The Hillsdale Forum - Winter 2006-07

the

hillsdale forum Winter 2007

Volume IV, Issue II

Oh dear...

As both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama declare their candidacy for the 2008 election, a nation is left to wonder, who will be our leader? Full Story Page 3

the crawler

2

Winter 2007

its everthing you ever needed to know...and some things you didn’t

Super Bowl Once Again Most Scandelous Game on Television by Emilia Huneke-Bergquist Just as we were all forgetting Janet Jackson’s unfortunate slip at the 2004 Super Bowl, game number forty-one arrived. Not to worry, the unusually demure Prince had nothing to do with it; this time, it was advertisers who “malfunctioned.” With a thirty-second spot during the game running just over 2.6 million dollars, it is understandable that, according to a ComScore poll, 48 percent of viewers watch the game solely for the commercials. Each year, corporations work for months and pay millions to impress consumers during America’s most watched television program. This year’s bowl boasted an impressive 93 million viewers, making it the third most watched program in television history, just after Super Bowl XXX and the M*A*S*H finale, and with so many millions of viewers living in today’s hypersensitive society, it is no surprise that this year’s game was not without controversy. Less than twenty-four hours after the first commercials had aired, several gay rights groups, including the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLADD), filed formal complaints against the Masterfoods USA cooperation for a Snickers advertisement that aired during this year’s Super Bowl. The commercial showed two mechanics sharing a candy bar, almost kissing, then “doing something manly” to try and compensate. According to Masterfoods, consumer feedback was generally positive, but Neil Giuliano, president of GLADD, released a statement saying, “That Snickers, Mars, and the NFL would promote and

GUN: $250 AMMUNITION: $50 DIAPERS: $10

endorse this kind of prejudice is simply inexcusable.” Masterfoods quickly pulled their commercial from the air, releasing an apology to everyone offended. However, they were not the only ones to be hit with post-bowl complaints. General Motors’s advertisement featuring a robot who dreams it is pulled from the assembly line before throwing itself from a bridge has drawn sharp criticisms from mental health organizations, who claim it belittles the tragedy of suicide. Originally, GM agreed to keep the commercial on the air unedited, but the corporation has now decided to edit the bridge scene before it airs again during this year’s Academy Awards. Both controversies come after the premature release of a commercial featuring Kevin Federline—who later apologized for angering America’s fast food workers after his portrayal of one. In today’s society, all of the apologies and pulled ads are no surprise, and the consumer and political strength of such groups is quite notable. Yet, as the majority of people who felt no offense, nor prejudice, while viewing the Super Bowl we, too, are responsible for voicing our opinions. As the men in the snickers commercial ripped their hair—we laughed, as the robot fell—we cringed, and as “K-Fed” rapped—well, we did a little bit of both. At no point were the commercials anti-gay, prosuicide, or demoralizing. They were entertaining and creative, and should these ridiculous complaints continue, it is not likely we will be seeing either of those things during next year’s Super Bowl.

h

forum

BEING AGE TWO, AND USING ALL THREE:

PRICELESS

Support the conservative state of mind... donate to The Hillsdale Forum today!

January 2007

February 2007

*

*

Steve Jobs announces Apple’s Making a noteworthy comeplan to unveil it’s new iphone in back, the Dixie Chicks take home five Grammy awards, June. It will retail for $499 and is only available with service including album and song of the year. from Cingular. Sir Richard Branson, owner of Virgin Group Ltd., announced that he will award a twenty-five million dollar prize to the first scientist(s) who devise a way * President Bush focuses his State to suck greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere. of the Union Speech on his plans for Iraq, energy reform, and * University of Michigan students immigration. are wearing surgical masks in * a study aimed at tracking the Congress’ promise to work five spread of influenza. day weeks is interrupted early, * has agreed to as lawmakers request their first Barbra Striesand day of work off to attend a give the largest donations alcollege football game. lowed by law to the three democratic frontrunners of 2008. * * Ladies and Gentlemen, your Al Gore is among this year’s tax dollars at work: after los- 167 nominees for a Nobel ing a bet to Florida Senator Bill Peace Prize for his movie An Nelson, Ohio Senator Sherrod Inconvient Truth Brown did fifty-five pushups in Nelson’s office. (And just in Accoring to the*Ku Klux Klan, case you were trapped in a box illegal imigration is helping during the BCS championship, drive their membership to levthe Florida Gators beat the Ohio els not seen since the 1960s State Buckeyes 41-14.) * Texas Governer Rick Perry * Democrats announce that the is under fire for his propsed 2008 Democratic National Con- measure that all sixth grade girls vention will be held in Denver, recieve the new HPV vaccine. Colorado. In other news, the * Rocky Mountains crumble at Both the Senate and House have thought of Howard Dean’s yell. passed a measure that increases the national minimum wage * Bush’s new plans for Iraq in- $2.10 over the course of two clude a troop surge of just over years. The Senate grouped the 20,000 soldiers sent to defend bill with a series of tax-breaks two of the nations most resiliant for small businesses and tax areas. increases for cooperations. Oil prices dropped to $49.90 per barrel early in the month before freezing weather nation-wide sent prices soaring once again.

h

forum

news

3

theHillsdale forum

-Tug of WarWhy The power struggle between Clinton and Obama may

Emilia Huneke-Bergquist

just be the Republican’s ticket to 2008

Editor-in-Chief Julie Robison Copy Editor Samantha COnn Business Editor Mary Kate Cavazos Subscription Manager Brian Johnston Stohn Nishino G. Stolyarov II Staff Writers Thomas Leonard Kate Martin Anthony Mocny Roger Pattison Scott Rozell Heather Shell 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]

by Kate Martin &

Heather SHell Last month saw two groundbreaking bids for the Democratic Presidential Nomination for 2008. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have emerged as the two frontrunners in the Democratic race for the presidency. Although they share a party label, there is a striking difference in their personas and perspectives. As they continue to establish themselves through their campaigns, they polarize their party and set the stage for an intense and potentially dividing competition. Sen. Clinton is an established figure in the world of politics. She boasts unparalleled name recognition and over two decade’s worth of experience in the political spotlight. After serving a term as first lady, she became the first presidential wife to strike out on her own in politics, spending six years in the Senate before announcing her bid for presidential candidacy. In addition to name recognition, Clinton’s Democratic domination is aided by her already substantial bank account and her knack for fund-raising. Her political advantage is further solidified by the support of one of the greatest political maneuverers of our time, her husband, Bill Clinton. However, this particular familial tie is not wholly advantageous. A portion of her name recognition is no doubt tied to the highly publicized scandals of Bill Clinton’s presidency. Clinton celebrates a long tenure in Washington, but suffers from the inevitable effects of muckraking and staleness that comes from so much time in the public eye. This widespread familiarity that could dilute the potency of other politicians, is combated by an exceptionally powerful personality and a reputation for being tough and tenacious. However these traits can often work to her disadvantage

as well. Her unwavering and resolute nature serves as a divisive factor even among her own party. People either love Clinton or they hate her. Sen. Clinton’s quest for candidacy comes as no surprise, but this political powerhouse may not have the preeminent political advantage that her celebrity status would suggest. Sen. Barack Obama is a much newer face in the political scene. A total of only two years in the Senate provides him with a freshness and intrigue that his more established colleagues lack, but also raises the question of his experience and preparedness for such a demanding and complex role as President of the United States. He cuts a figure of the common man, yet his dynamic personality has been enough to overshadow his rookie status and convince thousands of Americans of his political abilities. Part of his popular appeal is due to his liberality of ideas. He has stated his desire to obscure the line between blue and red and to foster a new unification of the American

people. This brand of idealism is a direct throwback to such presidential greats as Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy. As he declared his candidacy, he declared that “the ways of Washington have to change” in his endeavor to “build a more hopeful America”. Although the David verses Goliath setup of this candidacy campaign is certainly to his advantage, it just may not be enough to overcome his glaring lack of experience and prestige in the political arena. One of the hardest things for any candidate in a primary is the necessity of securing the votes needed within the party. In addition, the candidate needs to have the ability to make a move towards the middle in the hopes of swinging more hesitant votes. It is clear from Sen. Clinton’s stances on many of the issues that she has already done that. Clinton is very positive about the work the troops are doing in Iraq, but hesitates to discuss the direction of the continued on page 9

In the Running* Officially Barack Obama-D-IL Hilary Clinton-D-NY John Edwards-D-NC Christopher Dodd-D-CT Dennis Kucinich-D-OH Sam Brownback-R-KS John H. Cox-R-IL Mitt Romney-R-MA Duncan Hunter-R-CA Steve Cubby-L-CA Christine Smith-L-CO George Phillies-L-MA

Un-Officially Bill Richardson-D-NM Rudy Giuliani-R-NY John McCain-R-AZ Tom Tancredo-R-CO Ron Paul-R-TX Jim Gilmore-R-VA Doug Stanhope-L-AZ Robert Milnes-L-NJ -

*Canidates listed as “Official” have filed formal papers with the Federal Election Commission, whereas “Un-official” canidates have only formed exploratory committies

4

debate Paging Dr. Arh-nold

Winter 2007

Schwarzenegger’s new California health plan has doctors wondering if this is the beginning of the end for medicine by Anthony Mocny

In 2003, Californians made history by recalling a governor who had raised taxes, compromised the border’s sovereignty, and turned off their electricity. He did so within a relatively short amount of time, and it soon became clear after his reelection that a continuation of his regime’s time in Sacramento would be detrimental to the general welfare of the Golden State. A few big-name Republicans got on board with a movement to exercise the right of the people to petition for a recall election. People responded enthusiastically, collecting signature after signature in order to throw off an unjust government and remove Governor Gray Davis from power and replace him with a more capable individual in whom the people could place their trust. Enter Arnold Schwarzenegger, an AustrianAmerican actor who made his career by fighting bad guys and blowing everything from aliens to murderous cyborgs to clones into oblivion on the big screen. He announced his candidacy on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno, and pledged to campaign against the special interest groups holding the interests of the people hostage in Sacramento. California elected him to serve the remainder of Gray Davis’s term and then stand for reelection in 2006. The people were tired of the status quo, and when an outsider who pledged to “terminate” the tyranny of timidity trying their patience in the state capital showed up, giving him a chance seemed like a good idea at the time. It has been four years now since the recall revolution took place on the Left Coast, and we are now in a place wherein we can look retrospectively at what has happened. Gray Davis tripled the car tax (a measure which Arnold repealed), tried to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants (a move which Arnold stopped in its tracks), and handled the power crisis about as well as Jimmy Carter handled the incidents that transpired in Iran 28 years ago. Spending was out of control, big government labor unions and other interest groups had a plethora of friends in the

legislature, and the people of California elected Arnold to bring an end to it all. Things did not look good in those days, and “The Governator” was supposed to make it all better. Californians are now in a place to genuinely question whether or not he has done the job he was elected to do (or whether he has even tried). Has Schwarzenegger succeeded where Davis failed? If out-of-control spending was a voter’s reason for ousting Davis, one cannot honestly contend that

Schwarzenegger has successfully redressed his grievances. According to California State Senator Tom McClintock, California “spending is growing faster than it did under Gray Davis, the state is now running the biggest deficit in its history, and the only way it can pay its bills is because of massive borrowing carried over from 2004, contributing to a doubling of the state’s debt burden in just three years.” While he has brought some of what Senator McClintock calls “long-overdue spending reforms,” Arnold has done no better than Davis in curbing the growth of the budget, and the state’s wallet has been bleeding profusely for years with few

signs of recovery in the near future. In addition to spending, another failure of Davis’s was his inability to remain popular with the electorate while offering Californians a big-government fiasco that compromises the integrity of America’s southern border. Davis sought to triple car taxes and permit illegal aliens to obtain driver’s licenses, which is something that is considered valid proof of citizenship at the US/Mexico border. These attempts to change policy drove his poll ratings down like nothing else could. Schwarzenegger, on the other hand, is now seeking to raise taxes on doctor’s and other medical businesses to provide free healthcare to all Californians and citizens of other countries residing within California, although this is a violation of state and federal law. This socialized medical plan, which imitates the Canadian healthcare would be detrimental to the medical field. America’s healthcare, although the most expensive, is also one of the best in the world; if one socializes healthcare, it takes away the people’s right to choose different healthcare options, the incentives and the ability for medical companies to be innovative with drugs, techniques, and create new tools. When one caps profit, it does not give people many incentives to be a doctor because they would not be reimbursed well for all their years of hard work and effort. Socialized medicine is limiting and is not able to meet the growing needs of the country. Schwarzenegger’s healthcare plan won’t treat the problem by providing a substantive solution. In fact, it will most likely make the problem worse. According to a Heritage Foundation’s summary of the plan, “the Governor’s proposed health plan is a mélange of bad health policy (including subsidies to illegal aliens), unwise tax increases, and

missed opportunities. There are indeed some promising provisions: a state-wide pool for the purchase of private health insurance; direct assistance to low-income Californians to help them buy coverage; and a proper alignment between the state and federal tax treatment of health savings accounts. On the whole, however, the proposal is a great leap forward for bigger government and increased bureaucratic decision-making and control.” Even with the “promising provisions” of the Schwarzenegger plan, it involves a greater role for the government. The Governator’s plan also involves the taxation of doctors and hospitals. Ironically, the justification for this new tax is that it is meant to help alleviate costs for doctors and hospitals. As the Heritage study details, his proposed plan will involve “additional payment to doctor’s and hospitals serving the state’s MediCaid program, MediCal.” However, “providers would also face new taxes, thus diminishing the effect of increased government payments. Doctors and other medical professionals would be required to pay a 2 percent tax and hospitals a 4 percent tax to help pay for the Governor’s proposal.” While such bureaucratic nonsense may have been the modus operandi of the Davis administration, Schwarzenegger should know better. Arnold Schwarzenegger has until 2010 to build his legacy as the man elected in California’s historic recall, but with proposals like these, he has not gotten off to a good start. They didn’t elect his left-wing opponent last fall for a reason, the reason being that Californians believe in fiscal responsibility and a government which takes the taxpayer’s trust into account when writing its checks. While one shouldn’t throw Arnold under the bus for a single bad proposal, he also shouldn’t get too confident in his agenda; Californians have removed governors who had failed them by bloating the budget, raising taxes, and compromising border security by catering to illegal immigrants and replaced him with “the Governator.” Let’s hope the robot doesn’t malfunction. 1) McClintock, Tom. “A “Fantastic” Budget”. California State Senate. . 2) Moffit, Dr. Robert E.. “The Schwarzenegger Health Plan: A Great Leap Forward for Bigger Government”. Heritage Foundation. .

spotlight

Let’s Begin by playing a game...

“

A

…above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual… By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men

Need a Hint? 1.) Adolf Hitler 2.) Benito Mussolini 3.) Franklin Delano Roosevelt

” B“

Hitler, Mussolini, and Roosevelt...Oh My! by G. Stolyarov II Franklin Delano Roosevelt indeed had a vast ideological basis in common with the fascists he ended up fighting against during World War II. Roosevelt, who was the Assistant Secretary of the Navy during Woodrow Wilson’s administration, was obsessed with Wilsonianism and the statist reign of terror and brutal suppression of dissent that occurred in the United States during the World War I era. Thus, seeking to establish a peacetime statist regime similar to Wilson’s “emergency” regulatory state, he got what he wanted during the New Deal and World War II. What is most frightening about FDR’s presidency is the degree of fanaticism the government deliberately and actively elicited from the masses. Upon passage of the (unconstitutional) National Industrial Recovery Act and its component National Recovery Administration, a rally of millions was orchestrated in New York, with one bootlicking man stating that he thought his marriage day was the high point of his life until he heard of the National Recovery Administration. Then about ten thousand schoolchildren were arranged into the shape of the NRA eagle. One is instantly reminded of images from the 1936 Berlin Olympics, in which Hitler orchestrated similar displays of leader/government worship. Roosevelt’s reference to an entire

“

Can you match these quotes to their famous speakers?

people “marching forward as a loyal army” invokes images of Nazi columns stomping through the streets of Paris. FDR was a populist demagogue, not a genuine sympathizer with the “common man.” He realized that brainwashing the less educated citizens— who may not have been exposed to the idea that initiation of force is immoral—was a key to gaining power of the sort he desired. He did so through similar propaganda schemes to those used by other statists of his time. Hitler and Stalin loved to be filmed petting little children; they were known in the propaganda pamphlets as “Uncle Adolf” and “Grandfather Stalin.” In this spirit—and in that of his attention-mongering cousin, Theodore Roosevelt—FDR stated once that a scene with his granddaughter observed by the press was more important politically than an elaborate oratory. I wonder what would have occurred in the United States had FDR survived World War II; by his ideological inclinations, I would expect his policies to even more closely mirror those of the Hitler whom FDR’s coercively and immorally conscripted “loyal army” helped defeat. Americans should not consider a quasi-fascist President as one of their history’s best. Rather, they should recognize FDR’s ideas as antithetical to American liberty, individualism, free markets, and rationality.

5

...moral law, binding together individual and the generations into a tradition and a mission, suppressing the instinct for a life enclosed within the brief round of pleasure in order to restore within duty a higher life free from the limits of time and space

The -------- people must march forward as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline

”

C

”

Answers below*

*Don’t worry! We would never promise you answers and then forget! Quote A is Hitler’s, B belongs to Roosevelt, and C is all Mussolini.

h

forum

6

open f

IRAQ

It leads the news nearly every day, except for when someone really important, like Anna Nicole Smith, isn’t a headline, it is something that will have a profound effect on our future. As young citizens, we are the benefits and consquences of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and to that end, it is imperitive that we are a are currently facing. BUSH’S NEW PLAN FOR IRAQ IS SENDING 20,000 MORE TROOPS TO THE FRONT LINES, BUT

are we sending the wrong message?

by Brian Johnston

numerous terrorists and their resources. What more can we do? Those who still defend Bush’s Iraq policy say that we must stay there “until the job is done.” But how long is that going to take? It certainly is not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. If we stayed in Iraq until every terrorist is eliminated and every aspect of Iraq’s new liberal democracy is fully functional, it is impossible to say when we can leave. Probably not at least for a few decades, if ever. While much of the reason we are in Iraq is for our own defense, we are also there in order to establish an American-style democracy in the Middle East. One question that is frequently asked is whether this is possible in a region known for its perpetual violence. I do not

Several weeks ago, while watching President Bush give his address on his “new plan” for Iraq, I noticed something different about him. Coupled with the reality that the voters had recently voted the Republicans out of the majority in both houses of Congress, the problems we have had in Iraq made him look dejected and defeated. For the first time, it looked to me like he had lost confidence in himself. There is no question that nearly four years after first invading Iraq, things are not going the way they should be. Sure, there may be new schools, businesses, water supplies, etc. that the mainstream media is refusing to acknowledge, but even the most loyal defenders of If we stay in Iraq until every terBush’s policies in Iraq have to admit that the amount rorist is eliminated and every asof violence is not slowing pect of Iraq’s new liberal dedown at an appreciable rate, mocracy is fully functional, it is if at all. It does not matter what is being built over there or what impossible to say when we can leave. type of government they establish if the people are not safe. This includes American soldiers. The want to say that this is impossible, but we vast majority of Americans fail to see how must consider how rarely such governments Bush’s new plan, which includes sending have been successful anywhere in the world more troops, is going to make the situation historically. “But what is government itself but any better. In fact, in doing this, we will be the greatest of all reflections on human nature? going in the wrong direction. Not only is If men were angels, no government would sending more Americans the wrong thing to be necessary,” James Madison remarked do, but perhaps the time has come when we in Federalist 51. The Founders frequently must seriously develop a plan to leave Iraq. acknowledged that what they were attempting Now, I am not one of those who think that was unprecedented in history, and even they all war is bad and that President Bush is admitted at the time that the Constitution the second coming of Hitler. When we first they decided on was far from perfection. invaded Iraq, I was in 100% support of the President Bush’s foreign policy is based on decision. There is no question that when the idea that freedom and democracy are on America is attacked, we must respond quickly an inevitable march at this time in history and forcefully. And I do not believe that and that it is the responsibility of the United President Bush purposely lied about WMD’s States to combat those who forcefully oppose or anything else leading up to the war. My it. Woodrow Wilson famously said that World argument is that we have done basically all War I would be the “war to end all wars” we can. We overthrew a tyrannical regime and fought in order to “make the world safe led by a ruthless dictator. We have overseen for democracy.” In the aftermath of the war the development of a new type of government Wilson thought that he, as President of the while at the same time eliminating United States, could negotiate an everlasting

“

peace. He was one of many people in the first part of the 20th century who believed that the world was moving towards perfection, but another “Great War” came just twenty years later, while innumerable other wars around the world have been going on since. In the same manner, President Bush seems to think that the United States can lead a movement to spread liberal democracy all around the world. While a stable democratic Iraq is certainly in our best interest, can any nation, even one as powerful and fundamentally good as the United States, ensure this will happen? The reality is that there must come a point at which the Iraqis will have to run their own government and ensure their own safety. Whether they can truly do this on their own once we leave is questionable, but we simply have no choice. And let us not forget that Iraq is only one country; there are still many other dangerous regimes out there that allow terrorist activity to exist within its borders. Are we prepared to make the same sacrifices for the sake of all those other countries too? Whether it was right of us to invade Iraq in the first place is irrelevant at this point. All military strategy aside, sending more troops into Iraq sends the wrong message. After occupying Iraq for nearly four years, we would be saying that we have no intention of leaving any time soon. The time must come, sooner rather that later, that we make the Iraqis realize that a safe, stable regime cannot survive there long term unless they take on the responsibility themselves. An even greater American commitment will make it even more difficult for us to leave.

The Twelve F

(the steps to a better Iraq, as bro

1.)

Hand over sovereign Iraq * 2.) Help estab * 3.) Rebuild Iraq’ * 4.) Encourage inte * 5.) Hold a national bring new lead

”

Cartoon courtsey o

forum

, dies. But even when it e the ones who will reap aware of the situation we

Five Step Plan

ought to you by President Bush)

authority to a qi government * blish security * ’s infrastructure * ernational support * l election that will dership to Iraq

of USBCI

Winter 2007

Staying the Course by Scott Rozell On the Machiavelli Hill of Washington D.C., truth has been watered-down and distorted. The concept of truth today is far different from the concept that held 230 years ago. In most of today’s cases, the formerly black and white truths are shaded gray by relativism and political correctness. To speak in terms of absolute truth is dangerous—and clarity is rarely achieved. Should the media decide that truth is false, the potential of a political future and legacy are placed in serious jeopardy. Fortunately, President George W. Bush believes in the truths written by our founding fathers that man has certain unalienable rights. It is the truth that Saddam Hussein was oppressing the Iraqi people and raping them of their unalienable rights. Operation Iraqi Freedom is a just war, one worth fighting. The objective of Operation Iraqi Freedom was to remove Saddam from power and give the Iraqi people the opportunity to create a new, diplomatic government; the United States is a country of opportunity, right? Removing Saddam from power would eliminate support for terror organizations and his access to weapons of mass destruction, or WMDs. In June of 2006, the National Ground Intelligence Center declassified a report clarifying that, “Since 2003, Coalition forces have recovered approximately 500 weapon munitions which contain degraded sarin or mustard nerve agent.” We have recovered WMDs from Iraq, a fact the mass media would like to ignore, and removed Saddam from power. Now, we are in the midst of trying to complete the second objective, the more important objective. The military action is called Operation Iraqi Freedom, not “Operation Get WMDs” nor “Operation Son’s Revenge.” Do not get me wrong, I am not saying that Bush is infallible and made no mistakes, he did. Our government is slow to move, as it should be, and can pose many obstacles for military action, as it should. I believe many mistakes were made in the process from September 11, 2001 to March 20, 2003, but where are mistakes not made in any government or human action? However, despite the mistakes, the President stood for what he knows to be absolutely true. That military action was the

only way to remove Saddam and give the Iraqi people the opportunity for democracy. Never before in history has a nation been so blessed with the prosperity of the United States. Our Judeo-Christian society and government stands as a beacon of democracy, setting an example for the world. However, this prosperity comes with an obligation to give. Left wing Hollywood activists, like George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Bono, and Angelina Jolie, claim that the United States is selfish and the people do not give the crumbs off their table, when in reality, the American people give more to charity than any other entity on Earth. Yet there is something else these activists fail to see, the greatest gift our country gives, opportunity. American troops in Iraq are paying the ultimate price to give the Iraqi people the opportunity for political and economic freedom. Denouncing the war and the President, left wing “philanthropists” fail to see this. Where does this buck of blame stop, at the man courageous to give something greater than money, to say the war is right, justified in the truths of our founding. Many say that we need to bring our troops home, that we need to remove our presence in Iraq. I wish that could be. Unfortunately, to secure the Iraqi people’s chances for democratic opportunity, our troops must stay. Soldiers today are the unsung heroes of our nation and continue to strive securing opportunity for the Iraqi people with honor, integrity, and pride. The word hero is used too lightly today. Real heroes are defenders of our freedom and truth, those who volunteer to serve our country and it’s ideals. Those who do not get the credit they deserve. Hollywood glorifies tree-huggers and rehab clinics, singing of relativism. The troops in Iraq fight for absolutes and the foundations of our country, yet, are not praised as they should be and that is a shame. Should we vacate Iraq now, all they have fought for will be lost to Islamic radical corruption and a new dictator will be installed. It is not the responsibility of the United States to cure the world’s problems or overthrow every government that does not align with ours. It is the right of the people to stand up for themselves, their obligation. When the people are being murdered by the hundreds and thousands, when corruption and oppression run unchecked through a government, when a man hell-bent on the destruction of the United States and Western culture orchestrates a reign of terror, it is the responsibility of the United States to take action. We must defend our nation, we must defend our rights, and we must fight for the absolute truths our country was founded upon.

Show Some Support for Our Troops! There are dozens of organizations eager to connect the American people with our troops overseas, get involved with one of them and bring a smile to a soldier’s face.

USO

After the tragedy of September 11th, the USO banded together with a mission-send packages to troops. For a $25 tax-deductable donation you can sponosor a care package full of the items our soldiers need most. www.operationcarepackage.org Any Soldier Adopting soldiers is easy! This site, founded by the mother and father of a soldier serving in Iraq helps people looking to send care packages to soldiers in specific brances of the military. www.anysoldier.com Adopt-A-Platoon This organization allows penpal corrospondence as well as soldier adoption. They ask that an adopter send a weekly letter, and monthy care package. Other means of support are also listed on their website. www.adoptaplatoon.org Operation Support Our Troops Started after a soldier complained that only the anti-war protesters were making the nightly news, this group seeks to show the troops overseas that the American people have not forgotten them. www.operation-support-ourtroops.org

viewpoint AMERICA the GREATEST

h

forum

In conservative camps outside the warm confines of Hillsdale College, it is not uncommon to hear the words “America is the best”, quickly followed by garish descriptions of military might, the American dream, and story or two about an ancestor. Now, at Hillsdale, we know better than that. We must first compare our America with the regimes of the Fertile Crescent, Egypt, and Alexander the Great on relative power, and then Biblical Israel on spiritual grounds, before moving on to later eras. We are a continuation of the Western Heritage, as I found on my first day with Dr. Stewart, and that is a lot to look up to. On the other hand, we have classes such as Constitution and Political Economy to remind us of all the freedoms we have. Yet, in the end, one has to wonder if their really is a ruler to measure America’s greatness.

If there is, we have to wonder if it can plumb the depths of our collective ego. That is a good question, but until its answer is found, I shall try to toss out my version of this measurement of American greatness. We often hear those across “the pond” decry our boastful decisions and our more traditional morals. At the same time, Middle Eastern countries (with a lot more talk and violence than us) dare call Americans heathens and infidels. I would like to draw comparisons from my experiences across the “other pond.” Spending this summer teaching English in a Taiwanese vocationalcollege was an experience that is impossible to cover in such an article. Nevertheless, I observed a certain materialism and entrepreneurial reminiscent of the US in the 1950’s. The bright lights and the industrial growth literally bursting at it’s seams (although some manufacturing has moved mainland) are coupled with

a public infatuated by the latest technologies, from pocket translators to music videos on cab drives. Not only was this present in the big cities, but in the “sticks” where I was living as well. This rural area, replete with hog and chicken farms and small plots of sugar cane and mangos, could rival many of our cities for population density. What makes this vibrancy alarming is that they look up to South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan as nations from which to gain technology and the latest fashions. If Taiwan is somewhere lower down on the Asian economic rung, it is hard to imagine the pursuit of wealth that reportedly takes Japanese businessmen to their suicides. Hong Kong and Singapore respectively take places one and two in the Heritage Foundation’s 2007Index of Economic Freedom, while of the 157 nations included, the United States takes fourth, Japan 18 th , Taiwan 26 th , and Korea 36 th . This relatively low scoring reminds

tug of war from Page 3 war. When pushed, she takes a stand in the middle: open-ended support is not the solution, so troops must slowly pull out, allowing the Iraqis to establish their own government. When it comes to Education, she believes that the federal government is deserving of a larger role. She demonstrates this through her support of programs like the Direct Loan Program, and the introduction of the Student Borrower’s Bill of Rights. Both of these pieces of legislation encourage the further entangling of higher education and the federal government. Sen. Clinton continues to endorse to the No Child Left Behind Act, a program associated with the backing of the Bush Administration. Clinton has already begun her move to the middle, as she looks beyond the primary into the general election. Despite Sen. Obama’s reputation as a man willing to blur party lines, many of his stances fall more firmly on the left than Sen. Clinton’s. One of Obama’s strongest footholds is his

policy regarding Iraq. He has spoken out, saying that the war was mismanaged and the only people capable of solving the problem are the Iraqis, making American involvement unnecessary. Last month, Sen. Obama introduced the Iraq War De-escalation Act, a bill calling for complete removal from Iraq by March 31st, 2008. This plan represents the ideals of Obama’s party, and he proves himself to be a man unafraid of the burden his view may bring. In terms of Education policies, Sen. Obama shares Sen. Clinton’s view on the importance of federal government within America’s educational system. While Clinton hopes to address the issue through fairer loan agreements, Senator Obama holds that increasing the amount of money available through Pell Grants would be one of the best ways to help those students seeking higher education. He also maintains that colleges and universities have the duty to keep costs as low as possible, in order to provide more accessibility for the students.

Obama’s educational concern seems to be more distanced from the No Child Left Behind Act, as he chooses to involve himself in other educational programs. Sen. Obama’s more leftist stance may be helpful as he zeros in on the primaries, but he must be careful not to polarize many of the critical middle-of-the-road voters. The Democratic Party has a choice to make and it is interesting just how different their options are. With the emergence of the first strong female presidential candidate and the first African-American presidential candidate in the same year, one would think that the campaigns would be fraught with minority and civil rights issues, but they are surprisingly void of any such claims at this point. By not playing the minority card, the candidates are forcing their party to make a judgment based solely on their politics and personal qualifications. The race between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama looks to lead to one of the most exciting presidential nominations in the history of the Democratic Party.

by tHOMAS lEONARD

9

one of the stories of government corruption and the inexplicable inefficiencies that allowed for raw sewage to flow in open gutters (though I only saw it once). So, Taiwan has a long way to go, but it seemed to me that the average rural Taiwanese teenager had the same amount of technology as a white suburbanite American. Yet at the same time, the Taiwanese also took America as another example of capitalist power: the only real influence from the “West” was American. Basketball and baseball were THE two sports, even the World Cup held little interest beyond the stars seen on Pepsi commercials. Most American cultural influence finds its way into Taiwan, and any county, through the big screen. Yet somehow, we also have an unprecedented influence on the progress of economics and technology. While Japan and Singapore and Hong Kong may have money rivaling the Qatars and Monacos of the rest of the world, they do not have the immensity of population and land. Russia, China and Canada may have more land than the US, but they do not have the infrastructure or population that we do. Somehow, we are able to get the best of both worlds. It makes sense that a country so different, almost an invented country, should live at the top of the world when their Islamic neighbors overrun all the old giants of the west. A country a mere 230 years old with almost no native people group left and a capital city that was drawn from scratch like the government itself. In his Notes on the State of Virginia, Thomas Jefferson questions, “…can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift of God?” It is the convictions of our countrymen that should worry us, not our economic status. While it is debatable if our country beats the world’s best, there is no doubt we will not remain a giant forever. We can pursue our economic championship title that India and China threaten to take away, and ultimately we may lose, but it is imperative that the quality of the individual in America is preserved.

viewpoint The Morality of Making Money 8

by G. Stolyarov II

All too often today, we hear condemnations of the profit motive as destructive and uncaring. But is it really? Or is the profit motive one of the noble forces that impels a man to act? To understand whether the profit motive is desirable, we must first grasp the goals of a life properly lived. These goals are twofold; on the first level, survival is the goal of sustaining one’s biological existence and preventing one’s downward slide toward poverty, ruination, and death. On the second level, flourishing is the extension of one’s control over the external reality—the ability to harness ever more elements in the service of one’s life. In the process of living, every man— provided that he acts and uses his reason— will gain certain benefits from the external reality. He will also incur certain expenses in acting the way he chooses. Should the man breaks even—that is, if his gains are equal to his expenses—then he has accomplished the goal of survival; he is no worse off than he was when he started. But neither is he better off. In order to accomplish the goal of flourishing, his gains must be greater than his expenses. In other words, he needs to make a profit. It is vitally important to understand that making profits is the only way to flourish. One cannot consistently extend control over external reality if one keeps losing assets or merely breaks even. Profits come in many different forms; they can be intellectual profits or gains of knowledge, technical profits or gains of skill, material profits or gains of property, physiological profits or gains in health and fitness, social profits or gains in valuable relationships, or monetary profits or gains of money. The value each individual assigns to these different kinds of profits is highly contextual; depending upon the ways in which an individual wants to flourish. Virtually nobody will condemn every single kind of profit, even though many people will deny that certain types of profit are, in fact, profits. Oddly enough, the type of profit that draws the greatest condemnation is monetary profit. This condemnation is wholly unwarranted. Monetary profit is a kind of profit that can be most easily harnessed to the pursuit of the greatest variety of ends. While it might be true to an extent that “money cannot buy everything,” it certainly can go a long way to help one fulfill any of one’s objectives. Money is a universally accepted medium of exchange; it can be traded for a wide range of goods or services far more conveniently than any other commodity in most situations.

Money can buy books or pay for courses that will give a person knowledge and skills. Money can buy training equipment to increase one’s health and fitness. Money can even buy gifts to friends to sustain positive social relationships. Money can buy leisure goods used to rejuvenate one’s energies and improve one’s standard of living. Furthermore, money can be invested into valuable assets to generate additional money. If flourishing is one’s goal, money plays an important role in attaining it. Profit is moral because flourishing and improving one’s life are moral; profit by definition cannot be destructive to one’s own life. Yet some claim that profit is destructive to the lives of others. This, too, cannot be. A man can only make a profit in two ways. He can pursue an action which benefits himself but is irrelevant to other people. That is, he can embark on a solitary self-improvement program or in a direct transformation of inanimate objects without the participation of other people. Or he can pursue an action in cooperation with other people in order to achieve a mutually beneficial objective. He can embark in a voluntary trade with another individual or collaborate on a project or participate in a mutually valued friendship. In the first case, no other person is harmed, and many indirect benefits will flow to other people as a result of the individual’s self-improvement and improvement of inanimate entities. In the second case, other people are directly benefited; they earn a profit in return for helping the individual make a profit. Furthermore, pure entrepreneurial profit on the free market is gained by observing and eliminating arbitrage opportunities caused by widespread errors of perception. If errors in people’s knowledge at present cause resources to be misallocated away from their optimal uses, the entrepreneur can try to find a better allocation by distributing these resources in a different way than had been done before. If the entrepreneur makes a profit in doing so, then he has put the resources to a better use than previously; people are willing to pay him more for the new allocation of resources than they were willing to pay for the prior allocation. By pursuing and eliminating arbitrage opportunities, entrepreneurs benefit everybody in correcting market errors and aligning supply with demand to optimally satisfy human needs. The market’s profit-and-loss test is the best way to determine what should be produced and how it should be distributed. In order to pursue profit, man needs to be free to do so. He needs to depend on his

own rational judgment in deciding what is profitable to him and in determining how to pursue it. If somebody else restricts him from following his best judgment or imposes an unprofitable course of action upon him, then the individual cannot act in his best interests or flourish maximally. The only political, social, and economic system which allows individuals to flourish freely is laissez-faire capitalism, which tolerates no coercive restraints on voluntary, noncoercive, individual profit-seeking activities. Under laissez-faire capitalism, every man has sovereignty to decide the value he will assign to each type of profit, the ways in which he will pursue this profit, and the types of exchanges he will make with other consenting individuals in order to flourish. If compulsory economic regulations prevent the individual from seeking his own flourishing in his own way, this will also damage other people; the market errors that entrepreneurial activity might have corrected will remain and continue to result in misallocated resources. Numerous mutually beneficial value-trades will be obstructed. Most tragically, individuals will be stunted in their self-improvement and flourishing by restrictions on certain activities—especially money-making. They will instead suffer great losses through the diversion of resources to sustain an inefficient and harmful regulatory regime. If human flourishing is moral—if the improvement of individual lives is moral—than so is the pursuit of profit. If the pursuit of profit is moral, then men should be free to pursue it. This reasoning leads us to favor maximal economic liberty under laissez-faire capitalism.

Winter 2007

Smoking or Non is No Longer Up to You by Roger Pattison

In the last election, the people of Nevada voted yes on Question 5. This new law prohibits the smoking of tobacco in businesses that cater to people under 21 as well as those that serve food, adding “the battle born state” them to the list of 21 others that have banned smoking in workplaces, restaurants and or bars. The measure, does not yet ban smoking in casinos, because many fear that it would hurt casino revenues and Nevadan tourism, which make up a substantial portion of Nevada’s economy. Some may question why this is a problem, especially those who don’t smoke. Although it may not affect the non-smoker directly, one must realize the negative implications this law has on business and our rights. It is quite unfortunate that the people of Nevada, along with the other 21 states, do not comprehend that this gross intrusion on the private sector of our society eliminates our freedom to choose and fails to protect our individual rights. The effects of this outrageous law can already be seen in small continued on page 11

Cartoon courtesy of USBCI

election Here’s to you, President Ford 10

by Julie Robison

President Gerald Ford was the president the Founding Fathers had imagined when they formed the government. He was a leader in the military, emphasized civic duty and virtue, was an active member of the legislature, and, while he was in office, worked for the benefit of the people. He was an American first and foremost; he strove for national unity, especially during the crisis of the Vietnam War and in the aftermath of Watergate. Watergate and the Vietnam War often overshadow President Ford’s term. However, his influence on the country has been immense. President Ford, in addition to his national unifying policies and procedures, established special education with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act and appointed John Paul Stevens to the Supreme Court. He had his trials as well; Ford faced two assassination attempts within three weeks of each other. The Ford Administration also saw the final withdrawal of American personnel from Vietnam. With the exceptions of history enthusiasts, Ford’s contribution to America tends to become belittled amidst a sea of Presidential greats. It’s true that he didn’t win the Pulitzer Prize, like Kennedy’s Profiles in Courage. Ford’s policies didn’t compare to Johnson’s Great Society when it comes to the internal improvements of the country. He wasn’t ‘The Great Communicator ’ like Reagan, nor did he redeem his presidency through his postpresidency activities to the extent of Carter in regards to his peacekeeping and other humanitarian efforts. Ford was just a man; a man who did the best he could in the situation he was in; he was the only man to reach the presidency without having been elected by the American people, a position he acknowledged but never used as a crutch. He was a man who wanted to make a difference in his world. Ford played football for the University of Michigan and was offered contracts from the Green Bay Packers and Detroit Lions, both of which he turned

Winter 2007

down in favor of Yale Law School. After law school and passing the bar, Ford started up his practice as an attorney but, when his country called for arms during World War II, Ford enlisted in the Navy. There he thrived and earned many honorary stars and medals for his service, as well as an honorable discharge in 1946. Two year later, he married his wife Betty, with whom he had four children. He became active in local Republican politics, entering the public domain in 1948. During his long involvement in American politics, he held many prestigious positions including being a member of the House of Representatives for over twenty years and was selected Minority Leader of the Republican Party. In 1973, President Richard Nixon’s vice president Spiro Agnew resigned after being charged with tax evasion. Ford was chosen as Nixon’s new vice president. Little did he know that a year later, President Nixon would also resign, handing Ford the presidency. Less than a month into his presidency, President Ford gave President Nixon a full and absolute pardon. He also issued conditional pardons to draft dodgers who left the country in order to escape service for the Vietnam War. A president’s term can oft be defined by one decision. President Ford made the conscious decision not to focus and scapegoat President Nixon’s blunder as the cause of America’s problems but rather focused on moving forward and heal a hurting nation. In Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s poem, A Psalm of Life, he wrote “Lives of great men all remind us/ We can

make our lives sublime/ And, departing, leave behind us/ Footprints on the sand of time.” President Ford’s life and actions should lead one to wonder how they are going to be defined in their own life. While not everyone will go on to be recruited for professional athletics, attend law school or become the president of the United States, this does not mean that all cannot make a difference in their world. The defining characteristic of an admirable president, as well as a person, is the way a person responds and acts in their environment, as well as the difference these actions make in others people’s lives. This is what made Ford different. He took the environment around him and turned it around for the better. Great actions are the accumulation of small achievements; it is paying attention to the details that count. For example, President Ford, in his first election campaign for State Representative, promised the farmers of Michigan he would visit their farms and milk their cows if he won. He did win and he did milk those cows.

President Ford died on December 26, 2006. He was the 38th President of the United States. He was also the longest-living president at 93 years and 165 days, passing President Reagan by 45 days. The legacy President Ford left behind will not soon be forgotten. President George W. Bush remarked in President Ford’s eulogy that in “President Ford, the world saw the best of America -- and America found a man whose character and leadership would bring calm and healing to one of the most divisive moments in our nation’s history.” Gerald Ford upheld the Founding Fathers’s idealism with his sense of patriotic duty by responding to the country when America needed him most. He gave this country an ideal to strive for and served as a model of excellence for generations to come.

Like what you see? Well, then let’s kill some trees!

Help us spread The Hilsldale Forum around the nation! We will send an issue to your five favorite people, but we need you to send us their addresses... [email protected].

h

forum

profile

MILTON FRIEDMAN IN MEMORIAM

unemployment.” But it was supply-side economists who explained “stagflation” as the conseGuest COlumnist quence of a wrong policy mix that pumped up Early in the morning of Nov. 16, 2006, at the demand with easy money, while restraining real age of 94, Milton Friedman passed away. Fried- output with high marginal tax rates. The long man was the great economist economic expansions of our time, who more than of the 1980s and 1990s anyone saved the economwere the results of the reics profession from dogma. versal of the Keynesian There was Keynesian policy mix by supplydogma, which justified inside economists in the creased government spendReagan administration. ing as a full employment polFriedman won the Noicy; Phillips Curve dogma, bel Prize in 1976 for his which specified trade-offs permanent income hybetween inflation and empothesis (1957), a necployment; and market failessary correction to the ure dogma, which justified Keynesian consumption inefficient government infunction. But his most terventions and regulations. important work was Friedman pointed out to “Monetary History of the the Keynesians that deficit United States” (1963), spending would not inco-authored with Anna crease total demand unless Schwartz, especially the the central bank accommoMilton Friendman 1912-2006 section explaining the dated the deficit by increascollapse of the money ing the money supply. Otherwise, the rise in the supply during the 1930s as the result of pergovernment’s spending would be offset by the verse monetary policy by the Federal Reserve. decline in spending by the bond purchasers. Economists had come to the conclusion that In making this point, Friedman arrived at the the Great Depression in the United States was conclusion reached earlier by Michael Polanyi in caused by insufficient aggregate demand to sup“Full Employment and Free Trade” (1945). Po- port full employment. However, economists lanyi had taken the point to its logical conclusion had no convincing explanation for the cause of and wrote that it was nonsensical for government inadequate demand. Friedman and Schwartz to incur interest charges by selling bonds when showed that the Federal Reserve had reduced the point was to increase the money supply. the supply of money by one-third and that this Friedman was skeptical of Phillips Curve dramatic contraction was the cause of insuftrade-offs between employment and inflation. ficient demand to maintain full employment. He addressed the issue as “more inflation, more The Great Depression and mistaken explana-

by Paul Craig ROberts

Cartoon courtsey of USBCI

tions of its cause gave us the New Deal and its assaults on the Constitution, in particular the New Deal assault on the principle that the lawmaking power of Congress cannot be delegated to regulatory agencies in the executive branch. Since the time of the New Deal, “laws” passed by Congress are simply authorizations for executive branch agencies to legislate by writing the regulations that interpret and implement the acts passed by Congress. It was the failure of the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy in the 1930s that caused the Great Depression and the enormous growth of central government power. Despite Friedman’s work, this story is still so little known that Lawrence Stratton and I addressed it anew in “The Fed’s Depression and the Birth of the New Deal” (Policy Review, No. 108, 2001). Contrary to New Deal historians, the Great Depression was not a failure of the old order. It was the failure of the new order that had just begun. Friedman was an insightful economist, and his theoretical gifts did not prevent him from being a real-world economist who could ad-

Smoking from Page 8 businesses in Nevada. Owners and workers of billiards and bowling allies in Carson City have reported a significant decrease in customers and the customers themselves express their discontent with the new law quite frequently. However, since this bill just recently came into effect last December, it is difficult for anyone to determine whether this is a negative short term effect or if Nevada’s economy will be injured in the long run. Taking an example from Canadian legislation, which this bill resembles, we can see that smoking bans aren’t quite the best regulations to implement. As a result of Ontario’s smoking bans that took effect in June, Casino Windsor had to lay off hundreds of workers and suffered a 20 percent drop in revenues. Aside from the almost painfully apparent negative implications this bill has on the economy, it is more than a regulation against business prosperity. It is a regulation against the private sector’s right to choose.

11

dress the public. Friedman regarded this task as one of his functions as an economist. In his book “Capitalism and Freedom,” and in his television series, “Free to Choose,” Friedman reminded people, who had been taught to look to the government for protection from economic dislocation and exploitation, that historically government was the threat to social and political freedom. Friedman, thus, did what he could to correct the change in the American outlook toward government that resulted from the Fed’s mistaken monetary policy in the 1930s. Friedman never grew arrogant or inaccessible from his fame. He was a friend to younger scholars with inquiring minds and respected the efforts of others to arrive at the truth. Small of stature, he was a giant of intellect and character. To find out more about Paul Craig Roberts, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com COPYRIGHT 2006 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Although it is widely understood that secondhand smoke has detrimental health effects, healthconscious citizens have the right to choose whether or not to avoid smoking friendly establishments. If the citizens choose not to support an establishment that permits smoking, then that establishment has to make the decision whether to allow smoking or to lose that business. The freedom of choice is still there as is the change desired by citizens. Therefore, the overall question is if we don’t agree on an issue should we use legislation to restrict the choices of others or should we use our own ability to choose, without the interference of government, to support a business or not? Whether or not we support an issue such as state smoking bans, we have a responsibility to comprehend, fully, the consequences of our votes and the implications of more government control in our lives. We must not fall in the trap of suppressing the rights of others in order to further our own agendas.

12

the back page

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” --Presidential hopeful Joe Biden (D-DE), on presidential hopeful Barack Obama

“We have a voice now, and we’re not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies. We could lo--if you think that rape should be legal, then don’t vote.” --Cameron Diaz

The Hillsdale Forum 305 Hillsdale Street Hillsdale, Michigan 49242

“You can tell a lot about a fella’s character by whether he picks out all of one color or just grabs a handful.” –Ronald Reagan explaining why he liked to have a jar of jelly beans on hand for important meetings

“You still have to vote for us ‘cause my opponent is a slug, and they’re going to tax you into the poorhouse. On the way to the poorhouse, you’ll meet a terrorist on every street corner. And when you try to run away from that terrorist, you will trip over an illegal immigrant.’” --Former President Bill Clinton, on the Republican’s 2006 campaign formula “I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can’t play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it’s called.” --Howard Dean

Winter 2007 “George Bush giving tax cuts is like Jim Jones giving KoolAid. It tastes good but it’ll kill you.” --Rev. Al Sharpton

“Helen, will you stop heckling and let me conduct a press conference... Well no, I’m making an argument, and you’re, you’re pestering the teacher.” --White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, to veteran reporter Helen Thomas

“As the hobbits are going up Mount Doom, the Eye of Mordor is being drawn somewhere else.... It’s being drawn to Iraq and it’s not being drawn to the U.S. You know what? I want to keep it on Iraq. I don’t want the Eye to come back here to the United States.” --Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), comparing the Iraq war to the Lord of the Rings