Port Side Promises to Join Blogging Arena; Will There Be Blood? Don't Count On It

Our friends at The Claremont Port Side have informed me that they, too, will be joining the great blogging beyond, fresh off their Campus Progress award.

Says a senior staff member,

For what it's worth, I thought I would give you a heads up on the Port Side for next year. We are going to continue our six issues a year publication cycle, but we are also getting a full-time blog editor and a handful of bloggers to increase our online presence.

Good for them. After all, didn't Campus Progress list their blog as one of the things that's made them "Breakout Publication of the Year?"

Sure enough, here it is on the CMC website.

“The Claremont Port Side has changed drastically over the past year,” the site [Campus Progress] reports. “The magazine has undergone a complete redesign––from an expanded and professional-looking website, including a blog, to its eye-catching print edition. The writing too, has grown and features argumentative pieces with well-written analysis and reporting on local, national, and international issues.

Given that the blog has only come out with fifteen posting during the past year, here's a progressive suggestion: double it! Come out thirty times a year!

But don't grow too fast! Or the school will tax you, while they increase your school-funded subsidy.

Now that's progressive! Or is it regressive? I get those two confused. Silly me.

Rossum on the SJC, Kennedy v. Louisiana, and Unelected Judges

Rossum lays down the law

Claremont McKenna Professor Ralph A. Rossum, my advisor, and professor of one of my favorite classes, has written an op-ed that has found a home at Investor's Business Daily. If you have an opportunity to take a class with him, do it. I cannot really do it justice and I don't disagree with a word of it, except Rossum's use of age and representation, which I'll get to in a minute.

As Niall Ferguson argues in a Hoover Institution speech he delivered on McCain, ageism, and how McCain can win due to median ages, you don't always want someone that's the same age as the median. The Supreme Court is supposed to be unrepresentative! Rossum may be trying to capture the point that the liberals often make that political institutions ought to be representative, but it doesn't really come across in the op-ed.

Still, it's a fantastic article. Here's to hoping Professor Rossum gets to write a bunch more!

Who Better To Reflect A Consensus: Elected Congress Or Divided Court?

By RALPH A. ROSSUM | Posted Tuesday, July 22, 2008 4:20 PM PT

The Supreme Court's controversial end-of-term decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana, in which five justices determined, based on their "own independent judgment," that a "national consensus" exists opposed to imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child, raises two critical questions.

First, who better can identify and express a contemporary national consensus: Five unelected justices or the 535 members of the U.S. Congress (whose 435 House members are elected every two years and 100 senators every six years)?

Before answering, consider that the five justices who joined the majority opinion have been ensconced in the Marble Palace for an average of 20 years each (they range from Stevens, 33 years, to Breyer, 14 years). Consider also that since they have an average age of 74, they are out of touch with how most Americans live. Stevens is 88, Ginsburg 75, Kennedy 72, Breyer 70, Souter 69.

Second, does a vote of 390-39 in the House on May 24, 2005, approving language in Public Law 109-163 authorizing military courts-martial to impose the death penalty for the rape of a child, and passage of the same language in the Senate by unanimous consent on Nov. 15, 2005, suggest the presence of a contemporary and overwhelming national "consensus"?

Judges For Life

If you answered the Congress and "yes," you should have a serious problem with the Supreme Court's decision in this case. It found Louisiana's law unconstitutional because it violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishments."

It originally was understood to ban only particularly heinous modes of punishment — flaying alive, breaking on the rack, drawing and quartering, etc. But, in 1958, the Warren Court redefined it to ban punishments contrary to "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society."

How are those standards to be determined? The most obvious place for the court to turn is to a national consensus revealed by what Congress and the state legislatures had adopted as appropriate punishments. In Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), it did just that, finding more state legislatures prohibited executing offenders younger than 16 than allowed it and therefore declaring a national consensus to exist opposed to executing anyone under that age.

In Roper v. Simmons (2005), the court took a different tack: Since a majority of death-penalty states allowed for the execution of 16- and 17-year-olds, Justice Kennedy could not argue that a national consensus opposed it; he therefore turned instead to "foreign sources" and invalidated the juvenile death penalty because inconsistent with international norms.

As Scalia's dissent trenchantly observed, Kennedy's selective invocation of foreign sources was not "reasoned decision-making" but "sophistry." If invocation of foreign sources was sufficient to ban the juvenile death penalty, it would also be sufficient to affirm greater restrictions on abortion — something Kennedy found anathema.

Roper was met with ridicule, so this time, Kennedy skipped references to state legislation and foreign sources and pronounced that the court, by its "own independent judgment," could identify a national consensus.

So why did the court simply ignore the Congress' expression of a contemporary national consensus? The simple answer: Kennedy was unaware of Congress' action. He hadn't done his homework!

When word of his hugely embarrassing oversight surfaced on a military law blog, the reaction of Jeffrey Fisher, the defendant's attorney, was to blame not the court but the Justice Department: "We figured if somebody in the government thought otherwise, we'd hear about it."

But herein lies the rub: When the court acts as a legislative body (as a prospective, societywide policymaker) and not as a traditional court of law (as a retrospective, specific grievance-resolver), it must do the same heavy lifting that legislators do.

It must conduct public hearings inviting all interested parties to testify and bring to its attention relevant facts needed to legislate well. It must replace its law clerks with legislative assistants and policy analysts. It must become a full-fledged legislative body employing all the resources and staff necessary to determine how best to deal with the policy issues it addresses.

But wait! We already have such a legislative body — the Congress. And if we don't like the answers it gives, we can vote the rascals out. Not so with life-tenured justices. Why does the court want to be the legislative branch, when the Constitution clearly assigns that duty to the Congress?

Sake Of The Nation

Why, indeed, given what the same Kennedy said in Boumediene v. Bush, the controversial end-of-term Guantanamo Bay case, concerning separation of powers and the importance of each branch performing its constitutionally authorized function. The answer is simple: judicial arrogance.

Old, out-of-touch, unelected justices believe they know better what is good for America than Congress and can therefore identify and impose a national consensus. And when the court does, it denies it's illegitimately usurping legislative power.

As Kennedy said in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court need not worry about legitimacy if it is acting selflessly: "The Court's concern with legitimacy is not for the sake of the court but for the sake of the nation to which it is responsible."

In the Louisiana case, the court legitimately usurped Congress' power because it was "for the sake of the nation." Kennedy sounds like your run-of-the-mill, bloviating politician. They always cloak self-interested motivations in high-minded justifications like "we need to do this for the children." Or in this case, the rapists of children.

Rossum is the Salvatori Professor of Political Philosophy and American Constitutionalism at Claremont McKenna College and the author of "Antonin Scalia's Jurisprudence: Text and Tradition" (University Press of Kansas, 2006).

Random Musings and CMC Alum Steve R. Kay on Sharon Tate's Murder, Susan Atkins' "Compassionate Release"

CJ's note: Sorry I haven't been blogging much lately. The hand is almost on the mend, but the thing I've been focused on most intently is The Claremont Conservative's new video content, the scripts for which I've been writing with Sam Corcos. I may have a new job come September, but I'll let you know more about that in the coming weeks.

In any event, here's some news.

Susan Atkins has been denied her "compassionate release" from jail.

I spoke, by telephone, with Prosecutor Stephen R. Kay about the decision before it was handed down. Here are my notes from what he said. Please note that this is a rough transcript.

My position on Susan Atkins is that when Sharon Tate was begging for her life and for the life of her baby., Susan Atkins said to her, 'Please don't kill me. Please don't kill me. Just let me have my baby. Sussan Atkins said to her – and pardon my language, but it is important for you to hear it in her language, 'Look Bitch, I don't care about you or your baby. You're going to die. And you'd better be ready for it.'"

We know that she said this from her confession and all of her parole hearings, in one of which she admitted to tasting Ms. Tate's blood.

I'm very much opposed to releasing Ms. Atkins.

Susan Atkins got the benefit of having her life. She was given the death penalty, but in 1972, the California Supreme Court ruled that the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment" barred Atkins and 114 others from getting the death penalty and commuted her sentence from death to life.

Under the new rubric, "life" has meant that you are eligible for parole every 7 years. During the past decades, Atkins has been married a couple of times. She has had conjugal visits with her first husband, although I'm not sure about the second husband. Life prisoners were cut off, but it's possible he had one or two visits before the ban went into effect.

Susan Atkins has had all kinds of compassionate treatment.

Sharon Tate had none. Her 8 and half month perfectly formed male fetus had none.

I don't see what "compassionate release" would do for Ms. Atkins anyways.

Her husband says that even if she is given clemency, she will remain in the hospital in the bed because he cannot handle her.

For all of these reasons, I am very much opposed to releasing Atkins.

New York Post Covers Elise Viebeck and Her Breindel Award; When Will CMC?

John Wilson CMC '07, former CI editor-in-chief, wrote the article about Ms. Viebeck. He won a Breindel last year and was such a good writer that The New York Post hired him!

I don't want to belabor this point -- okay, so maybe I do -- but come on, The Claremont Independent's editor-in-chief won a $10,000 award, an internship at The New York Post, and has now been written about in a national newspaper, and yet Claremont McKenna still doesn't put her up on its website? It would be understandable if they didn't put up the Breakthrough Award of the Year award up for The Portside, but of course, they did.

Let me posit a guess. She's conservative -- increasingly a dirty word on the Claremont campus nowadays -- and she wrote an article that was critical of one of their golden boys, who had to step down from his tenure as director of the Holocaust Center, and is now on a leave of absence.

CMC Drop Out, Harvard MBA, Back in Bush White House

Gottesman With The President

CMC drop out and aide to President Bush, Blake Gottesman, 28 is back in the White House after leaving in 2006 to get a Harvard MBA, according to The Austin American-Statesman. Here are the essential paragraphs:

Former presidential personal aide Blake Gottesman, who left the White House in 2006 to pick up a Harvard MBA, now has that degree and is returning to the administration in a post further up the organizational chart.

The White House today announced that Gottesman, a native of Austin, is now an “assistant to the president” and “deputy chief of staff,” replacing longtime Bush aide Joe Hagin, who recently announced his upcoming departure. Hagin has had a broad portfolio - including overseeing major projects such as remodeling of the White House press area and the super-secret situation room. Hagin also has been instrumental in working out details of Bush foreign trips.

Republican National Convention Blog has a link up with Gottesman's entire biography. Here's a great picture.

Though he initially said he had plans to finish college and then attend business school after finishing his work at the White House, Gottesman did not return to college and instead enrolled in Harvard Business School, graduating in 2008. His admission to the school despite not having received an undergraduate degree was criticized by some media. The President occasionally calls Gottesman "Soldier," needling him for the earpiece he wears to stay in contact with other staff members during presidential events. Lately Bush has been calling him "Harvard"

What a shame he doesn't call him "Claremont"...

Portside Wins Award; CMC Does PR With Update

Update 07/20/08 8:30 PM I have seen coverage in the blogsophere about how The Claremont Institute "unsuccessfully sued" The Claremont Port Side. This just isn't true. The Claremont Institute never took action.

A free press does not mean a subsidized press, though you wouldn’t know it at Claremont McKenna where the best press operates on a shoe-string budget, while another rakes in school money.

Still, according to Claremont McKenna's website, Claremont McKenna’s progressive magazine, The Portside has won the Breakthrough Publication of the Year Award from Campus Progress, a group dedicated to far left causes.

(You might remember that Aditya and I went to see Naomi Klein at the Campus Progress event and that I found her laughable ill-informed. Her screed against capitalism would have been humorous had it not been so damaging to young people. )

Nevertheless, Abhi Nemani, the once editor and reformer of The Portside, gave the introduction to Klein, and Abhi’s work on the publication has been nothing short of transformative. Though the content seldom addressed school issues and tended to be much of the same – heavily focused on issues that had little import for Claremont McKenna students. When they were focused on Claremont issues, they often lied to serve their cause by citing bogus statistics about women who heard from a friend of a friend that there might be girls that have been raped on campus and that it was deserving of administrative attention and you guessed it – our funding.

They have improved considerably from the slanderous, pro-censorship publication that characterized it just a few years back when they printed a lie about Harry Jaffa and the Claremont Institute all but calling for all of the Claremont McKenna professors who serve at the Institute to resign. After Jaffa threatened a lawsuit, they printed a Rather-esque retraction and in so far as I can tell, stopped covering news on the 5 colleges in any meaningful way.

Still, Nemani has done a lot to revamp the publication and he deserves his moment. Here he is in his own words on the school’s website.

Abhi Nemani, Port Side editor-in-chief from fall 2007 to spring 2008, said, “We couldn't publish without them [Campus Progress]. They've given us funding to survive and even thrive the past two years, and now, they've given us more: they have honored us with this award. It's more than I could have asked for.

“More than anything else,” he said, “the Breakthrough Publication of the Year award is a testament to the hard work and commitment of the staff: they rebuilt the organization and redesigned the magazine to create a publication that has more readers, more content, and more respect. This award validates their efforts on a national stage. I'm so very proud.”

On the other side of the spectrum, there is The Claremont Independent. I admit to being hard on its erstwhile editor, Elise Viebeck for her leadership of the publication – friends that don’t give you straight talk aren’t friends at all – and a crucial fact remains: The Claremont Independent remains the most important source for printed campus news. Its writers have won two $10,000 awards in two years and it has never received a dime from the school’s coffers.

Of course, Ms. Viebeck is unlikely to get a campus expose written about her authorship of an article that led to the resignation of the Holocaust studies center. But then again, real journalists don’t get write ups from the people they scrutinize. There's nothing to "breakthrough" when you are already the best.

Memo to REC: "Sustainability Index" Is an Oxymoron!

The current fetish with environmental sustainability lies beneath the Roberts Environmental Center report that assessed companies based upon their supposed “social responsibility."

Of course whenever you hear the words “sustainability,” you ought to be on the lookout. It is Orwellian for dirigisme – or the belief that we can tinker with the world economy to get the results that some have arbitrarily defined as socially good. In truth, companies only have one real responsibility: profit and its companion, growth.

But you wouldn’t know that from reading the report that was picked up by a press that little understands business, let alone economic growth.

If you look at the front page of the 132 page report, you will see that there is a new slogan — “Help commerce help Nature.” (I'll update the image once Blogger lets me.) It’s as if it were something wrong with capitalism, the process by which millions of people have been lifted out of the stone age.

You’ll notice that our real motto “civilization prospers with commerce” is minuscule print. The message is clear: Roberts Environmental center is apologizing for our erstwhile focus on the real issues. They have decided to do some environmental emoting instead by compiling the “social and environmental” self-reporting of California publicly traded companies and by looking at their websites to see if they mention “human rights” or environmental protection.

The authors dub their report the Pacific Sustainability Index. But the real purpose of any index isn’t “sustainability” at all, but maximizing growth. (Sadly, sloppy language is something very common with do-gooder progressives.)

Unsurprisingly, the study – if it could be called that -- comes up with some rather silly results. Did you know Chevron got an A+? (It’s probably due to their PR department, flush with all those dollars from the pump, pulling a fast one… Who could blame them for trying to get good PR? The Left often uses a hatchet on the oil people – the very people and companies responsible for bringing us out of human misery and into the modern world.)

Nowhere is that more evident than in their report, entitled, “Analysis of Sustainability Reporting of Fortune Companies in California.” (Full report here http://www.roberts.cmc.edu/psi/PDF/California2007.pdf)

The report’s authors “find[s] that some, like Chevron, Hewlett-Packard and Walt Disney, publicized their sustainability on their Web sites, while others, like eBay, Google and Apple, rarely mentioned the subject, if at all.”

Maybe that’s because they are too busy making money to care about stupid economic planning.

Just ask yourself: Where would you rather work? Disney? Or Google?

Waste Management Numbers at the Claremont Colleges?

Over at College Confidential, one of its members has done a calculation using IPEDS data, which is "total institutional support expenses divided by total expenses."

Here are the questions the member asks.

The percentage indicates how "lean" the operation is. Are schools spending too much on administrative overhead? How efficiently are the schools run?

Are there "economies of scale"? Some of the schools with the least administrative waste are pretty small (e.g. Vanderbilt).

These questions and findings important because as we have noted before when there are so many administrators student liberties often suffer and college costs increase.

Assuming the numbers are correct, the most bloated Claremont Colleges are in order: Claremont McKenna College (21.2%), Pitzer College (16.9%), Pomona College (16.8%), Harvey Mudd College (16.3%), and Scripps College (9.3%).

Exit question: Still want to do that costly "green" initiative?

Claremont Conservative Welcomes Sam Corcos to Staff

Corcos gets ready to put some bodies in the trunk

Sam Corcos CMC '11 recently joined The Claremont Conservative. He'll be spearheading The Claremont Conservative's turn to video with me. We're currently making a movie about free speech at the Claremont Colleges.

Claremont Conservative Breaks 50,000+ Unique Visitors

I am a big believer in living an open life.

In part, this has to do with philosophy, but largely it is based on economics – that if you reduce barriers to trade such as the perception of asymmetry of information between you and a future partner – you are likely to encourage trust and keep yourself honest and encourage sharing of information. For these reasons, among others, I have a del.icio.us account, don’t lie about my weight, tell people my SAT score, my grades, etc. Honesty is the best policy and it lets you know if you are being competitive enough with those around you.

So part of that policy of honesty is letting you know how the Claremont Conservative has been doing. After all, at some measure, you – the viewers – are all shareholders in this dream. So there you have it. We’re at 50,000+ unique visitors since I started this little experiment back in late September.

Some months, particularly the early months, were abysmal, but now we’re growing, growing, growing.

Expect video and audio content within the next six to eight months. I'm working with a few people to bring it online by Fall.

A Stroll Through My Google News Alerts and Musings on the Passing Scene

• First things first, I'd like to congratulate Ms. Elise Viebeck on her piece on school vouchers in National Review Online. I recently wrote that her second to last piece on school vouchers was disappointing because she didn't focus on the most important element of the voucher debate -- its power to transform students' lives. Her latest focuses on that power. The title says it all, "Voucher Valedictorian."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• In The BBC on the differences between McCain and Obama --"If we read with a magnifying glass the plans they have on Latin America, beyond the rhetoric, the great difference is free trade, but not much more," Roderic Ai Camp, an expert on Mexico's security issues at Claremont McKenna College in California, told the BBC. "It's all about perceptions."

Right because free trade is just such a small issue. It's only responsible for much of the human development in the world. Here's a little straight talk if we allow the Colombians to sell their goods openly maybe they won't be so likely to sell their drugs covertly. Some Socialists at Pitzer or elsewhere might have you believe that more trade would mean more so-called abuses like those at the Coca-Cola plant.

Here's another point while we're on it. Which Senator supported a comprehensive (admittedly imperfect) immigration guest worker program with a member of the opposition party, showing his commitment to bipartisanship? That's right, John McCain. With a little work, Senator McCain's proposal could do more good for all of Latin America and elsewhere than any half-baked, perverse-incentive-Peace Corps program could offer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

• In The Los Angeles Times, Dean of Admissions Bruce Poch of Pomona College is upset by a recent decision by the College Board that will allow high school students to hide their scores from college deans. He's upset, but wrongly so.
  

Here's the essential paragraphs.

Bruce Poch, dean of admissions at Pomona College, slammed the decision. "It's a mistake. It's going to give kids more room to play games," he said. "It's going to privilege kids who are already in an advantaged position financially."

Pomona in recent years has seen greater numbers of applicants taking both the SAT and the ACT -- evidence of the latter's increase in popularity, which Poch said the College Board appeared to be trying to stall with its decision.

"There's no evidence that it's anything more than a marketing decision because they think they're going to give up a majority of that market to ACT takers," he said.

...As if college deans don't play games with admission statistics to inflate their rankings or social engineer their incoming class. Federal college subsidies driving up costs, anyone?

There are (at least) two problems with Dean Bruce Poch's statement that allowing students to choose which scores they submit is bad.

1) So what that poor kids cannot afford to take the SATs? College, by its very definition, isn't supposed to be representative of the country as a whole. Students who want to take the SAT can take it multiple times with a fee waiver. I know. I did just that. My family situation made it tough and I got fee waivers.

2) So what if the SATs are changing their policies to increase market share? If colleges didn't play games by receiving federal subsidies, they would do the same thing by increasing class sizes to meet their demand instead of creating artificial shortages by encouraging middle class students to apply only to reject them.

If a student wants to take the test a 1,000 times and puts up the money to do that, how is that any different from students that take SAT prep courses? At least the student has control over how he or she does (within a certain range) and can budget accordingly. Currently some decisions about who to admit are decided by a factor that no one can change -- race and "diversity."

Signatories to John McCain's Would Be Economic Policies Include CMC, CGU Econ. Profs

Beginning this week, John McCain is going to be going out and about drumming up support for his economic plan. Here are the list of Claremont McKenna College and Claremont Graduate professors.

Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Marc D. Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Paul J. Zak, Claremont Graduate University


You'll notice that Eric Helland, who once served on Bush's Council of Economic Advisors, is NOT on the list. Could it be that McCain's presidential bid isn't just another third term for Bush as his detractors and the ignoramuses in this comment section would have you believe?

(Of course it should be stated that Bush's economic tenure - the inflation notwithstanding -- has been great and that the mortgage crisis comes the policies of the Clinton Justice Department and their love of suing the mortgage banks for their "disparate" and "disproportionate" racial lending practices, which was, of course, hogwash.)

I would tell you what the plan says, but it's better if you read it for yourself. So why reinvent the wheel? Let's just quote exactly what I've got as exactly as I got it from American Sentinel, shall we? (The bolding is my own.)

Economists’ Statement on John McCain’s Jobs for America Economic Plan

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released a statement signed by over 300 professional economists in support of John McCain’s Jobs for America economic plan. The list includes Nobel Prize winners, business economists with experience in the private sector, policy economists with experience in government and academic economists from major universities and state and community colleges.

Those signing the statement include Nobel Prize winners in Economics (Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Lucas, Robert Mundell and Vernon Smith), former Presidents of the American Economic Association (Gary Becker, Martin Feldstein, Anne Krueger and Robert Lucas), economists who have served in the U.S. Treasury as Secretary or Under Secretaries (George Shultz, Beryl Sprinkel and John Taylor), former Chairs and other Members of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers (Michael Boskin, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard, Paul MacAvoy, Burton Malkiel, Paul McCracken, William Poole, Harvey Rosen, Beryl Sprinkel, John Taylor and Murray Weidenbaum), former OMB Directors and other officials (John Cogan, James Miller, George Shultz and Amy Smith), former CBO Directors (Dan Crippen, Douglas Holtz-Eakin and June O’Neill), former Chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (Wendy Gramm), former Chairs of the Federal Trade Commission (James Miller and T im Muris) and economists who have served as Under Secretary of Commerce (Kathleen Cooper and Tony Villamil).

Economists’ Statement:

We enthusiastically support John McCain’s economic plan. It is a comprehensive, pro-growth, reform agenda. The reform focuses on the real economic problems Americans face today and will face in the future. And it builds on the core economic principles that have made America great.

His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.

His plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D.

His plan would also create a new and much simpler tax system and give Americans a free choice of whether to pay taxes under that simple system or the current complex and burdensome income tax.

His plan would open new markets for American goods and services and thereby create additional jobs for Americans by supporting good free trade agreements, such as the one with Colombia, and working with leaders around the world to avoid isolationism and protectionism. His plan would also reform education, retraining, and other assistance programs so they better help those displaced by trade and other changes in the economy. His plan addresses problems in the financial markets and housing markets by calling for increased transparency and accountability, by targeted assistance to deserving homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and by opposing so-called reform plans which would raise the costs of home-ownership in the future.

The above actions, as well as plans to address entitlement programs — especially Social Security, Medicare and other government health care programs — and his regulatory reforms — especially in the area of health care — constitute a broad and powerful economic agenda. Because of John McCain’s experience working with the American people in all walks of life, with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with leaders around the world, we are optimistic that these plans will become a reality and will create jobs and restore confidence and strong economic growth.

Economists Who Have Signed The Statement:

Burton Abrams, University of Delaware
James D. Adams, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
Douglas K. Adie, Ohio University
Richard Agnello, University of Delaware
William Albrecht, University of Iowa
Constantine Alexandrakis, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth
William Alpert, University of Connecticut
Wayne Angell, Former Fed Governor
Fernando E. Alvarez, University of Chicago
Geoffrey T. Andron, Austin Community College
George R. Averitt, Purdue University North Central
Charles Baird, California State University, East Bay
Howard Beales, George W ashington University
Stacie E. Beck, University of Delaware
Gary Becker, University of Chicago
Donald Bellante, University of South Florida
Daniel K. Benjamin, Clemson University
John J. Bethune, Barton CollegeSanjai Bhagat, University of Colorado
Andrew G. Biggs, American Enterprise Institute
Robert G. Bise, Orange Coast College
Michael K. Block, University of Arizona
Donald Booth, Chapman University
Karl J. Borden, University of Nebraska
Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
George H. Borts, Brown University
Mich ael Boskin, Stanford University
Daniel P. Brandt III, Washington, D.C.
Ike Brannon, Department of the Treasury
David P. Brown, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jeff Brown, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Joseph Brusuelas, Merk Investments
Phillip J. Bryson, Brigham Young University
Andrzej Brzeski, University of California, Davis
James Buchanan, George Mason University
Todd Buchholz, Two Oceans Management
Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
Richard V. Burkhauser, Cornell University
James B. Burnham, Duquesne University
Andr ew B. Busch, BMO Capital Markets
James L. Butkiewicz, University of Delaware
Mark Calabria, United States Senate
James Carter, Vienna, VA
Don Chance, Louisiana State University
Barry R. Chiswick, University of Illinois at Chicago
Bhagwan Chowdhry, UCLA
Richard Clarida, Columbia University
Candice Clark, Economic consultant
Kenneth W. Clarkson, University of Miami
Warren Coats, IMF, retired
John Cogan, Hoover Institution
Boyd D. Collier, Tarleton State University
Michael Connolly, University of Miami
Kathleen B. Cooper, Southern Methodist University
Joshua Coval, Harvard University
Ted Covey, McLean, Virginia
Nicole Crain, Lafayette College
W. Mark Crain, Lafayette College
Dan Crippen, Former CBO Director
Thomas D. Crocker, University of Wyoming
Robert L. Crouch, University of California, Santa Barbara
Mario J. Crucini, Vanderbilt University
Ward S. Curran, Trinity College
Coldwell Daniel III, The University of Memphis
Antony Davies, Duquesne University
Steven Davis, University of Chicago
Clarence R. Deitsch, Ball State University
Richard DeKaser, National City Corporation
Stephen J. Dempsey, University of Vermont
Christopher DeMuth, American Enterprise Institute
David B.H. Denoon, New York University
William G. Dewald, Ohio State University
Arthur M. Diamond Jr., University of Nebraska at Omaha
John Diamond, Rice University
David L. Dickinson, Appalachian State University
Francis X. Diebold, University of Pennsylvania
Jeffrey H. Dorfman, University of Georgia
Thomas J. Duesterberg, Manufacturers Alliance/MAPI
Parnell Duverger, Broward Community College
Isaac Ehrlich, SUNY at Buffalo
Martin Eichenbaum, Northwestern University
Jeffrey A. Eisenach, Criterion Economics
Michael A. Ellis, Kent State University
Joachim G. Elterich, University of Delaware
Kenneth Elzinga, University of Virginia
Stephen J. Entin, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
T.W. Epps, University of Virginia
Michael G. Erickson, The College of Idaho
Paul Evans, Ohio State University
Dino Falaschetti, Hoover Institution
Frank Falero Jr., California State University
Susan K. Feigenbaum, University of Missouri, St. Louis
Martin Feldstei n, Harvard University
Eric Fisher, California Polytechnic State University
Arthur A “Trey” Fleisher III, Metro State College of Denver
James Forcier, University of San Francisco
William F. Ford, Middle Tenn. State U.
Michele Fratianni, Indiana University
Luke Froeb, Vanderbilt University
Kenneth C. Froewiss, NYU Stern School of Business
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, Hudson Institute
Timothy S. Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
Lowell Gallaway, Ohio University
B Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
Dave Garthoff, The University of Akron
Ilhan K. Geckil, Anderson Economic Group
Rick Geddes, Cornell University
Joseph A. Giacalone, St. John’s University
Adam Gifford, California State University, Northridge
David Gillette, Truman State University
Micha Gisser, University of New Mexico
Amy Jocelyn Glass, Texas A&M University
Charles J. Goetz, The University of Virginia
Claudio Gonzalez-Vega, The Ohio State University
Lawrence Goodman, Bergen City, NJ
Barry K. Goodwin, North Carolina State University
Eric S. Graber, Independent Economist
Douglas H. Graham, The Ohio State University
J. Edward Graham, University of North Carolina Wilmington
Phil Gramm, Former U.S. Senator
Teresa Beckham Gramm, Rhodes College
Wendy Lee Gramm
William B. Green, Sam Houston State University
Kenneth Greene, Binghamton University
Paul Gregory, University of Houston
Earl Grinols, Baylor University
Gary Hansen, UCLA
Eric Hanushek, Hoover Institution
Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
James E. Hartley, Mount Holyoke College
Kevin Hassett, American Enterprise Institute
Joel W. Hay, University of Southern California
Jared E. Hazleton, Texecon: A Texas Economic Consulting Firm
Charles E. Hegji, Auburn University Montgomery
Robert H. Heidt, Indiana University School of Law
Harold M. Hochman, CUNY Graduate Center and Lafayette College
Robert J. Hodrick, Columbia Business School
Stuart G. Hoffman, The PNC Financial Services Group
Arlene Holen, Washington, D.C.
Mac R. Holmes, Troy University
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, John McCain 2008
C. Thomas Howard, University of Denver
E. Philip Howrey, University of Michigan
Glenn Hubbard, Columbia University
James L. Huffman, Lewis & Clark Law School
J. Christopher Hughen, University of Denver
E. Kingdon Hurlock, Calvert Investment Counsel
Stephen L. Jackstadt, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Joseph M. Jadlow, Oklahoma State University
Sherry L Jarrell, Wake Forest University
Michael C. Jensen, Harvard Business School
Dennis A. Johnson, University of South Dakota
Shane A. Johnson, Texas A&M University
Richard Just, University of Maryland
Tim Kane, Washington, D.C.
Steven Kaplan, University of Chicago Graduate School of Business
Alexander Katkov, Johnson and Wales University
Melissa Kearney, University of Maryland
Joe Kennedy, Arlington, Virginia
Lawrence W. Kenny, University of Florida
Calvin A. Kent, Marshall University
E. Han Kim, University of Michigan
Robert G. King, Boston University
Paul R. Koch, Olivet Nazarene University
Meir Kohn, Dartmouth College
James W. Kolari, Texas A&M University
Roger C. Kormendi, Kormendi/Gardner Partners
Marvin Kosters, American Enterprise Institute
Robert Krol, California State University, Northridge
Anne Krueger, Johns Hopkins University
Deepak Lal, University of Cal ifornia, Los Angeles
Douglas Lamdin, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County
Daniel L Landau, University of Connecticut
Richard La Near, Missouri Southern State University
Nicholas A. Lash, Loyola University
Don R. Leet, California State University, Fresno
Norman B. Lefton, Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville
Tom Lehman, Indiana Wesleyan University
Thomas M. Lenard, Technology Policy Institute
Noreen E. Lephardt, Marquette University
Adam Lerrick, Carnegie Mellon University and the American Enterprise Institute
Philip I. Levy, American Enterprise Institute
W. Cris Lewis, Utah State University
Andrew Light, Liberty University
Jane Lillydahl, University of Colorado at Boulder
Zheng Liu, Emory University
Luis Locay, University of Miami
John R. Lott Jr., University of Maryland
Lawrence W. Lovik, Alabama Policy Institute
Robert Lucas, University of Chicago
John Lunn, Hope College
R. Ashley Lyman, University of Idaho
Paul W. MacAvoy, Yale School of Management
Glenn MacDonald, Washington University in St. Louis
John Makin, American Enterprise Institute
Burton Malkiel, Princeton University
David Malpass, Encima Global LLC
Michael Marlow, California Polytechnic State University
Donald J. Marshall, Consulting Engineer and Economist
Aparna Mathur, American Enterprise Institute
Timothy Matthews, Kennesaw State University
John Matsusaka, University of Southern California
Bennett McCallum, Carnegie Mellon University
Paul W. McCracken, University of Michigan
Martin C. McGuire, University of California-Irvine
W. Douglas McMillin, Louisiana State University
Roger Meiners, University of Texas - Arlington
Will Melick, Kenyon College
Allan Meltzer, Ca rnegie Mellon University
John Merrifield, University of Texas at San Antonio
Paul Merski, Independent Community Bankers of America
Jim Mietus, Great Falls, VA
Todd Milbourn, Washington University in St. Louis
Geoffrey P. Miller, New York University Law School
James Miller, George Mason University and The Hoover Institution
William C. Miller, Pioneer Analytics LLC
David E. Mills, University of Virginia
Velma Montoya, National Council of Hispanic Women
Michael Moore, George Washington University
Charles Britt Moss, University of Florida
Robert Mundell, Columbia University
Tim Muris, George Mason University
David B. Mustard, University of Georgia
Richard F. Muth, Emory University
Anthony N. Negbenebor, Gardner-Webb University
Charles Nelson, University of Washington
Robert J. Newman, Louisiana State University
Michael P. Niemira, International Council of Shopping Centers
Tom O’Brien, University of Connecticut
Lee E. Ohanian, UCLA
June O’Neill, Baruch College, CUNY
Steve Parente, University of Minnesota
Randall Parker, East Carolina University
Douglas Patterson, Virginia Tech
Tim Perri, Appalachian State University
Mark J. Perry, University of Michigan-Flint
Tomas Philipson, University of Chicago
William Poole, University of Delaware
Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business School
Barry Poulson, University of Colorado Boulder
James Prieger, Pepperdine University
R. David Ranson, H. C. Wainwrigth & Co. Economics Inc.
Richard Rawlins, Missouri Southern State University
Martin A. Regalia, Gaithersburg, Maryland
Barrie Richardson, Centenary College
Christine P. Ries, Georgia Institute of Technology
Aldona Robbins, Fiscal Associates
Gary Robbins, Fiscal Associates
Kenneth Rogoff, Harvard University
Richard Roll, UCLA
Harvey Rosen, Princeton University
Larry L. Ross, University of Alaska, Anchorage
Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
Timothy P. Roth, The University of Texas at El Paso
Charles Rowley, George Mason University
Paul H. Rubin, Emory University
Roy Ruffin, University of Houston
Gary J. Santoni, Ball State University
T.R. Saving, Texas A&M University
Mike Schuyler, Institute for Research on the Economics of Taxation
Anna Schwartz, National B ureau of Economic Research
Loren C. Scott, Louisiana State University
Robert Haney Scott, California State University, Chico
Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
Richard Selden, University of Virginia
John Semmens, Laissez Faire Institute
Sol S. Shalit, University of Wisconsin
Alan Shapiro, University of Southern California
Judy Shelton
William F. Shughart II, The University of Mississippi
George Shultz, Hoover Institution
Jerome Siebert, University of California, Berkeley
John Silvia, Wachovia
Chuck Skipton, University of Tampa
Scott B. Smart, Indiana University
Amy Smith, Former OMB Chief Economist
James F. Smith, The University of North Carolina
Vernon Smith, Chapman University
Sean M. Snaith, University of Central Florida
Douglas Southgate, Ohio State University
Frank Spreng, McKendree University
Beryl W. Sprinkel, Retired
Stan Spurlock, Mississippi State University
George J. Staller, Cornell University
Craig A. Stephenson, Babson College
Houston Stokes, University of Illinois at Chicago
Courtenay C. Stone, Ball State University
Scott Sumner , Bentley College
James Sweeney, Stanford University
Richard Sweeney, Georgetown University
Robert Tamura, Clemson University
Clifford Tan, Stanford Center for International Development
John A. Tatom, Indiana State University
John Taylor, Stanford University
Paul Taylor, Vienna, VA
Teresa Tharp, Valencia Community College
Clifford F. Thies, Shenandoah University
Henry Thompson, Auburn University
Walter N. Thurman, North Carolina State University
Jerry G. Thursby, Georgia Institute of Technology
Robert D Tollison, Clemson University
William N. Trumbull, West Virginia University
Kamal Upadhyaya, University of New Haven
Charles W. Upton, Kent State University
Peter J Van Blokland, University of Florida
T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
Richard Vedder, American Enterprise Institute
George J. Viksnins, Georgetown University
J. Antonio Villamil, The Washington Economics Group
Richard E. Wagner, George Mason University
William B. Walstad, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Murray Weidenbaum, Washington University in St. Louis
Marc D. Weidenmier, Claremont McKenna College
Finis We lch, Texas A&M University
James B. Whitaker, Centreville, VA
John Wicks, University of Montana
Wayne H. Winegarden, Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics
Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
DeVo L. Yoho, Ball State University
Nancy A. Yonge, Smith Center for Private Enterprise
Paul J. Zak, Claremont Graduate University
Mokhlis Y. Zaki, Northern Michigan University
Mark Zandi, Malvern, PA
Arnold Zellner, University of Chicago
Kate Zhou, University of Hawaii
Joseph Zoric, Franciscan University of Steubenville
Benjamin Zycher, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research

* Affiliations are listed for identification purposes only.

His plan would control government spending by vetoing every bill with earmarks, implementing a constitutionally valid line-item veto, pausing non-military discretionary government spending programs for one year to stop their explosive growth and place accountability on federal government agencies.

His plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D.

His plan would also create a new and much simpler tax system and give Americans a free choice of whether to pay taxes under that simple system or the current complex and burdensome income tax.

His plan would open new markets for American goods and services and thereby create additional jobs for Americans by supporting good free trade agreements, such as the one with Colombia, and working with leaders around the world to avoid isolationism and protectionism. His plan would also reform education, retraining, and other assistance programs so they better help those displaced by trade and other changes in the economy. His plan addresses problems in the financial markets and housing markets by calling for increased transparency and accountability, by targeted assistance to deserving homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and by opposing so-called reform plans which would raise the costs of home-ownership in the future.

The above actions, as well as plans to address entitlement programs — especially Social Security, Medicare and other government health care programs — and his regulatory reforms — especially in the area of health care — constitute a broad and powerful economic agenda. Because of John McCain’s experience working with the American people in all walks of life, with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with leaders around the world, we are optimistic that these plans will become a reality and will create jobs and restore confidence and strong economic growth.

His plan would keep taxes from rising, because higher tax rates are exactly the wrong policy to restore economic growth, especially at this time.

His plan would reduce tax rates by cutting the tax that corporations pay to 25 percent in line with other countries, by completely phasing out the alternative minimum tax, by increasing the exemption for dependents, by permitting the first-year expensing of new equipment and technology, and by making permanent a reformed tax credit for R&D.

His plan would also create a new and much simpler tax system and give Americans a free choice of whether to pay taxes under that simple system or the current complex and burdensome income tax.

His plan would open new markets for American goods and services and thereby create additional jobs for Americans by supporting good free trade agreements, such as the one with Colombia, and working with leaders around the world to avoid isolationism and protectionism. His plan would also reform education, retraining, and other assistance programs so they better help those displaced by trade and other changes in the economy. His plan addresses problems in the financial markets and housing markets by calling for increased transparency and accountability, by targeted assistance to deserving homeowners to refinance their mortgages, and by opposing so-called reform plans which would raise the costs of home-ownership in the future.

The above actions, as well as plans to address entitlement programs — especially Social Security, Medicare and other government health care programs — and his regulatory reforms — especially in the area of health care — constitute a broad and powerful economic agenda. Because of John McCain’s experience working with the American people in all walks of life, with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, and with leaders around the world, we are optimistic that these plans will become a reality and will create jobs and restore confidence and strong economic growth.

Professor Busch on Jesse Helmes, My Thoughts on an American Statesman

If only that axe had gone to town...

Permit me an aside before I weigh into discussing the legacy of Jesse Helms and our own Associate Professor Andrew E. Busch take on that man's life.

I consider Jesse Helms one of America's real modern statesmen the fact that he died on the Fourth of July makes me wonder if Thomas Sowell's warnings against cosmic justice might be just a bit off. There simply must be a God who intervenes on our behalf for Helms to share the company of Adams and Jeffferson. I needn't remind the scholars here that Calvin Coolidge, perhaps our greatest peacetime president of the 20th century, was also born on the Fourth of July.

Helms was a divisive figure to be sure and his own life was full of the very things that pester and vex the anointed among us as Professor Busch notes in today's National Review symposium. Busch reminds us that "Jesse Helms should be remembered, first and foremost, as one of a rare breed of politicians who simply did not care what the New York Times said about them or about the wider world." (How comforting to think that there was once a politician in America in the G.O.P. that didn't care to be the best mates with the mainstream media! Are you taking notes, John McCain?) Nowhere is Helms's disdain for conventional politics more evident than when he aired this ad in the 1990 election.


h/t: Roger Clegg of NRO

(Any Democrats out there might be willing to explain to me how this most recent attack ad on Italian-American Republican isn't racist when it compares an Italian-American to a gangster for his admittedly shady dealings. Naturally, they've taken it down before the voters get a chance to weigh in and after the damage is done. Of course Democrats cannot explain this lapse in their judgment anymore than Julian Bond was able to explain his silence over the tactic of Democrats to throw Oreos at Lt. Gov. Michael Steele during his U.S. Senate bid or than they are able to justify the wholesale internment of an entire race in the United States during World War II.)

While Democrats whine that this advertisement is somehow racist or plays on our fears -- as if the class warfare that they espouse and so often descends into racial rhetoric a la Watts and L.A. riots is made of the same stuff as child bed time stories -- I find it comforting to think that there once was a man who wasn't afraid to say that A is A and that he is against arbitrary, racial categorizations.

As we go to the polls in five states to prove yet again that the Constitution is a color-blind document and as the Democrats have already nominated another racial bean counter to run for President, I'm left pondering whether or not the Democrats understand the concept of natural law at all. Worse yet, I'm wondering if the Republicans so intent to win, aren't becoming "me too" Republicans, afraid to make a stand lest it offend.

Even Helms though, couldn't defeat the awesome power of Bono. Late in life, Helms joined Bono to fight for more foreign aid, even though foreign aid hasn't been working. Alas, no man is perfect, but I really hate this photo.

Jonah Goldberg on Charles Kesler and a Conservative Critique of the Iraq War

CRB rocks, says Goldberg

CJ's Note: I've been meaning to blog about this for awhile now, but my hand has been hurting and so I've been forced to cut back. No longer, the hand is 80% better thanks to the hand brace. Thanks for all the help that you guys have been giving me.

Jonah Goldberg of The National Review and author of Liberal Fascism and Peter Beinart of
The New Republic discussed conservative critiques of the Iraq war on bloggingheads.tv. The whole episode is very interesting and the two editors move right into their discussion almost as seamlessly as they did their ill-fated internet T.V. show, What's Your Problem?.

Peter Beinart posits that the most substantive critique of the Iraq War is not liberal, but fundamentally conservative -- that cultures and nations are fundamentally a process of evolution that cannot be imposed from on high. He cites Jeanne Kirkpatrick as the inspiration

Beginning around 5:30 seconds, Jonah Goldberg argues that the best Burkean, Hayekian, and substantive argument against the Iraq democrati comes from, what for it, Charles Kesler and the "superhawks" of the Claremont Review of Books who argue that we had a duty to overthow Saddam, but that we shouldn't have gone on a Wilsonian project, but followed the axiom that "rubble doesn't make trouble."

Beginning around 10:30, he says that he is an "enormous" fan of The Claremont Review of Books. He says we should have fought for constitutionalism --freedoms of speech, rights to due process, etc, -- instead of democracy, which simply shows the deep divisions within the society.

I'm pretty much in that camp, but I doubt that you can do it for the very Hayekian reasons that Goldberg said. To paraphrase George Will, "nation-building" is like "orchid-building" and likely to lead to just as much success.

A Lot Less Gold on the Road to "Greener" Pastures?

As all of you know, I am opposed to colleges spending money on things that are completely opposed to our mission of educating students at the lowest possible cost.

As I've said and will say again, save the world on your own time with your own money.

Perhaps Henry Kravis is putting his money where his mouth is.

The Chronicle of Higher Education reports what will happen with Mr. Kravis's nice, tidy gift of $75 million.

The building, to be called the Kravis Center, is scheduled for completion in 2010 and will include classrooms, research institutes, faculty offices, and the Office of Admission and Financial Aid. The building will incorporate sustainable design and “become both the literal and symbolic heart of our institution,” Claremont McKenna’s president, Pamela Gann, said.

I don't know the particulars of the negotiations that went into Kravis's $75 million gift. He may well have asked for a green building, given his private equity firm, KKR, struck a deal with the Environmental Defense Fund to promote "green portfolios."

If he did follow on the bandwagon, he'd simply be following in the footsteps of what some of the cognoscenti seem to cry out for nowadays, not the least of which is our very own Roberts Environmental Center, named after Kravis's cousin and business partner, George Roberts.

Obsessed with "sustainability," (read: anti-growth) they publish a list of socially responsible corporations that "take[] environmental and social matters seriously and acts responsibly" -- whatever that means.

Of course the real purposes of companies has always been to make a profit. The very organization of the firm itself is to lower transaction costs so that we might achieve that process faster. (Thank you, Professor R. H. Coase.)

So the real question is there anything to "social responsibility"?

According to the July/August issue of The American, "specific goals to reduce emissions led to a decline in stock prices." They cite this working paper by two Dartmouth economists, Karen Fisher-Vanden and Karin S. Thorburn.

How does that compare to the Claremont colleges?

Well, I admit I haven't fleshed this on out as much as I can, but I would image that if you think of endowment growth, dependent in large part on returns from the stock market, like the amount of money coming into a company than voluntary efforts to curb CO2 emissions might end up hurting the school as a whole.

In turn, this lead to higher costs for the students as college is already growing much faster than the rate of inflation, which in turn means that fewer students could afford attending college.

This pledge is probably more dangerous to our endowment and growth potential than it is for companies. While normal companies will do exactly the amount of P.R. necessary before they start to lose a profit, colleges are under no such pressures to cut costs and can therefore sign silly pledges such as this one.

Part of pledge that Gann signed calls for making at least two of these steps.

Adopting green standards for buildings;

Requiring ENERGY STAR certification for products purchased by the university;

Offsetting emissions due to air travel;

Encouraging public transportation;

Purchasing energy from renewable sources; and

Supporting climate and sustainability shareholder proposals through their endowment.

What signing this pledge ends up doing is making it politically okay for left-wing groups to pressure the administrators to "divest" from companies that get unfavorable "sustainable" reports from such groups as the Roberts Environmental Center. (Expect a post in the coming days about just how silly their most recent report, "Analysis of Sustainability Reporting of Fortune Companies in California," is.)

Pomona's President also signed the pledge and the recent efforts toward "share holder accountability" at Pomona during their anti-Coke meeting. I covered that silliness here. When do you think it will start coming to Claremont McKenna?

Stephen R. Kay, Prosecutor of the Charles Manson Family, on Susan Atkins

Most of the readers of The Claremont Conservative weren't alive when the famously brutal Charles Manson murders took place back in 1969. Most of us know the name, though -- Manson -- and the sheer horror the name invokes goosebumps or chills that rival anything to come out of Hollywood.

What many of you may not know is that one of the people prosecuting him and his "family" was Stephen R. Kay, (CMC '64) then a young prosecutor fresh out of law school. (Kay spoke in 1997 at Claremont McKenna on the murder of Linda Sobek, a starting 27-year old fashion model. It is well past time for us to bring him back to campus.)

Kay has been going to almost every single parole board hearings for each of the Manson family members to describe why they ought to be kept in prison. He's right, of course, all of the Manson family deserved the death penalty for their heinous crimes -- until an activist California Supreme Court threw out the death penalty for an estimated 115 killers.

So why do I mention Kay and the Charles Manson family?

Well it turns out that one of their members, Ms. Susan Atkins has been diagnosed with terminal brain cancer. She has less than a year to live and many people want her to get out of jail and die with her "family." (Ms. Atkins married to attorney while in prison. He has represented Atkins at her most recent parole hearing, during which Prosecutor Kay showed just the sheer breadth of all he knows about the Manson family and Atkins in particular. He starts with his closing statement, "Susan Atkins is obviously not suitable for parole," (video linked there) and it just gets better from there.)

Atkins murdered a pregnant woman - actress Sharon Tate and her 8 month old fetus. She confessed to the crime and even admitted to playing with -- and tasting -- Tate's blood. She was the one who wrote the word, "Pig," on the window after massacring Tate and her family.

Of course, you won't hear that from the media which apparently has taken up the issue of Atkins's parole, which they call a release on "compassionate grounds." A few have even noted Ms. Atkins's acceptance of Christ as her personal savior.

No where do they mention the question of whether or not Atkins treatment of Tate was "compassionate."

Fortunately, Suzan Hubbard, California's director of adult prisons, has to her credit, rejected release for Atkins. Hubbard is absolutely right to reject Atkins's release -- Atkins has had her request for parole rejected 11 times!

Just listen to Tate's sister, Patti describe the loneliness and struggle she's gone through. Attorney Kay's seated next to Ms. Tate.

Happy Fourth of July, Claremont Colleges

Still there, even with the bombs bursting in air

Today is the day where we celebrate the immortal words of a beautiful document that celebrates self-evident truths.

But, at the end of the day, all the words on parchment mean little if men and women of good will are unwilling to defend them. There are many, many patriots that have come out of the Claremont Colleges just as there were many who entered its first class.

Let's consider just a few of them here. Fortunately, Professor Ward Elliott has already gone to the trouble of chronicling that important history. The asides are his, written in brackets.

Many of CMC's returning Vietnam veterans were spat upon by angry protesters, who made a special trip to the airport for the purpose. Three CMC alumni, all officers and two of them ROTC graduates, were spared this indignity because they did not come back. Army First Lieutenant Jesse Clark III, '65 hit a mine on patrol in Vietnam, April 12, 1966, and died the next day. He received the Bronze Star for gallantry and the Purple Heart. Captain Stewart R. Moody '67 was a second-generation Army officer who had been a "Berger [Hall] Boy" at CMC on an ROTC scholarship. He too served in the First Air Cavalry Division and went down with his helicopter January 3, 1970, at the age of 24. His friends describe him as "friendly, a straight-shooter, tough as nails." Navy lieutenant (j.g.) William A. Pedersen '68 also went down with his helicopter. Pedersen had volunteered for service in Vietnam, served his full tour of duty, and won the Navy's Air Medal with strike/flight number "25," indicating 25 strike-flight awards. He also received the Navy Commendation Medal, with Combat "V." When his tour was over, his replacement was not expected for ten days. Rather than subject the men with whom he had served to extra duty, he volunteered once more, to serve until his replacement arrived. On the second day after answering this final call, he was killed in action. Pedersen was a student and fellow cycling enthusiast of Harry Jaffa, who had pedalled the San Gabriel foothills with him many times on pre-dawn rides. Jaffa dedicated his book The Conditions of Freedom (1975), to Pedersen with these words:

Billy Pedersen was a scholar, an athlete, an officer, and a gentleman. He was one of those "golden lads" of whom A.E. Housman wrote, who went to war, not gaily, but without a doubt that freedom and duty spoke with a single voice.... His patriotism was so natural to him that I think he was hardly aware of it.

[Pomona lost 5 alums in Korean War, one, Ronald Penn, PO '63 in Vietnam. HMC lost one alum, Douglass Yuki '69; Pitzer and Scripps lost none. As far as I know, CMC lost no one in Korean War; need to check with alums.]

To the C.M.C. students who have served, will serve, and are serving, thank you.

CMC's Creed Versus Gann's "Sustainable" Mission

Gann Delivers the Word to the Masses

Upon first glance Claremont McKenna's mission is that which Benson, Salvatori, and McKenna set out for us. We must follow our motto, crescit cum commercio civitas-- "Civilization prospers with commerce."

But, President Gann has created another motto for us -- "sustainability." (I haven't the foggiest what that is in Latin -- or English, really.)

While Pomona jettisons its alma mater, "Hail, Pomona, Hail!" because it is has fallen out of fashion by the unelected elites who see it as racist, so too has Claremont McKenna's President, Pamela Gann rejected our motto and our mission in favor of what she wants. Long has it become fashionable among certain members of this community to say how bad i