semester There are 16 Weeks & 8 (Holiday) Meals/ Semester (16 * 19 + 8 ) = 312 $1800/312 Meals = $5.77 per meal With a 15/Week Meal Plan: $3,350/2(semsesters) = $1675/Semester There are 16 Weeks & 8 (Holiday) Meals/Semester (16 * 15 + 8) = 248 $1675/248 Meals = $6.75 per meal An average student will eat at SAGA 10 times weekly. Their meals cost $10.71 (19 Meal Plan) and $9.97 (15 Meal Plan)

arts & entertainment When Good Athletes Go Bad

h

forum

11

Turning on SportsCenter for the latest news has been a rather depressing experience lately. Almost every day, it seems as if some new crime or scandal has been unveiled, rousing disbelief from the public. Consider just some of the events that have happened over the past year: Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick was arrested and charged for his involvement in a dog-fighting ring, which will almost certainly land him in prison.

NBA referee Tim Donaghy was charged with betting on games that he officiated, which may have influenced calls he made in those games.

by Brian Johnston While it has lately been a difficult time in the sports world, just as bad has been the media’s poor coverage of these events. Conservatives today are often critical of the mainstream media for being too liberal or politically correct, and that has certainly carried over into sports coverage. In covering these events, the media has proved once again that it has its own agenda and cannot be trusted to accurately cover sports. Let’s start with the Michael Vick case. Once one of the NFL’s biggest stars, Vick will soon be going to jail and now faces the possibly never playing professional football again because of his participation in an underground organization responsible for the organization of dogfights. We have heard much about the gruesome practices of torturing and killing dogs who do not win. Animal rights supporters have come out in large numbers to condemn Vick, receiving lots of national attention and setting off a huge debate over whether Vick’s actions justify this level of ridicule. While Vick’s actions certainly should not be condoned, this is a great example of lost priorities, both by the media and much of the public. Hardly a day goes by in which a player from the NFL, NBA, or another league is not arrested for DUI, possession of illegal drugs, domestic abuse, or some other crime that is far worse than dog fighting. Yet the media, as well as many fans, usually forget the incident within a couple of days. While the media has been constantly condemning dog fighting, they have said

Mike Nifong, district attorney in Durham County, NC, was disbarred after acting too aggressively towards filing sexual assault charges against three Duke lacrosse players, when it was later revealed that the accusations were false.

Radio personality Don Imus caused an uproar when he referred to Rutgers women’s basketball players as “nappy-headed hos.”

And, of course, there is always the steroid controversy, which was debated perhaps as strongly as ever when Barry Bonds broke Hank Aaron’s career home runs record.

virtually nothing about the dangers of drunk driving and substance abuse since St. Louis Cardinals pitcher Josh Hancock died after crashing his car while intoxicated well above the legal limit. Now consider the Duke lacrosse case. The story first broke in early 2006 that three white Duke lacrosse players were

this all up, until Nifong’s misconduct was revealed. Even though these three men’s lives have been permanently ruined, no one in the media has offered an apology, nor has anyone discussed the need to curtail reckless reporting. Then there was the incident involving radio show host Don Imus. When dis-

being investigated for sexually assaulting a black stripper at a party. In this case the media turned the case into both a gender and racial issue, which were perfectly legitimate goals -- if the charges were true. However, the charges were false. The accuser, with a history of lying about rape incidents, changed her story several times, while Durham County DA Mike Nifong ignored critical evidence and rushed to judgment, hoping to further his career. Of course, the media ate

cussing the 2007 NCAA Women’s Basketball National Championship Game between Tennessee and Rutgers, Imus jokingly referred to the Rutgers team as “nappy-headed hos.” While these were definitely inappropriate comments, they were nothing more than some shock jock radio host making a fool of himself. Civil rights leaders such as Al Sharpton, with the help of the media, successfully portrayed the situation as a race relations crisis, ultimately leading to Imus

being fired from both his radio program and the CBS broadcasting network. In the media’s coverage of these events, as well as of sports in general, there are two major problems. First, sports coverage has become too sensationalized, focusing more on individual behavior than on team and on-field accomplishments. Perhaps nothing exemplified this more than ESPN’s pathetic “Who’s Now” segments this past summer, when talking heads and Hollywood stars came on to debate which athlete was the most “Now,” whatever that means. Most fans want to hear about their team did last night or what they need to do to make a run at a championship, not about Alex Rodriguez’s wife wearing a profane t-shirt while in the stands at Yankee stadium. Secondly, as serious as some of these stories are, these are not momentous occasions that “transcend” sports. Yet the media frequently portrays them in this way, as in the examples mentioned above. There are those great moments, such as Jackie Robinson breaking baseball’s color barrier and the U.S.A. beating Russia in hockey at the 1980 Olympics. Yet, the purpose of the sports media should be to report what happens and occasionally offer some analysis and even conversation on hot topics, but nothing more. Above all, it is important to remember the proper role of sports in our society. They are not meant to be used in crusades for social change, nor are they to be covered in a glamorizing way. Their purpose is entertainment, and nothing more, and it would be nice to see them reported this way. cartoon courtesy of USBCI, 2007