HOME TIP

It seems that a lot of families choose to use Swiffer products (or something similar) for cleaning purposes in their homes. However, some people don’t know some useful information that will aide in using Swiffer products more effectively. First of all, people often assume that a Swiffer floor cleaner is for use on floors only. After all, the name implies this. However, it’s great for dusting the corners of ceilings, cleaning off the blades of ceiling fans, and cleaning windows that are too high to reach without a ladder or stool. On top of this, people often insist on purchasing the pads designed for use with this sweeping/dusting system. If you find yourself without these pads or without the desire to purchase them, use a sheet of wax paper. It’s just as effective.

PRODUCT TESTING

After coming to Indiana from Green Bay, Wisconsin (A.K.A. “The Frozen Tundra”), I’ve had some experience in owning flannel bed sheets. This year for Christmas, my incredibly generous younger sister gave me some flannel sheets from L.L. Bean for Christmas. While the temperatures here aren’t as extreme as they are in Wisconsin, I can say without reservation that these are the warmest, most comfortable flannel sheets I’ve ever had in my possession. Upon doing some research, I found that the sheets are 100% cotton and come in a wide variety of colors. The L.L. Bean website (http:www.llbean.com) allows shoppers to mix and match solid, striped, and plaid sheets. While these sheets are more expensive than some flannel sheet options, they are well worth the extra expense. Additionally, L.L. Bean’s free shipping and unique return policy make for a hassle-free purchasing process – something that all Wabash men can appreciate.

RECIPE

I couldn’t leave you without a good, old-fashioned American recipe for you to share with your families. This Williams-Sonoma recipe is a great version.

“Old Fashioned Apple Pie” from http://www.williamssonoma.com/recipes

Laying a slice of cheddar cheese atop a wedge of warm apple pie is an American tradition. Today a scoop of vanilla ice cream is generally preferred.

Ingredients: For the pastry: •2 1/2 cups all-purpose flour •1 tsp. salt •2 Tbs. sugar •10 Tbs. (1 1/4 sticks) cold unsalted but ter, cut into pieces •10 Tbs. cold vegetable shortening, cut into pieces •7 Tbs. ice water •1 tsp. distilled white vinegar

For the filling: •2 1/2 lb. baking apples, peeled, cored,    quartered and cut lengthwise into slices   1/2 inch thick •1/2 cup sugar, plus more as needed •1/2 tsp. ground cinnamon

•1/4 tsp. freshly grated nutmeg

•1 Tbs. fresh lemon juice •2 Tbs. unsalted butter, cut into pieces •1 egg yolk •1 Tbs. heavy cream

Directions:

To make the pastry, in a large bowl, stir together the flour, salt and sugar. Make a well in the center, add the butter and shortening and, using your fingertips, rub them into the flour mixture until small, flat pieces form. In a cup or small bowl, combine the water and vinegar. Using a fork, gently mix just enough of the liquid into the flour mixture so it comes together in a rough ball; do not overwork. Discard the remaining liquid. Divide the dough in half and wrap each half in plastic wrap. Refrigerate for 2 hours.

To make the filling, in a bowl, toss together the apples, the 1/2 cup sugar (adding more to taste if the apples are tart), cinnamon, nutmeg and lemon juice.
Preheat an oven to 400°F. On a lightly floured work surface, roll out half of the dough (leave the other half refrigerated) into a 12-inch round about 1/8 inch thick. Fold the dough in half and then into quarters and transfer it to a 9-inch pie dish. Unfold and gently press into the bottom and sides of the dish. Trim the edges even with the rim. Roll out the remaining dough into a 10-inch round about 1/8 inch thick.

Turn the apples into the pastry-lined pan, mounding them slightly in the center. Dot evenly with the butter. Brush the edges of the dough with water. Fold the dough round into quarters and unfold over the apples. Press together the top and bottom crusts to seal, then trim the edges flush with the rim of the dish and crimp to form an attractive edge. In a small bowl, beat together the egg yolk and cream and brush over the pastry. Make a few slits near the center to allow steam to escape.
Bake for 25 minutes. Reduce the oven temperature to 350°F and continue to bake until the apples are tender (insert a knife blade through a slit) and the top is golden brown, 15 to 20 minutes more. Transfer the dish to a wire rack and let the pie cool for at least 20 minutes before serving.

Adapted from Williams-Sonoma Seasonal Celebration Series, Autumn, by Joanne Weir (Time-Life Books, 1997).

No related posts.

Greeting cards encourage folks not to write anything of their own. They make communication easy, efficient, insignificant. Just pick one off the shelf, and someone else has already taken the time to write out your feelings in it. Just sign your name and put it in the mail. The prefabricated messages on the card do more than just take up space and raise the price of that piece of cardboard to five dollars. They take the place of any heartfelt communication. It’s an excuse not to have to think of anything to say! The problem as I see it is that greeting cards represent a devastating loss of sincerity (The exception, of course, is humor cards – I don’t mind paying someone to write a joke for me).

When is the last time you felt something? Something like gratitude or sympathy or friendliness. Did you tell anyone about it? Did you use words? If so, then that’s beautiful, man! People are supposed to do that! I have this romantic image that people used to put a lot of thought into their letters. If you think about it, it’s an excellent way to speak about things that aren’t easy to put into words. Writing is not as important for communication with the advent of telephones and emails, but there’s a reason why we still like to write cards for special occasions. It’s a chance to give that person something tangible – an object – that contains your thoughts and feelings, and therein lies an opportunity to reflect and pick your words carefully. Now I’m no more poetic than anyone else, and I could have told you just like any child could that the worst part about Christmas is having to write those damned thank-you cards. But I’ve come to realize with age that as long as you’re going to thank someone or write him a card for any other reason, why not include some substance? The prefabricated message printed on the greeting card certainly doesn’t prevent the sender from writing a heartfelt message, but it almost seems to say that it isn’t expected.

It might just be that I’m bitter about all this because I was recently made the victim of overpriced cards. I was shopping for my Christmas gifts at Wal-Mart about one month ago on Christmas Eve (Yes, I was late, but I’m not on trial here!), and I cruised up to the greeting card rack planning to grab one of the 99 ¢ cards for my mother that don’t have anything written inside. I found that not only were there not any cards that didn’t have that faux-sentimental junk inside, but there was not a single generic Christmas card. The rack was partitioned into cards targeted towards mothers, fathers, sisters, brother-in-laws, bosses, and I don’t know what else. Do you realize the implications of this? Not only are greeting card shoppers not trusted to write their own messages – we’ve reached the point where they don’t think we’re literate enough to address our own letters! God help us. Rather than reward those villains by paying them four dollars for a worthless product, I went home and opted for the old fashioned paper and crayons method. 

Of course it isn’t quite fair of me to blame industry for the ills of modern man. It’s not like “The Man” is out plotting to silence us and steal our money via the greeting card industry. The market forcheesy,soulless greeting cards is more like a manifestation of the collective laziness of modern consumers. There is a little kid inside each of us who doesn’t want to write thank-you cards after his birthday. Forsome his influence is weak, but others he can persuade to pay five dollars for a piece of cardboard with a poem in that doesn’t truly say anything and was probably written by a third-grader. There’s just a teensy bit of humanity lost in that act. And though it may not seem like much, consider if we continue the trend and give up on other forms of human contact. How many iterations of society does it take before the Brave New World days are upon us? Think about it, man.  

No related posts.

She wasted no time before launching into a furious speech about her latest bugbear, the all-men’s Wabash College. She berated Zeus for allowing such a repressive, antiquated, and so boldly immoral institution to continue in the modern era. She asked for justice on behalf of all the women that the college openly insulted by choosing to exist. Talking about it infuriated her further, and she began to lose control. Her blood boiled, and her legs trembled. She clawed her face and pulled her hair. Then she addressed him in winged words: “I demand that you to raze that wicked den of manliness to the ground without a moment’s delay!” Zeus sat and listened while trying to lean around her and see the screen, irritated but patient. Tirades such as this were fairly commonplace with Hera. She wasn’t a particularly interesting goddess, and she didn’t have much to do with her time. She often petitioned him to annihilate worshippers, heroes, and freeway drivers who happened to cross her the wrong way. He wasn’t at all interested, but as the patriarch of the universe he felt it was his responsibility to try the case as best he could. He decided to summon Hermes and send him down with the task of judging whether or not the college was full of hairy, hard-hearted woman-haters as his wife complained.

Hermes hasted to Crawfordsville and began his quest at once. He wandered the campus unseen and spied on Wabash men as they worked, and played, and thought, and learned. Thoroughly impressed he sped back to Zeus the next morning to give his report. The son of Kronos listened carefully to every detail while Hera stood by his side and listened with horror. She had been giddily waiting for Hermes to return and report that the school was full of sexist bigots. Shocked, she asked him, “But didn’t they speak ill of ladies? Weren’t they crude, and selfish, and smelly? Didn’t their professors preach a doctrine of chauvinism and undervalue women?”

“No, not really,” answered Hermes. “In fact these men are extremely polite. I saw them treating female professors, and girlfriends, and waitresses with abundant respect. Most of them were even pretty good about calling their mothers.”

Hera was livid. Her blood boiled, and her legs trembled. She clawed her face and pulled her hair. Then she addressed Zeus in winged words, “So what if they don’t act like brutes! How could a classroom lacking women at a tiny little school in a tiny little town possibly be good for learning? The men of Wabash are dumb, I tell you!” She collected her breath and addressed him in winged words: “I demand that you to raze that useless den of mediocre education to the ground without a moment’s delay!”

Zeus sighed. He had wanted to work out and get some of his cosmic paperwork done before bed. He agreed to interrupt Hermes’ evening guitar lessons with Apollo and send him down again to assess whether the Wabash man had any brains. With his new mission in mind, Hermes returned and wandered the campus unseen to collect his observations. The next morning he returned with another positive report. He remarked at how thoughtful and intelligent the students appeared and how well they balanced their tough curriculum with athletics and club meetings.

Hera was not satisfied. She told Zeus that she know of one more flaw so fundamental that it couldn’t possibly be dismissed. Rumor held that the college had so few rules that its students were almost entirely ungoverned. Surely Wabash was a savage pit of lawless mischief. She grabbed Hermes and tossed him back down again to prove that Wabash men were unruly and wild. Begrudgingly, he made his rounds for the third time and made his conclusion quickly. He came back to report that Wabash men exhibited superior judgment and that their common sense existed in proportion to the amount of freedom they were given. What’s more, one of the fraternities was having a party that night and he had managed to get both himself and Zeus invited. Excited to take a long-deserved break, Zeus changed into his party robes, and they left at once.

Hera stood in the TV room seething with rage. Her blood boiled, and her legs trembled. She clawed her face and pulled her hair. She stormed into the office room and composed a treaty about how the all-male educational institution represents an ideological attack on the women’s rights movement. It went widely unread, not surprising.

Related posts:

1. Is Christ Manly? A New Christian Movement Seeks to Restore Manliness to Scripture

During the State of the Union Address President Obama made these remarks about our returning military men and women: “At a time when too many of our institutions have let us down, they exceed all expectations. They’re not consumed with personal ambition. They don’t obsess over their differences. They focus on the mission at hand. They work together.” Though I may disagree with President Obama on many issues, on this one he hit the nail on the head.  No matter what the political debate, crisis, or attitude at home is, our military has a job to do and they do it well.  Each and every day the members of our military put on their uniforms and set out to protect the American people from all threats.  A job that for some, means giving up their lives so that others may live.  Many Americans would do well to remember; freedom is never free and that many men and women pay for it every day.

So why then, after all of their sacrifices, do our heroes come home to less than a hero’s welcome?  What has become of the America where a veteran never paid for a drink, and ticker tape parades awaited soldiers who were returning home? Why has America allowed itself to become a nation where some veterans hide their service, and protestors await returning soldiers?

The truth is that Americans have allowed themselves to lose focus of what is important.  While it is true that we need healthy and passionate debate, what we do not need is this partisan rhetoric that solves no problems and just creates more.  While I understand that some don’t agree with where our troops have been sent, and some don’t agree with the mission they are tasked with, but the fact is we as a public must stand 100% behind them.  The men and women of our armed forces deserve to come home to a country united in the common good, not one divided by petty partisan squabbling.

By now you’re probably thinking to yourself that everything I just said was obvious; who doesn’t agree with the fact we need to be more united?  Well, let me ask you a question then.  When was the last time you did something to help the troops? For most of you, it has either been a long time, or you simply never have.  Every time you walk past Center Hall you walk past a monument to our fellow Wabash men who served during the Civil War, and that tradition of service continues to the day.  As Wabash men and gentlemen I implore you to volunteer to make our soldiers and veterans lives easier.  It is not difficult. Contact the U.S.O. or get in touch with many of the other foundations such as Wounded Warriors and ask how you can help. It is not just money that these individuals need—they need everything from silly string to detect trip wires and other items for care packages to people just willing to donate their time to help out families whose father or mother have been deployed. In fact, you can help out simply by sitting with them and letting them know how much their sacrifice means to you and that you honor them. By helping out you are doing your small, yet significant part to reunite this country and make it a better place for our heroes to return to.  As Wabash men, should we not be leading the charge in that regard?

So with all I have said above in mind, I leave you with this to remind us all of who we owe an unspoken debt. ““It is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the organizer, who has given us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier, who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protestor to burn the flag. – Father Dennis Edward O’Brian, USMC

No related posts.

The current state of affairs in the United States is nothing short of grim. We have a bloated federal government on a spending spree that has no historical equivalent, more regulations on how we live our lives, and they refuse to stop. We have the president who is obsessed with getting more programs without explaining how we will pay for it. We have a senate that has not passed a budget in 1,000 days. The Federal Reserve thinks it can print money and create a soon to be hyperinflation scenario that rivals the Peso devaluation of the 1990s. On top of all this our constitution is being stomped on and disregarded every single day and yet no one and I repeat no one does anything to stop them. President Reagan would be appalled at what the government has become. President Reagan described it best in his first inaugural address: “But great as our tax burden is, it has not kept pace with public spending. For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present. To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals. You and I, as individuals, can, by borrowing, live beyond our means, but for only a limited period of time. Why, then, should we think that collectively, as a nation, we are not bound by that same limitation? We must act today in order to preserve tomorrow. And let there be no misunderstanding—we are going to begin to act, beginning today.” Reagan also said this on the growing reliance on entitlements: “From time to time, we have been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. But if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.” He also had words for Carter which can be applied to the present: “We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.” Speech like this is not heard anymore and that is a severe tragedy. We as conservatives need to get back to our principles. Limited, responsible Government that is tethered to the constitution and keep government out of our lives and unleash our economy not having the government strangle it with endless waves or regulations. If we embody what Reagan and his predecessors before him strived for, we will once more experience prosperity. I hear every day that our republic is finished and this is simply not the case. President Reagan also said this when he was faced with an economic crisis that rivals our current day problems: “Can we solve the problems confronting us? Well, the answer is an unequivocal and emphatic “yes.” To paraphrase Winston Churchill, I did not take the oath I have just taken with the intention of presiding over the dissolution of the world’s strongest economy”

We need to follow his example and be heard! We need to emphatically tell the government enough is enough When a political crisis arises we need to think to ourselves, “what would Reagan do?” As a fellow Phoenix writer told me while in conversation one night “if you have principles you can win any debate as long as you stick to them.” We are on the edge of utter disaster but we can change course. We have to send a clear message to our government that enough is enough. Stop spending like madmen, pay our debts, reduce the intrusions, do not be our babysitter be our partner to better our great nation , and do not forget that your power flows from us, the people, and you will listen to , we the people, or we will get people who will. Reagan taught us that it is possible to do all of these things during his two terms in office and we can do it again.

Happy birthday Mr. President, we shall not waste the opportunity and principles you championed. You are even in death a patriot like none other and it is an honor to live in the same nation you helped shape.

Related posts:

1. Ten Canons of Conservative Thought: Wisdom from Russell Kirk
2. What do we Mean by a College? Words of Wisdom from the Past
3. MSNBC’s Martin Bashir suggests Tom Tancredo of having “…Preferred the Death of the President…”

Freedom and liberty—two words that have become nothing more than religiously used pieces of rhetoric in the United States. Americans have forgotten what it means to be free, to have liberty. I recently read “The Road to Serfdom” by the famed co-winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics and author F.A. Hayek. His book, written in 1944 in the midst of FDR’s extreme social policies and the growing threat of oppressive government, is an outstanding explication of socialism’s appeal and danger to free peoples. Today we live in an America that would grieve Hayek to unimaginable ends. We now have perhaps the most liberal President to have ever resided in the White House and see the claws of socialism gripping both sides of the political spectrum. It seems that both Republicans and Democrats want socialism, that is, large micromanaging government, just for different reasons. Although socialism has an appeal of protection, fairness, and security, the truth is that it is nothing but a modern form of slavery.

The most brutal characteristic of human slavery in 19th century America, or slavery in general, was not the labor forced upon innocent people, nor was it even the physical abuse; the most brutal and dehumanizing characteristic of human slavery is the absence of freedom and the lie that the slave is worthless as an individual. If a slave owner could successfully brand the feelings of worthlessness and helplessness into the mind of a slave, that slave would never try to leave or look for a ‘better life.’ During the reconstruction period we saw many former slaves in states of disarray because they believed they could not make it without their masters. Does this not remind us of our modern day conflict? The more power we give to the government in order to micromanage our lives and set the moral standards for all people within society, the less freedom we have as individuals. We must first be duped, though, into believing the lie that true security can only come from the government, that government has all the answers and all the safety nets. What propaganda! The scariest part of deception is that the deceived do not know they are deceived, and that is where many Americans now find themselves.

Some might say in opposition, “Look at nations such as Germany or France! Don’t you want the security and the stability they have?” No I do not because I know what they have given up in order to have their so-called security and stability kept intact. Americans will never be able to live under such a powerful system of socialized government while continuing to cherish ideals of freedom and liberty; we value the opportunity and ability to ‘move up’ in society too much to live like Germans or the French. If a young person living in Germany or Austria claims that he or she would like to start a new business, they are discouraged from doing so and the idea is frowned upon. In a socialist country the middle class must remain the middle class and the citizens living with just enough to get by on and live modestly will most likely never venture from that position. Although we love to say that the American Dream is dead, how can we when we continue to have figures such as Steve Jobs, Oprah Winfrey, David Letterman, Bill Gates, and even Barack Obama? Yes Mr. President, even you cannot disregard the classic American dream because it helped you get to where you are today. In nations with ever-growing socialized government those born into families with politicians and aristocrats will most likely follow in that and those born into a poorer family will most likely stay within those social limits. How have Americans become so deceived into believing that socialism is the key to happiness and stability?

The decline in American freedom and the rise in totalitarian government, according to Hayek, was first prominent in the beginning of the last century. Although we love to praise the social policies of FDR, nothing has caused us more grief than his policy for social security (many leftists would argue with me, but please look at the fact that social security will run out and its effects on our debt has been catastrophic). Social Security has become the sinking ship that so many liberals love to cling to while claiming that the basis of all our problems is big business. It’s quite humorous. Our government spending is out of control and our friends on the left continue to point to corporations and claim that we need to penalize the rich with heavier taxes and more regulations. Albeit, it should be said that a fairer system of taxation needs to be enacted without the ridiculous loopholes, and also that healthcare should be reformed (appropriately), but what liberal leftists suggest is absurd. We as middle class citizens need to reject the notion of entitlement. We are not poor because others are rich. People are not on welfare because some wealthy person made them stop working or stop trying to become innovative. Additionally, we should not feel that we deserve to have money and security solely because we are Americans and citizens of this nation. We have a tool, though it is being taken from us slowly, and its name is liberty. We have the liberty to make connections, to network, to invent and produce and sell. The lie we have come to be so deceived by is that we are helpless. In a way, we have become slaves to the ideologies produced from liberalism, but do we even realize our deception?

Last semester, I got caught up in a very interesting argument with a professor on the topic of socialism and its ‘compelling benefits.’ The argument made in defense of socialism was very well constructed and the professor made many good points in support of social programs, but this particular professor failed to address the effect a micromanaging government has on its people in regard to freedom and liberty. The strongest point I found in defense of socialism was a greater level of security for citizens, but that was not ever mentioned without some level of bitterness toward the upper class. I cannot count how many times I hear liberals say ‘The separation between the poor and rich in America is growing!’ which causes me to ask myself, ‘I wonder if this has to do with a rise of citizens on welfare and perhaps, dare I say, a greater dependency on the government.’ Reading a Washington Post article I chuckled to find out that the majority of those involved in the Occupy Wall Street movement came from a median per year income of $300,000 or more. This mentality of bitterness toward the upper class has gotten out of control. Although my professor claimed that socialism ensures security and a social safety net, it also ensures bondage. Often times I hear these arguments defending socialism made from two groups: those in the lower or lower middle class benefitting from some form of social program and who have been completely duped into believing that they cannot move up from where they are, or the usual middle or upper middle class citizens who know nothing of being truly poor and simply have good intentions to help those ‘in need and have no way out.’ The sad part about the latter group is that they do not realize the harm they are doing with these statements. Putting word curses on someone such as ‘there is no way for you to move out of this position’ or ‘it’s hopeless for you, so your best option is welfare or food stamps’ is so very similar to what a slave owner would have said to his slaves in order to keep them where they were: hopeless, helpless, and under total control of the master. It is so disheartening to drive through poorer neighborhoods where the presence of welfare is rampant. It is like driving through a ghetto of oppressed people in bondage, and the scary part is that they do not realize it. Yes, in Germany the poorest may not be exactly the same as in the U.S., but the amount of enslaved citizens chained to the inability to grow is even more devastating.

The concept of ‘Serfdom’ in Hayek’s book is simply a representation of stand-still classes. In a way, our gradual acceptance of an ever-growing government is also our gradual acceptance of the remittance of our freedom. The idea of myself being trapped in a place where I cannot get out, where I cannot see the sky as being my limit, where I cannot call myself truly free is horrifying. My grandfather and the millions of men throughout our history did not fight for this country so that its people would eventually become enslaved to its government; those men fight and fought so that this nation would continue to shine as a beacon of democracy in this dark world. Our freedoms are precious and every time we repeal them in order to have some artificial form of security and well being, we lose ourselves. The America I see today is not the America our founding fathers envisioned when they sought to set the foundations of our nation. It comes down to this question: will we cherish our own security and become serfs under an overbearing government, or will we fight for our freedoms, our liberties, and our ability to see the sky as the limit in each of our lives? If we are to cherish freedom we may have to do some reculer pour mieux sauter (“drop back and punt”) but at least we will be making a brighter future. Freedom is why America is America, and we must not allow a lie to take that from us. I personally believe that socialism (the form used in most European countries, and the form described by Hayek) will never work effectively as long as we have our American mindset, and God forbid we ever lose that.

“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” ~Maragret Thatcher

Related posts:

1. Coming Out: How a Dirty Socialist Became an Annoying Libertarian
2. Modern Culture Wars: A Review of The ACLU vs. America
3. Freedom Realized: Dr. Tom G. Palmer and Libertarianism Explained

That, of course, is what you are told.  It is what most people believe they have, even if they are skeptical.  It’s what your parents taught you.  You are to be proud of your country regardless of any circumstance, through thick and thin, so to speak.

After all, from day one of elementary school, all small children are taught to stand up and recite in unison a pledge to a flag representing something not one of them truly understands.  It is something your daughter or son does every day at school as you get ready for work.  And yes, the act of reciting a few sentences, which are meant to signify your loyalty to this nation united under God, does make you feel good; It provides a sense of security for your dignity as an American; It fosters foster unity through strength and responsibility – a responsibility to adhere to the principle of preservation, and what a noble responsibility that is!

Yet as you grow older, you begin to realize how this country really operates.  You take notice of the empty rhetoric your leaders shove down your throat every time you watch the talking picture box or read the printed edition of the daily blab.  You have enough intellect to know it is all so fundamentally wrong, but not enough intellect or self-worth to actually do anything about it.

Wait!  It’s six o’clock and time for the news!  The unemployment rate is two tenths of a percentage point down?  That’s acceptable! (You suppose)  Only seven soldiers were slain overseas today?  Yeah, it sure is sad, but at least it wasn’t eight.  The government has managed to spend another trillion dollars that came from nowhere – from thin air?  Well, at least Congress was able to agree on a few billion dollars in cuts.  Another child was forced to take his shirt off at the local airport earlier this morning?  Hm.  You guess everything is okay as long as you are promised safety.  You wish to hear no more, so you turn it off and continue with your normal schedule.

You believe that as long as you keep your day job and pay your taxes – you know, behave as a ‘good American’ – you will lead a comfortable life.  You keep to yourself, your family, and your closest friends.  You vote in the elections to maintain your civic duty, you keep a yellow ribbon on your door until the troops come home, never questioning why they are there in the first place.  You consider yourself a patriotic citizen.

You go to church every Sunday.  You say a prayer every night.  Your little church in your little town helps you live a fairly normal and secure life.  You may be aggravated at Washington, but Washington is so far away.  Sure, Congress is extremely ineffective, but your Congressman is doing a fine job, right?  Besides, you vote!  You do your part!  You even have a friend who takes a keen interest in local politics so he can say he is involved.  You would not even think of doing something like that; you have neither the skill nor the time.  Of course, you know the problems are at the federal level, so there’s not much you can actually do to really change anything.  But you wish you could.

Oh, and what is all this talk about your freedoms being stripped away?  Who are all these college kids talking about the Constitution?  Why are they so concerned about “principles” and “conviction” and the “rule of law”?  They should be planning for the rest of their lives.  You tell them this.  They tell you they are concerned about their future.  They are planning for the rest of their lives.  You shake your head and smile.  It’s certainly nothing you haven’t seen or heard before.  But you don’t blame them for wanting something better.  Maybe they’re just going about it a very different way.  After all, even though they don’t know everything, you still don’t either.  At least they’re doing something.  It’s more than you’re doing, you suppose. As you lie awake late at night and your spouse enjoys a deep, satisfying slumber, you think about everything—nothing in particular, just everything about life.  You wonder if your job will still be there for you next week.  You wonder if the young man from down the street who is now serving his country from behind a gun in a far-away land will ever come home.  Most of all, you wonder if the world your children will raise their children in will be half as magnificent as the one you had the privilege of being raised in.

Yet you’re comforted when you remember that you heard that the rain is supposed to stop by two o’clock tomorrow.  It’ll just be another beautiful day in the USA.

Related posts:

1. Civic Traditions: A Conservative’s Choice for Preserving the American Republic
2. So Beautiful, Even in Death: Snow White, Disney, and “Innocent Entertainment”
3. Iranian Reviews American Relations Since 1979

All of this recent to government subsidies reminded me of a book I’d read called The Myth of the Robber Barons, written by, of all people, my relative Burton W. Folsom Jr., a professor of history at Hillsdale College. In part of the book, Folsom discusses government involvement in the construction and operation of several transcontinental railroads during the late 1800s. Utilizing both his book and my own research, I was able to piece together my argument here. Government involvement in the Private Sector is nothing new. The Government has been picking “winners” and “losers” since the early 1800s. Sometimes, unfortunately, elected officials give the title of “winner” to whichever company or group can secure them the most campaign contributions and votes. However, most of the time I think it’s safe to say that the Government’s motives are well intentioned and strive towards a better society. Their justification is that these sacrosanct goals justify the means by which they try to achieve them. In the 1860s the federal Government, like the Obama Administration, had lofty goals when it decided to build the first Transcontinental Railroad. Their objective was to connect the eastern United States to California, thus making the settlement of the west faster and safer. The means of reaching this end, however, were not as straightforward. Their plan was for the railroad to be built from both ends, simultaneously, by two different companies: The Central Pacific out of Sacramento, California, and the Union Pacific out of Omaha, Nebraska. The companies were required to lay 50 miles of track a year, and in return, received between $16,000 and $48,000 in government bonds per mile, depending on the type of terrain they were building on. In addition, the railroads were given grants to 10 square miles of land adjacent to the line for every mile they built. The thinking behind this was that the companies could raise extra funds by selling this land to new settlers coming out west on the railroad. On paper, this system of subsidizing the railroads sounded great, but in reality, the system was a disaster. Both companies were guilty of corruption and misuse of funds, but the Union Pacific was the worst offender. The Union Pacific was lead by Thomas “Doc” Durant, a rich investor who made a fortune smuggling Confederate cotton north during the Civil War. “Doc” Durant was the living, breathing definition of a scumbag, and under his leadership, the UP (Union Pacific) suffered greatly. Those who remember Durant from history class might remember him for his Crédit Mobilier, a company that Durant created to secretly manipulate the finances of the UP and speculate the stock market. This misuse of UP funds made Durant and his Associates very rich men. The reason that Durant was able to do this, however, was because of the system of subsidies by which the railroad was being built. One of the main problems with the system was that it encouraged the railroad to build quickly, not efficiently or effectively. Because he was being paid per mile, Durant ordered extraneous curves or “oxbows” to be built, and because he wasn’t concerned with quality, the railroad was often built up and down steep grades. As the railroad slowly made its way across Nebraska, more problems arose. To cut costs on railroad ties, the UP sent woodcutters to cut down the sparse Cottonwood trees in the Platte River valley, and many of these loggers ran into opposition from local settlers who, understandably, didn’t appreciate the idea of having their few trees cut down. Native Americans also harassed construction of the railroad. As the railroad moved west, deeper into Native American lands, raids became more and more common. Often, half the workers on the line had to stand guard with rifles as the other half worked. Durant made things worse during the winter months, as he insisted that work continue in the frigid cold and that the track be laid on top of the snow. The resulting track was so poorly constructed, however, that it had to be rebuilt in the spring. All the while Durant spent thousands of company dollars wining and dining politicians, diplomats, and industrialists. While it is true that the job did eventually get done, the end result was a shoddily built railroad and a company tarnished by scandal. Ultimately, the Union Pacific would go bankrupt in both the 1870s and 1890s. The root cause of the UP’s failure was the fact that the system by which it was constructed did more to encourage corruption than it did a dependable railroad. A lot of people like to argue that, although not perfect, a subsidized system was the only way that a transcontinental railroad could have been built. In 1889, however, an entrepreneur proved this theory wrong when he completed his own transcontinental railroad without using any government subsidies. James J. Hill was a self-made, Canadian-born entrepreneur out of St. Paul, Minnesota. He had risen through the ranks at various businesses as a young man and eventually owned a successful steamboat company. In 1889, Hill acquired a local bankrupt railroad, and, without government subsidies, began building a transcontinental railroad that would stretch from St. Paul, Minnesota, to Seattle, Washington. Unlike the Union Pacific, Hill’s Great Northern Railway was built to last. Hill sought the straightest, flattest, most efficient route, and paid extra for higher quality steel rails. Also, unlike the UP, the Great Northern built slowly, paying its way with spur lines that connected it to more towns. The railroad also invested in encouraging growth along its lines by not only offering travel vouchers to immigrant settlers, but also by investing in research of crops that would grow better on the plains of North Dakota and Montana. In 1893, the same year that financial panic gripped the Nation, the Great Northern Railway was completed. Under Hill’s leadership, the railroad rode out the depression, and Hill would come to be known as the “Empire Builder.”

The important lesson to be learned here is that government involvement, though usually well intentioned, often leads to inefficiency and corruption within companies. The reason that Great Northern succeeded and the Union Pacific did not was that the Great Northern’s investors had their own hard-earned money at stake. They took a risk, betting their fortunes and reputations on the Great Northern, and they did their best to make it as profitable and efficient as possible. The Union Pacific, on the other hand, failed because most of its money came from the Government. With almost no financial risk on their end, men like Durant did not have the incentive to build a railroad that would last, but rather just build one as fast as they could and grab as much cash as they could. The Union Pacific did build the railroad, but did the end product really justify the means? The Obama Administration needs to learn a lesson from the railroads of the past. If companies like Solyndra are going to succeed on their own, let them do so. If they are doomed to fail on their own, let them do so. Don’t gamble with the Public’s hard-earned tax dollars. The problem with companies like Solyndra is that, right now, they just aren’t efficient or cost-effective enough to survive, and no amount of subsidies thrown at them will change that. But some day it will happen, because some day an entrepreneur will come along and discover a way that he or she can make a living on an innovative new idea. Just like Edison did with electricity, Rockefeller did with oil, and Hill did with the railroads. The Free-Market is change we can believe in.

Related posts:

1. Taming the Wabash Monster: The Tale of a Pipe Organ
2. The Gentleman’s Role: An Insider’s Defense of Student Government at Wabash

Dr. Rocha is here on the Owen Duston fund, which has allowed for him to be here for two years. In these past two years he has touched the lives of countless students to the point that many of them have true love and admiration for him. During my freshman year, Rocha’s first year here at Wabash, I heard so many students say, “They have to give Rocha tenure, and if they don’t, they’re stupid.” I honestly thought there would be no way that Rocha could not get tenure if so many students and professors like him so adamantly; but, unfortunately, I was very wrong. These past few weeks have been so frustrating. We have had meetings with members of the administration, emails have been sent out, a Facebook group for students was started, protests have been formed, and letters have been written, and yet after all this it seems that no one has heard the voice of the desperate students who simply want to be heard, and feel that they aren’t. I decided, then, that I would throw my voice out there and also stand to question this Rocha issue and perhaps look at different sides surrounding it.

“None of you know what you’re talking about” is what one student said during the Rocha email war, and he could not have been more wrong. There are many students involved in this who have met with various members of the Wabash administration and have heard every excuse as to why the college will not accept Rocha’s application for further employment for any of the available positions he is qualified to fill. At first we were told that Rocha simply does not have the qualifications needed in order to fill the education position, but that excuse fell apart. The most recent excuse for refusing his application is that “it is not within the best interest of the college at this time.” How absurd! So many students laugh at this ridiculous excuse because the truth is that so many students want to keep Rocha here and we have the resources to hire him, so their reasoning is completely destroyed. Furthermore, if it really was not within the college’s best interest I understand, but then when so many students began to cry out in protest to letting Rocha go, the administration should have listened and re-evaluated its decision, but it did not. Instead, students feel that the administration cares nothing of their feelings and opinions when it comes to bringing in new professors, or any decision for that matter. These sentiments are some I have heard frequently around campus among students, and I feel that members of the faculty should realize how frustrated students are.

On the other hand, I understand how the administration may feel in this time of tension. Members of the administration have been called ‘racists’ and a plethora of other insults by many upset students. In such times, how can the administration not be somewhat defensive and irritated? If students take a moment to step back and look at the position Dean Phillips and President White are in with this situation, their views may be altered. Although many current students want to keep Rocha here, this decision is one that will impact the college for a long time after most of us are gone. Also, the administration wants to make sure that every position is filled by the best and most qualified person in order to ensure Wabash’s standards in academia. This is not to say that Rocha is not the most qualified, but the dean must take other options into consideration when finding candidates for employment. These are some things for students to take into consideration when talking about this issue. There is certainly a lot of disdain being expressed toward particular individuals within the administration, and I think that we should all make sure that we are taking a rational approach to the issue.

The most difficult part about all this, though, is the little amount of time there is for students to change the minds there is for students to change the minds of the administration. The final decision will be sent out from Center Hall in March and students feel that it is nearly inevitable that Rocha will have to leave. So, desperation by outspoken members of the student body is increasing, and many of them will not allow themselves to be silenced, even up until the final decision is made.

I personally have not been one of the outspoken members of the student body on this issue. I have not been to all the meetings and all the protests, but I respect what these guys are doing and can attest to their passion and love for Dr. Rocha. I have seen many of my fellow Wabash men rally toward this cause and make pleas to Dean Phillips and President White on behalf of a professor, a friend, and a mentor, requesting keeping him here so that more students in the future might be able to have the experience they had. If Rocha leaves, though, he will be remembered as having touched the lives of many and will be loved by the students he taught

Related posts:

1. Unwise Activists: Why Dr. Rocha and the Administration are both Wise, and Why Some Activists are Not
2. Webb vs. Rocha: A Look at the Chauvinism of Open Discourse
3. Stop Preaching to the Choir! – An Interview with Dr. Sam Rocha

What is wisdom in this context?  Wisdom applies to both players in this debate: Dr. Rocha, and those responsible for making hiring decisions in this circumstance.  To accuse the administration of being racially divisive violates the wise logic of Dr. Rocha.  To say that Dr. Rocha is unwise is an unfortunate misinterpretation on behalf of whomever making that claim.  Which player is correct?  Which player is incorrect?  This is an utterly poor way to approach the situation.  Both players are wise.

The student activist movement to keep Dr. Rocha on campus is noble, indeed.  It has endured what could be described as rejection over an extended period of time.  It has sustained the battle, and still hopes to make a difference in the hiring process.  In hopes to make a difference at Wabash, this activist movement has failed at times to address the real issues of the debate.

On February 6, President Patrick White and Dean Gary Phillips called a meeting to discuss the hiring process at the college.  About 40-45 engaged students came to discuss Dr. Rocha, and whether he could receive a permanent position.  A general discussion followed on what the administration looks for in a new candidate, as well as prioritized financial decisions and distributive practices.  The college is bound by privacy and legal reasons to keep all hiring information confidential, and they have.  Yet, this reasoning was not enough for most students that attended.

I am writing this article because the February 6th meeting included all of the leaders in the movement to keep Dr. Rocha on campus.  Thus, my claim that these students accurately represent strong facets of the whole movement is in line.

The conversation slowly degenerated into multiple individuals expressing that the Dean of the College and the President were, “not doing enough” to hire faculty of color on campus.  These bold charges caught the Dean and President by surprise, as well as the few gentlemen in the room who had not rehearsed (or were even aware of) the talking-points in advance.  It is quite necessary to make known that these are not the opinions and reactions of the entire movement to keep Dr. Rocha on campus. The movement is legitimate, and well warranted.  Yet, these ideas and sentiments are prominent driving factors within the movement.  Certainly these accusatory strategies prove to be ineffective, and also inaccurate.  Therefore the movement to keep Dr. Rocha on campus, in this instance, became quite unwise.

I refer to statements from Dr. Rocha’s magnificent chapel talk from February 24, 2011, “The timid and mendicant ways in which race, and ethnicity, and identity in general are discussed today are not because we lack intelligence, insight, or experience.  It is because we lack imagination.  Lacking imagination, things become small and simplistic, and demand ideological positions equally as small.”  These thoughts of Dr. Rocha are wise.  Imagine the possibilities of keeping Dr. Rocha on campus, and imagine the unknown ideas yet to come!  Unfortunately, on February 6th, that lack of imagination led to “…ideological positions equally as small.”

Why is it that certain students accuse administrators in the field of academia of being non-inclusive?  While not having discussed politics with either President White or Dean Phillips, one can confidently assure all those reading that inclusion is a top priority for them both.  It’s a known fact that most of academia is proudly left of center, and embraces inclusion of everyone.  This is not a negative statement, but a fact.  As a college administrator, a primary goal is to ensure the student body and faculty has contributions from a wide array of identities and backgrounds.  This enhances the liberal arts experience.  Yet, it seemed that background and identity diversity was not enough for a few radically leftist leaders in the movement to keep Dr. Rocha on campus.

Accusations of racism or xenophobia have become an inevitable (and unfair) sling of mud toward all conservatives from the radicalized left.  The radicalized left will combat or deny that statement.   Yet, it’s very evident that the radicalized left on this campus is at war with the center-left!  Apparently, the center-left administration is “not doing enough” to combat racist or xenophobic tendencies in the hiring process!  Not only are these claims untrue, but also counterintuitive to what the college is actually doing to promote diversity in the hiring process.  Not to mention, hurtful to anyone receiving these attacks.

It is of the deepest concern that the radicalized left has become so radical, that they attack even the most inclusive of people who would be identified as left of center.  I said it.  The reason why President White and Dean Phillips were attacked for being non-inclusive was ultimately because of factors other than their actions, or the issue at hand.

Let us look at the action taken by the administration in just the last year to further the inclusion of backgrounds and identities at Wabash.  A full-time position has been created to increase retention of minority students on campus.  The Malcolm X Institute celebrated 40 years at Wabash with a whole weekend of celebration, campus engagement, and gift-endowment.  All this was accommodated and duly supported by the administration.  Dr. Michael Brown was brought in as Director of the MXI, as well as Associate Dean of the College.  President White and other faculty led a trip to China to visit and further the partnership with Fudan University.  The college recently landed a $750,000 Mellon grant to work toward hiring faculty for an Asian Studies area of concentration.  For the first time, Wabash reached out to gay and transgendered alumni to reconnect with the college, and has made many efforts to ensure current gay students are successful, like straight students alike.

The administration has led and made wise decisions to include more persons of diversity at Wabash.  To say that President White or Dean Phillips have not is simply a step too far.

Perhaps we should have a conversation about the relation of race to the hiring process at the college. Yet, to what extent should it be a determining factor?  Does Dr. Rocha bring a set of values significant to his racial and national identity?  Certainly.  Is this the reason why he may not be on campus next year?  Certainly not.  Dr. Rocha stated in his chapel talk very eloquently, “Let me be clear- we should not abolish race for being a myth, nor should we essentialize race in order to preserve its mythos.  We should treat it like Cordelia’s love for her father, ‘According to my bond, no more, no less.’”  This, a very wise statement by Dr. Rocha.

In addition, this statement certainly aligns with federal law.  The college is legally liable for every decision it makes in regards to hiring.  The college must ensure that the highest quality candidates are hired, without regard to race.  Without doing so, the college is subject to serious litigation- a cost that student tuition or alumni donation funds should be protected from as much as possible.  With this in mind, why does the radical left propose a quota system at Wabash College?  Where is the wisdom in that?

Dr. Rocha is wise.  Many students hope that he will remain on campus in the near future.  Whatever the final decision might be, I will conclude with wisdom through the words of Dr. Rocha, from the same chapel talk.  “We cannot sin against hope, by becoming presumptuous or despairing.”

The hiring decision is not up to students.  Perhaps activism will influence it.  Regardless, activism will become wise when it is not simply limited to matters of the hiring process, and flourishes in response to all tough questions at Wabash.

Related posts:

1. “The Keep Rocha Society”: A Broader Look at the Rocha Issue
2. Stop Preaching to the Choir! – An Interview with Dr. Sam Rocha
3. Webb vs. Rocha: A Look at the Chauvinism of Open Discourse