Professor Pitney on the Liberals Next Public Enemy Number One

You might have been following the so-called debate about Rush Limbaugh as the leader of the Republican party. Over at The Huffington Post, Sahil Kapur CMC '09 says that Rush Limbaugh it is "disturbing" that Limbaugh is the head of the Republican Party. 

That's funny. Having been a Republican now since high school, I hadn't heard. Maybe in the years since I became a Republican, I missed a memo or two? I'm not a "ditto head" and I don't listen to Limbaugh or any other talk radio host and I don't watch Fox News, but neither do a lot of left wingers and that has never stopped them from commenting as if they were the authorities on who we are. 

But if I had to really explain why left wingers dislike Rush Limbaugh it is because Limbaugh is an effective spokesman that brings the fight to the left's home turf: pop culture. With an estimated 20 million listeners, Rush doesn't dictate what to do from on high. He entertains and he informs and he's gone and made a whole lot of money with his voice. In short, he's an excellent entertainer who engages all kinds of people. 

Maybe the Left, though, has taken advantage of the fact that the Republican party is effectively leaderless. We don't have a leader right now -- and that's a good thing. We don't need one. Part of the problem with Republican party is that, like the Democrats, they are looking for the White Knight -- or so we're told, the black Knight and/or  the brown Knight in the cases of Michael Steele or Bob Jindal -- to rescue them. No hero will come; no philosopher king will emerge. We must organize ourselves and build ourselves up. 

In any event, Professor Pitney in National Review Online, suggests that the next person that the left will attack is Chief Justice John Roberts in that his Court will probably slow down the excesses of the Democrats. Well, we know that they aren't immune to character assassinations and that they play for keeps, so I suspect Professor Pitney is right.

My Views on Medical Marijuana

With the current legal wrangling over the federal conviction of Charlie Lynch, a California medical marijuana dispensary owner, I've felt its time for me to come out strongly against the federal government's sickening prosecution of honest, state-law-abiding Californians. I've been following the prosecution of Charlie Lynch for quiet some time and will hopefully be attending the sentencing on April 30th at LA's Federal Court House. If you don't know who Charlie Lynch is, watch this video. 

Part of the reason I have never felt fully comfortable describing myself as a conservative is that I hate the War on Drugs, which I regard as one of the most colossal wastes of resources in this nation's history. Fortunately, at least three CMC economics professors -- including Professor Colin Wright -- agree with me, as Nirant Gupta CMC '11 has pointed out in his blog post over at The Compass. [That was your CMC connection]

Truthfully, I'm a federalist. If the federal government doesn't expressly have the power to ban a drug, then the 9th and 10th Amendments, in all their glory, apply. States should be free to regulate marijuana sales within their borders and I'm pleased to report that my home state of Massachusetts decriminalized marijuana, but they shouldn't have to reassert an authority that they already maintained before the federal government stripped it away. Part of the reason is that states are the ones that really bear the costs of addiction with swelled welfare rolls, hospital visits, etc. and so it is they who must be able to carefully tailor their policies.

In my short twenty years on this planet, I've known far too many people with cancer -- the saddest one of which was a good, high school friend. Though I don't know if medical marijuana would have altered her chances, I remember just how emaciated she looked and how tired she was. She died when she was sixteen.

My mother, too, had cancer twice when I was growing up. I was seventeen the last time, eight the first time, so you'll forgive me if the cancer thing is something that more than infrequently occupies my thinking.  Although she is thankfully in remission, I remember a friend asking me one time if I would have gone to get marijuana for her had she asked. Although I am very much against all forms of drugs, I would probably have done it. You can imagine the story -- yes, the first and only pot I bought was for my cancer stricken mother. In any event, looks like Massachusetts may flat out legalizing marijuana (to pay for their socialized state services, hey you can't win them all), and so thankfully people like me won't have to choose between helping those they love and following the law. Of course for anyone put in that position, it's an easy choice. As Frederic Bastiat, one of my favorite writers, once put these kind of dilemmas, "When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law." God willing, some policy will come about to reconcile the two.

Tibor Machan at the Athenaeum

For those who couldn't make Tibor Machan's CMC '65 Athenaeum talk, here it is. I apologize to the shaky video and the audio. I recommend turning it up.

Part 1.



Part 2.



Part 3

Professor Rossum on the AIG Bonuses on the Radio

I've been wondering a lot about whether or not TARP or the bills that were passed to punish AIG are constitutional. I admit that that might seem a worthless question in a world that deifies its president, but I'm asking it nonetheless.

Fortunately, this is ground that has already been trod over by my advisor, Professor Ralph Rossum. You can listen to Professor Rossum who was on the radio Friday discussing the contracts clause and the AIG scandal of taxing the bonuses at 90 percent. How does Professor Rossum feel? "The hope is that common sense might prevail. . . . It is a travesty."

All of the banks will be disadvantaged from attracting good people, says Rossum. Credit is going to shrink and the recession will be driven on and on. Rossum argues, "what about the sanctity of contract? Most of the people who were responsible were in England, says Rossum. These are the people who could have left, but are now working to right AIG and by proxy, our economy. Rossum argues that the taxes are being used for purposes of punishment. He calls it the "perfect hypocrisy" when Congressman Barnie Frank, who helped Frannie Mac and Freddic Mac, demanded the names of anyone who got the bonuses. Less than one tenth of one percent is what was spent on AIG bonuses in the total stimulus bill, says Rossum. 

Here's a summary from a recent article about his visit on the radio.

His Friday broadcast spotlighted the American International Group Inc. executive bonus debacle that lawmakers are lashing out over in Washington D.C. His guest: Ralph Rossum, American constitution professor and director of the Rose Institute of state and local government at Claremont McKenna College.

Rossum shed light on what "ex post facto law," or retroactive law, entails and went into detail about how the constitutional powers of Congress to tax workers for the "general welfare of the United States" relates to AIG executives.

For those who are looking for more, please see George Will's piece, "Bailing Out of the Constitution." 

In another segment, Professor Rossum continued to talk about the contracts clause, bills of attainder, and the U.S. Constitution applied to AIG. He gave a rundown of all of the things that AIG was involved in. 

What is a bill of attainder? Article I, Section 9 is a limit on Congress, an ex post facto law is one that is passed after the fact. But here's the problem, an ex post facto law only applies to criminal law, not civil law. In the past, Congress has raised income tax rates retroactively to the beginning of the year and so, the bonuses tax is probably not an ex post facto law. 

A bill of attainder punishes identifiable individuals for particular punishments of one sort of another. Seeing as the bill is going to hit people at Bank of America, CitiBank, GM, and others and that it wasn't expressly targeted at AIG people, it may not be a violation of a bill of attainder either.

Can congress tax AIG to "pay for the general welfare"? The Courts have ruled in Butler v. United States that Congress can tax whenever it thinks its in the general welfare. The Court will "play dead" on this issue, Rossum predicts.

Rossum says that there is no way to stop this punitive tax from going through. The hope is that in the Senate some sanity might prevail or that Obama might veto it. So, no, this measure is going to be sticking around, says Professor Rossum. Well, there's a chilling thought.

A Must Attend Event for Conservatives and Libertarians

Brought to you, in part, by yours truly, who sought out and invited, Dr. Machan to campus. 

Classical Liberalism in the Age of Obama TIBOR MACHAN ‘65 MONDAY, MARCH 30, 2009 LUNCH 11:30 a.m., LECTURE 12:00 p.m.   The election of Barack Obama was historic. But what does his administration portend for classical liberalism? Senator Obama campaigned for higher taxes on the wealthy. His administration enacted a $787 billion economic stimulus. It has also increased federal spending and budget deficits. Professor Tibor Machan will address these issues and others in his Athenaeum talk. A former editor of the libertarian magazine, Reason, and a graduate of Claremont McKenna College, Professor Machan is a scholar and author of dozens of books on individual rights, libertarianism, and ethics. He is professor emeritus in the department of philosophy at Auburn University, and holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair of Business Ethics and Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics at Chapman University in Orange, California. Professor Machan is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, an adjunct faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. Tibor Machan’s visit to CMC is sponsored by the Salvatori Center for the Study of Individual Freedom in the Modern World.

Kyle on KSPC Questions "Safe Spaces"

Update: It's Starbird, not Stewart.

Kyle Kinneberg CMC '09 was just on KSPC 88.7 FM talking about what has euphemistically been described as "the incident." That's when he and David Daleiden were banned from Pomona College for having the temerity to record a public lecture by a Planned Parenthood representative.

He was joined by two other guests, Greg Carter from Pomona's Student Union, and Bryn Starbird (sp?) from VOX, Planned Parenthood's mouthpiece on campus. 

We learned that 

1. Greg Carter and "others," possibly referring to Miss Starbird, approached Dean Miriam Feldblum to change the topic from one of abortion to so-called safe spaces on campus. I'd be willing to bet that even that conversation never takes place. 
   
2. That there is no real definition of a space space. Says Miss Starbird, "The reality is that we don't really have a definition of it." 
3. Bryn's view of what speech should be tolerated, "the goal of dialogue is to be constructive." Miss Starbird left out who would be the judge of whether that dialogue is "constructive" or not.
4. Bryn reiterated that it was Planned Parenthood's position not to engage any Live Action member. [One wonders if maybe that was why they wanted to go ask questions in the first place.]
5. That Bryn believes the banning episdoe wasn't about the boys views on abortion, "It was about respect" and that "talking about abortion isn't going to be helpful."
6. That the moderator and others believe that the problem is a lack of definition over what constitues a "safe space" and not the concept of a "safe space." "There’s this understanding that the WU is a safe space. It isn’t written down, people don’t understand it as a concept."
7. That Bryn believes that there is a "There is a very thin line between what you can do and what you can’t do. I’ve debated myself between what you can and can’t do. The issue of safe space goes into that issue. We found a disagreement about what’s appropriate what’s not appropriate. What as a campus is what we’re going to say is OK." What about individual rights? 

Kyle, to his credit, said, "We both know that it was Ms. Josel that shut down the questioning. I certainly don’t have a definition of safe space. Is it a space where you are safe from something or safe to do something? What are you safe to do? What are you safe from? You’re safe from intellectual discussion and opinions that are different from yours. I think that’s a very dangerous thing on a college campus and goes against the point of a university."

 And Bryn admitted that she agreed with that! 

But she said that if VOX or the Women's Union were going to have events, they need to make people feel "safe." One wonders what was so dangerous or unsafe about having people ask questions in a question and answer period -- that is unless VOX is really worried that the pro-lifers might present another viewpoint that makes people uncomfortable.

Kyle then asked if VOX would be willing to have a debate, only to be told that Planned Parenthood has a policy against engaging in dialogue with Live Action. I guess that's the definition of "constructive dialogue."

Greg carter than chimed in that "There is a time to talk about abortion policy and there is a time to talk about the trauma of making that decision. That is the point of safe space. There are places where you can have private conversations." But Greg missed an opportuninty to say why it was that there needed to be one place and why conversations outside of these centers couldn't take place.

Here Kyle reminded him that he didn't like the idea of deans making decisions about what is and isn't permitted speech. (You'll have to forgive him, but he was banned from Pomona by a certain overzealous dean, by the name of Marcelle Holmes.)

Kyle said, "In the face of those dangers [of chilling free speech], a question that we might consider is 'Is it good to have these safe spaces'? It does seem if we have them, we need a definition and if there are dangers associated with trying to define them, we shouldn't really have them."

Scripps College selects New President, Lori Bettison-Varga

Here's the link to the press release.

Bettison-Varga will take over from current Interim President Fritz Weis starting July 1, 2009. She is currently Provost and Dean of Faculty at Whitman College. She has directed the Keck Geology Consortium, of which Pomona College is a member, and has a B.A. from UC Santa Barbara and an M.S. and Ph.D from UC Davis. Before moving to Whitman, she taught at the College of Wooster, where she developed and taught a class on "Science, Gender and the Environment." She co-wrote this article about the course for Diversity Digest. Below, I've pasted the article in its entirety and commented a few of the more interesting claims. I save my disagreements for the end, mostly.

By Lori Bettison-Varga, associate professor of geology, and Charles Kammer, professor of religious studies, the College of Wooster

In 2003, we developed a course called Science, Gender, and the Environment for the College of Wooster’s Program in Interdisciplinary Studies. Our primary goal in teaching the course is to increase students’ environmental and gender awareness. By examining progressive movements, we hope to generate an appreciation for models and programs that are being used to effectively promote environmental sustainability and gender justice as well as to highlight the importance of scientific literacy to active citizenship. Another significant goal of the course is to challenge two assumptions held by many of our students: that science is a domain somehow set apart from other human intellectual enterprises and that only trained scientists can pose appropriate questions about or find solutions to environmental problems. [I agree here; intellectual curiosity is important!] Consequently, we emphasize the need for scientists to work with historians, sociologists, theologians, economists, artists, and others in the search for creative and just solutions to environmental problems. [However, I don't agree here entirely. See the end.]

The syllabus was designed to address several key questions: What is science and how is the scientific process “gendered”? Is there an inherent link between women’s sensibilities and the environment? How might scientific discourse be in tension with a feminist perspective? How does scientific “progress” sometimes adversely affect both women and the environment? [I realize these aren't claims, but they are certainly loaded questions.]

Students explore the complex relationship between gender, the environment, and science through several key texts. Refuge, a book by Terry Tempest Williams, is a very useful vehicle for stimulating discussions about our sense of place and the relationship between the natural world and gender. Works by Carolyn Merchant, such as Radical Ecology: The Search For a Livable World and Earthcare: Women and the Environment, also provide a variety of feminist perspectives. The paradigm that Merchant articulates helps students understand how the subordination of women is inextricably tied to the realities of class, race, and environmental degradation. This became evident in our studies of toxic contamination at Love Canal and in Woburn, Massachusetts (the subject of the book and film A Civil Action), of the flower industry’s exploitation of third-world women, and of Nobel Peace Prize–winner Wangri Maathai’s Greenbelt Movement. In all these cases, grassroots movements begun by women responding to the immediate realities of human and environmental catastrophes were opposed by male political and scientific bureaucracies that accused those advocating for change of relying on insufficient empirical evidence or faulty scientific method.

By focusing on a few specific issues, we are able to investigate topics in some detail and look at problems that extend from the local to the global environment. We require students to produce an environmental assessment of the local community and then move to additional readings and projects that focus on issues in Latin America and Africa as well as other localities in the United States. Students analyze problems, present solutions, and suggest programs for implementing the solutions. Topics include local water pollution, agricultural issues, and recent work in genetic engineering to develop pest- and disease-resistant crops. Students consequently wrestle with the multiple motivations of scientific work—for example, the desire to feed the hungry as well as the desire for corporate profits. Similarly, attention to the context of science allows students to recognize the impact of mono-cropping and of large industrial farms on sustainable communities or women in developing countries.

In class discussions, we approach science as a social construct. [Science is not a social construct; the scientific method, applied to a particular problem, will give everybody the same, reproducible results.]

As a result, we present a balanced view of science, acknowledging its benefits to society as well as its tendency to serve the dominant powers and reflect dominant social and cultural paradigms.

Investigating science from an ecofeminist perspective allows students to see that science, if not critically and reflectively applied, can have negative consequences. [Science should indeed be "critically and reflectively applied," but I'm not sure that taking an "ecofeminist perspective" is the best way to go about doing so.]

For this very reason, it is important that citizens be scientifically literate and that scientists work collaboratively with colleagues in the humanities and social sciences to develop successful solutions to environmental problems. This, ultimately, requires that the scientific community take seriously gender, justice, and sustainability concerns. [Scientific literacy can certainly be valuable; I'm currently declared as an Econ-Engineering major, and I'll be taking several science classes while I'm here. However, I'm not sure that "gender, justice, and sustainability" are worth worrying about. If anything, economics is the social science expressly designed to value concerns, and the invisible hand of the market can and does do so. To Bettison-Varga's credit, she mentions economists above. I just don't see how "sociologists, theologians" and artists are necessarily able to value these accurately.]

From Kyle Kinneberg

Hey Charles,

I'll be going on KSPC tonight at 5:20 to talk about the banning incident. It's part of the Uproot program, and the question we'll be discussing is "How should Pomona and the Claremont Colleges address the tradeoff between promoting freedom of speech and maintaining safe and supportive spaces for students?" I'll pretty much be arguing that "safe spaces" are contrary to the principles of the university/liberal arts college. Hopefully, it'll be enjoyable.

-Kyle

On Improving Social Life at the Claremont Colleges

I've been thinking a lot about how to improve dry life on Claremont Colleges. Though the Quiz Bowls are fun, they don't come around nearly that often. 

Josh Siegel and the same crew that brought us  Claremont Confessions and The Forum could set up a better web portal that allows for social networking on campus. [A side note: Anyone else having trouble loading The Forum on Chrome?]

Here's my modest proposal. Create a message board where students can advertise events quickly. A good example would be a poker game, a session of racquetball, or Settlers of Catan, which I know Charlie Sprague likes. Students could sign in -- it would descend into chaos if it were anonymous -- and create an "ad" or event that other students could follow or join. 

Students could then sign into events that they were interested in, say a poker game on the 5-Cs. Everytime a new event occurs about poker, that student could receive a text message or an email. Critics might ask if Facebook provides this same function, but I would argue that it is sorely missing. Many CMCers aren't on Facebook and the dispersal of information between friend groups makes it hard to keep everyone involved. 

After running the site for some time, Siegel and crew could sell the data they get to companies and maybe throw some good parties (or as I would like it, reducing student fees). I'm sure the company that produces Scrabble would want to know how often we all play it or people who sell beer want to know how often we play beirut a week.

Your Substance Free "Rights"

I agree with the spirit of this poster I found, but really it is a bit much. You now apparently have all sorts of rights. Where do these rights come from? Why, the dean of students, of course! 

[I apologize about this not all fitting on one scan. My scanner can only do 8 1/2 by eleven sheets easily.]

Inclusivity, Feldblum-Style

"For some faculty and students and staff, it's not that this is a great surprise," said Pomona Dean of Students Miriam Feldblum. "I think the fact of the matter is that Pomona can still be a challenging place to be ... [The Pomona College community has a responsibility to] figure out ways for our campus and our campus climate to be as welcoming and inclusive as possible."

Feldblum is referring to black students on campus, who we are told, don't like it at Pomona as much as white-Asian students do. Hmmm... might it be that OBSA and CLSA coddle those students and encourage them to feel oppressed? I digress, but I couldn't help but notice that Dean Feldblum wants to be inclusive on the one hand and then outright bans David Daleiden and Kyle Kinneberg on the other.

Finally, The Student Life Lessens Bias

I'm a frequent critic of The Student Life's often very slanted coverage and holier-than-thou attitude, but at least this week, I have to given them some credit for avoiding these pitfalls.

• On page 2, they gave The Claremont Conservative credit for the blog post George wrote about President Gann's announcement on the endowment.
  

• On the editorial page, The Student Life wrote against the screening of questions by the Claremont Democrats. They write,

The members of the screening committee were not listed anywhere, nor were they made public. The only scrap of information that we heard was that the committee was composed mostly of active members of the Claremont Democrats organization. Now if the Claremont Democrats had been the hosts of the event, they would be well within their bounds to screen questions. However, it was a Pomona College event. How then did they get prominent members on the committee? And where were the Claremont Republicans to screen questions for conservative speakers like Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? [Emphasis Added]

Answer: Conservative students, long denied free speech on campus and long maligned for the views that they hold, know better than to censor questions.

They cited Associate Dean of Students Neil Gerard's email to The Student Life that said that the efforts to screen questions were to "get quality questions without providing a bullypulpit [sic] for those with an axe to grind." The etymology of that phrase, "an axe to grind," is found here and refers to someone who has an agenda. Does everyone have an agenda of some sort when they ask a question? Whether that agenda be to get to the truth or show the speaker to be a bit full of himself or both, it shouldn't be up to the question screener to surmise the intent of the question. As usual, The Claremont Conservative was first in arguing against the screening of questions.

• Rebecca Golden's article, "The Real Bias-Related Incidents Are Political," was also an eloquent appeal against the "ultra-left" on campus. She believes -- and I'm inclined to agree -- that this group is behind much of conflicts on campus. She writes,

"Views that all white males have led easy, pleasant lives; that the sponsor program isn't diverse enough and ought to be restructured or replaced; that it's ok to remove trays in the dining halls on Tuesdays without asking the student body first; and that every bias-related incident ought to turn into a lecture on recent performances at Pomona College are not and should not be the accepted norm on campus. . . . The knee-jerk, reactive wing of the liberal party that is so vocal on our campus needs to recognize that no one- themselves included- has a monopoly on Truth."

Well said and thank you for calling attention to a real problem at Pomona College. I hope they don't go after you personally.

Video of Dan Pawson on the Tournament of Champions

Dan Pawson, CMC '2003, won the Tournament of Champions and pocketed a cool $250,000. (I think the government stole more than half, through taxes.) How did he do it? Watch the videos to find out. [Estimated runtime: 45 minutes or so, for both.]

Part 1 and Part 2. 

CMC Alums Out and About

Today, CMC alum, Thadd A. Blizzard, was named by Governor Schwarznegger to the Superior Court.

CMC alum and Claremont Institute Lincoln Fellow, Tommy Ross, was named to board of Premier Power.

A Great Evening With Fellow Classical Liberals in Los Angeles

Bryce Gerard, Sam Corcos, and I went to hear a panel discussion in downtown Los Angeles, "Is Capitalism Dead?" Wednesday evening. We were guests of the America's Future Foundation (AFF), which is the group that is funding the blogging contest in which we are finalists for a $10,000 award. 

It was put on in this really fancy hotel and most of the people there were well-to-do. They, according to David Kirby, executive director of AFF, owed their success to capitalism and all wanted to figure out ways to maintain capitalism. Many of them are exceptionally successful entrepreneurs who, like Hank Rearden types, don't apologize for their success. 

The panelists included Andrew Breitbart of Big Hollywood, Gene Healy of the Cato Institute, writer Conor Friedersdorf, (formerly of The Atlantic) and Adam Summers of the Reason Foundation.

All of the panelists were well spoken. I particularly enjoyed Healy's argument that our obsession with executive power harms our country. Whereas Bush expanded that power into national security, that provided an opportunity for Obama to reorder the entire economy. He said that our obsession with the president and how some people want him to "rule over America" effectively makes him a "talk show host with nuclear weapons." Much of Healy's remarks come from his book, The Cult of the Presidency, which I throughly enjoyed when I read it last month. 

He was right to point out that few Republicans argued against George W. Bush's spending programs, but I think he overstated the case against Rush Limbaugh, especially when he said "Dittoheads" was bad. He didn't know the history of the term. (Scroll down) [Andrew Breitbart was right to call him on it. We shouldn't be fighting over Rush. It's an effort of the Left to get us to fight one another.] Healy is wrong to suggest that there is a dichotomy between Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson and to say that it says anything about "where the right is intellectually."

Adam Summers and Conor Friedersdorf were also great speakers. I throughly agree with Friedersdorf that what the right needs are storytellers, people who are able to put faces to the excesses of the Left. Much of the work I've tried to do with The Claremont Conservative and now, The Claremont Independent is to that end. Friedersdorf also pointed to the Great Depression and his grandfather who refused to give up on capitalism. He asked if we would have given up on capitalism when so much seemed set up against it. Friedersdorf talked about how he discovered Ayn Rand and how much he enjoyed her work and compared it to his self-made grandfather who actually built his own home.

Adam Summers, for his part, cited Joseph Schumpeter, whose work is a big influence of mine, and who worried that democratic-capitalism would sow the seeds of its own destruction. Summers suggested that New Zealand might be the first country to escape the economic doldrums as it favors more laissez-faire economic policies. Summers was well spoken.

But the star of the show was Andrew Breitbart, who is the head of Big Hollywood, and has become the self-appointed bete noir of the Hollywood gliteratti for having the temerity to take on their sacred cows -- political correctness or moral relativism. Breitbart believes that part of the Right's big problem has been its cultural tone-deafness. The Left is chic; we're not. Breitbart is at work setting up a critical mass of conservatives in Hollywood who can defend themselves from black listing and to try and make the Right cool once more.

Breitbart, founder of Breitbart.com, the Huffington Post, and now, Big Hollywood, described his turn to the Right after being a college moron who had read all of those political correct books like Herbert Marcuse. Hollywood has gone from Gary Cooper and John Wayne to the "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s. And contrary to popular perception, Obama is not the president. Oprah Winfrey is. She did a "make over" of Obama and introduced him to Matt Damon and George Clooney. [It definitely seems he missed the opportunity to say that Obama had taken over the "You get a car!" wrong. He nows says to the car company, "you get a billion!" I also wished he would have said something about how comics had so marginalized Sarah Palin.]

I asked Andrew Breitbart when he was going to start "Big Academia," on a lark. He told me its coming. I'm so excited. Breitbart could have left college and left the rest of us behind, but he's now working to help us keep liberty alive on America's campuses. Good for him.

Sahil-Ilan final round

Here is Sahil's response to my response to his response to my comments on his original post. =)

Thanks, Sahil.

Reverberations Continue from David and Kyle's Banning

Here's the latest one to come across the desk, this time from Don Feder, political consultant and 19 or so year writer for The Boston Herald.

Feder's argument is against the kind of dogmatic, PC censorship we've sadly come to see too much of on these campuses, but he specifically mentions David and Kyle's banning earlier this month. Here are the essential graffs.

With honorable exceptions, administrators do nothing to discipline the bundists, either for fear of making themselves targets or because they're in league with them.

My encounter on the 11th was videotaped. It would be relatively easy for the university to identify those who kept me from speaking and punish them. One group, the Socialist Workers (an oxymoron if there ever was one), even bragged about their performance on their website and pledged to keep disrupting Republican events.

On the other hand, administrators have no trouble coming down like a ton of bricks on conservative students for almost any reason.

On February 19, two students from California's Claremont McKenna College attended a public lecture by a Planned Parenthood representative at neighboring Pomona College. The conservative students asked challenging questions and videotaped the response. (They turned off the camera when requested to do so by the speaker.)

Two Pomona deans went postal, claiming the students "interrupted the event" with "disruptive questions," which constituted "harassment or hostile behavior." The Claremont students were summarily banned from the Pomona campus. The ban was later lifted after a public outcry.

The Claremont students didn't chant. They didn't heckle or shout slogans. They didn't wave signs or laugh derisively. But, two (count 'em, two) conservatives were the equivalent of a lynch mob, in the eyes of pro-censorship administrators.

The left's double-standard on speech goes back to Herbert Marcuse. A new left icon, Marcuse taught '60s radicals that it was their moral duty to censor the right.

In his essay, "Repressive Tolerance" (published in 1965), the Marxist scholar explained that because conservatives are "oppressive," revolutionaries should be "intolerant towards the protagonists of the repressive status quo."

Marcuse's dictum was a great excuse for cowards and intellectual weaklings unable to deal with opposing views.

Feder is right to mention this double standard, which I have alluded to in other posts. If you remember back to the Karl Rove "protests," Dean Huang stood by when Pitzer students destroyed our fountains and then demanded that CMC students turn down their playing of "Slayer." Huang could easily have identified the students who prevented Karl Rove from leaving the Athenaeum -- many of them took photos which they put up on Facebook -- but he and the rest of the administrators did not look into it. Why not?

Sahil's Response to My Comments

Sahil has a very nice response to me on his blog, which I encourage everyone to read. I will reproduce it here with my original comments, to which he was responding. If you missed it, he wrote a piece in the Huffington Post about the difference between conservatism and liberalism, which you can find here. I put up my response to him on this blog yesterday.

First, I really want to thank Sahil for taking this debate seriously. While I clearly disagreed with his initial post, alas I think he was writing to his audience. Judging from his new post, we still have some key differences but I think we have some common ground. I think he's considered very seriously the issues I raised and has responded very thoughtfully. Original comments in bold, new comments in bold and italics:

I'd like to thank Ilan Wurman (CMC '10) for his response to my recent Huffington Post column about liberalism and conservatism. This is a debate I enjoy having. He makes some thoughtful points which I'll address now. The bold is Ilan.

This is just too juicy. Really? The core of conservative ideology does not lie in a thirst for heroes and villains; but many of us do tend to believe that good and evil exists in the world. Is that so wrong? Is it wrong to think that Saddam Hussein was a villain? Is it wrong to think that Hitler was evil? If you don’t think those things, then, well, there’s no real argument to fighting against what they did and believed. I certainly hope you wouldn’t take that view.

But more importantly, we don’t believe in good and evil simply; that you believe so is more indicative of the simplistic thinking of which you accuse us. Many religious conservatives do believe in good and evil, but one need not have a religious basis for the distinction. Many of us believe in natural rights, and natural law; that is, we believe that human beings can reason from nature what is by nature right and by nature “not right,” or rather, what is “against nature.” I will leave it at this for now – I’d only recommend that you pick up Aristotle or Locke for more on this topic.

Certainly good and evil exists in the world, and Saddam Hussein and Hitler were great examples. But in the modern unipolar world -- where fascism and communism have been largely defeated, where the strongest powers are mostly democracies -- we must define good and evil more thoughtfully, if we are to improve upon our condition. Good and evil resides within all of us. [In fact I completely agree with Sahil on this point regarding the nature of man. I think we disagree on the political ramifications. I think the nature of man means we should limit government power as much as possible, because that is the most concentrated form of power. Good and evil resides within all of us, indeed, but we also run governments. And we've seen what evil governments can do. I think this is a case for less government, not more.]

When I see dead bodies floating in New Orleans because a hack political appointee failed to act, that's evil to me. When I see the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street bankers who sank the economy and walked away with hundreds of millions in bonuses, that's evil to me. (Nothing wrong with making tons of money, but one must accomplish something positive first.) When I see the lies and deceit that precipitated the neo-con Mid-East policy, that's evil. [Fair enough, I suppose; but perhaps you are conflating incompetence with evil. I don't think anyone "lied" about Iraq intelligence, etc.; I think they genuinely believed that the intelligence they had was accurate. I'd add in any event that it was incumbent on Saddam to prove to the rest of the world that he was clean. He failed to do so, and the Bush Administration believed we couldn't ignore the possible risk.]

Moral clarity is a great thing and I don't think we disagree on the importance of natural rights; but defining good vs. evil as "us" vs. "them" largely diminishes the need to examine ourselves as well as others. The world is very complex today; we can't fix it with military might. Foreign relations must be dealt with in a more nuanced way, and that in no way requires sacrificing core values. There's a huge difference between engagement and appeasement. [Agreed!]

Visceral resistance to change and rigid adherence to tradition? Conservatives would hardly adhere to the tradition of slavery! The institution of slavery, was, of course, by nature wrong, and thus conservatives should and did (Lincoln) oppose it. But of course, you yourself would have no way to establish that slavery was wrong in the first place, since you don’t believe in “heroes” or “villains.”

Conservatives believe that tradition is important because it impacts the character of a people and the character of their politics. One cannot cast off tradition and expect the rest of society to come along responsibly and orderly. The main point here is that culture and tradition are important. For more on this, just read Burke.

I will add, however, that I find it ironic given your statements on tradition that you accuse us of a “tribal tendency to chastise those who are different.” In fact, we understand the importance of tradition to every society and would not dream of undermining, say, the important traditions of Islam while trying to promote democracy in the Islamic world. Which brings me back full circle: we respect tradition, but not if that tradition is “naturally” bad. Again, we wouldn’t hesitate to reject the status quo and push for “change” in a fascist society.

Essentially, your rejection of any grounds for determining what is good change or bad change, and what is good tradition or bad tradition, ruins your whole argument. You say we have a visceral resistance to change, but you never acknowledge that change can be bad.

Obviously, tradition isn't inherently bad and change isn't inherently good. But 20th-century-onward conservatives have been blocking a plethora of important changes. They've worked cohesively to block health care reform for about a hundred years. They opposed Social Security (until public support for it became overwhelming), Medicare, Medicaid and every such attempt at insuring the uninsured since the early 1900s. Maybe they didn't like the methods progressives were espousing, but we never heard an alternative. Conservatives have actively worked to block environmental regulations for decades, and many continue to deny basic climate change realities that the entire rest of the world has accepted. [Here we get into a problem of labels. It seems that whoever opposed change you think is good you'll call "conservative." The Democrats were the racists in the South, let's not forget; but they were "conservative." And Republicans went after big business in the early 1900s than Democrats, ditto on conservation/environmental issues, but they weren't real conservatives. And of course Richard Nixon of all conservatives created the EPA and Endangered Species Act! So how can you argue conservatives have been working to block such regulations for decades? I suppose there's some truth to that, but ultimately you have to be careful of labeling conservatives as the ones to always oppose good public policy solutions. And finally, let's not forget public education: clear example of failed government policy, and the liberals are the ones refusing to implement innovative public policy solutions.]

The main resistance to change I see today is the GOP's inability to grow up beyond the outmoded Reagan philosophy of 'government is the problem.' Maybe in 1980 this principle reflected the problems of the day, but I don't see how anyone can argue that today's issues are a result of too much government. Even unabashed conservative David Frum said the Reagan ship has sailed and the GOP must move on.

But between Bobby Jindal, Sarah Palin, Mark Sanford and the incoherent ramblings of Boehner, Cantor and McConnell -- the party shows no signs of adapting to the times. Michael Steele argued against Keynsian economics by making the brilliant distinction that government doesn't create "jobs" -- it creates "work." The party's weaknesses are mostly because of a power vaccuum and a lack of leadership, but the reality remains -- the conservative movement is still clinging to dated principles that don't reflect the sentiments of any more than a small minority of Americans today.

Conservative voices like Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity have slowly but surely come to define the movement. For a while nobody cared about them because they were just nutcases making background noise, but the conservative remnants of the new Obama age have sadly moved in their direction. It's very troubling because these individuals consistently display a pathological lack of empathy and compassion and arguably contempt for those who do.

This all sounds great, except conservatives don’t believe in any of what you are implying. Of course we would support helping the son of the crack addict get on his feet, in the form of treatment programs and job programs. But after that, it’s up to him. Of course conservatives don’t believe in zero environmental regulations. We live on this planet too. But we seem to understand precisely what you accuse us of not understanding: nuance. We understand that business growth is also important, and that we have to strike a balance. Our thinking on this matter is not simplistic at all. And of course we wouldn’t support stopping the checks from reaching your grandmother. Once we promised it to her, we have little choice.

Per my comments above: can you elaborate on what exactly this “complex and multidimensional” understanding of reality is? You haven’t given one iota of description.

Government is not categorically bad. It’s essential for national security. But it’s certainly NOT essential for health care or education. Let’s not forget how crappy decades of government-run schools have fared. But while you brought up the financial crisis, let’s not forget the government’s role in encouraging bad loans. What do you make of Fannie and Freddie?

Despite the dogma of unregulated markets bringing about a crisis almost comparable to the Great Depression, we haven't witnessed a change in tone on conservative economic philosophy. We're still hearing more of the same nonsense about how government is the problem. No, it was a lack of government regulation and a lack of oversight that was the problem. [Debatable on the causes of the crisis. And FDR/Keynes didn't get us out of the Depression, while Reagan most certainly DID get us out of stagflation.]

Since 2000, the average American is working more hours and is earning a smaller real wage. Poverty has risen, inequality has risen, a larger percentage of Americans can't afford health care and greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed. I don't know what else one can conclude from that except that the concept of unscathed, unregulated markets is simply not working for the country as a whole. But conservative leaders are singing the same old songs about how awesome freedom is. I don't see the nuance or balance in that; it sounds like a rigid adherence to tradition. This is what I mean when I refer to reality being too complex to reduce to pleasant catchphrases. [This is probably your best argument on conservative policy, and I'm not knowledgeable enough on economics to be able to answer it authoritatively. But to my knowledge inequality is not much of an issue: cheaper food and products, better health care, larger homes, more leisure time (I think there is disputed data on this) today all lead to better standards of living even if wages haven’t increased as much. The bulk of inequality has actually been caused by educational stratification, not the Bush policies! See Reihan Salam and Ross Douthat's book Grand New Party for more on this. I agree that there's more inequality, but the cause is the question, as is the ramification. It might not be so bad. As far as Health Insurance, you are right on the statistics but exaggerate the significance. It's about 1.5% lower now than in 2000, but we're already talking high 80s. Short of universal (crappy) government care, or some new free market mechanisms (HSAs, Out of state insurance, etc.) I don't see the number fluctuating very much. But yes, I would agree that Bush did not do much on Health Care. But he tried with the HSAs; a Republican Congress shot him down no less.]

On education: this is an area the government must invest more resources. As David Axelrod recently said, "the countries that out-teach us today will out-compete us tomorrow." The private sector isn't going to solve this one, although I think the vouchers debate is worth having. It'll also help considerably to dismantle the teachers unions, which in my judgment are causing much more harm than good.

As for Fannie and Freddie, there's a lot of sin to go around, but as far as this discussion goes it isn't worth getting into; my point was not that government is perfect but that there exists good and evil in both government and corporations.

But I think conservatives would agree that children should support their parents, and then we’d have fewer problems with social security. But then again, not everyone believes in family values.

This was a sleight of hand, my friend. 47 million Americans (many of which are conservatives) can't afford health insurance for themselves. How many do you think can afford to support their parents when their income is lowest and their medical/financial needs highest? [Agreed. But again, I think you mischaracterize the average conservative voter. The poorest should always receive some form of help, especially if they are old and literally cannot help themselves. The question is always whether one CAN help oneself. But I do not disagree here.]

And since you brought up family values, I'd just like to point out that divorce rates and teen pregnancy rates are highest in the conservative red states, which leads me to conclude that their claim to this concept is superficial at best and disingenuous at worst. [Granted, that's always been a slight hitch. But you might be mistaking cause and effect. Quite frankly, maybe the reason these red states are so adamant about family values is because they see first-hand what happens when they are neglected! I think it's been argued in Grand New Party that lower-income Americans are more affected by the dislocations and disarray that followed the Sexual Revolution and have responded by embracing a conservative politics that puts family first.]

---

I will say, Ilan -- you unfortunately don't represent today's mainstream conservative voice. I wish you did, because based on the discussions we've had I think your ideas are coherent and reasonable, agree or disagree with them. My gripes aren't so much with what you've espoused as with what mainstream conservatism seems to have become in the Obama era. Bush and Cheney radicalized the conservative movement and it has thus far shown no signs of recovering.

[Thanks, Sahil, for the compliment. This was very enjoyable, and hopefully such private debates will start characterizing the broader public debates.]

Save the Cars!

Looks like they are dispossessing the cars of their native lands.

An email from Jim Nauls.

This Saturday, March 28 Pitzer will host the Latino Rockabilly Festival in the (old) Sanborn parking lot and the lawn along 9^th St., as part of our Cesar Chavez Commemoration. Please remove your vehicle from Sanborn parking lot from 7am-7pm Saturday, March 28. Any remaining vehicles will be towed, as the entire area is needed for the event.

Thank you!

Dan Pawson is the Champion (of Jeopardy!)

CI alum and CMC alum, Dan Pawson, CMC '2003, won Jeopardy!'s Tournament of Champions. Here's how my hometown paper, The Boston Globe, describes it.

Pawson wins big

Aide to state Senator cashes in on 'Jeopardy!'

March 24, 2009

Dan Pawson -- a legislative aide to state Senator Bruce Tarr -- has won $250,000 in the 2009 Jeopardy! Tournament of Champions. And -- after last night's show -- everyone finally knows it.

The 27-year-old Allston dad took the tourney back in January, but has kept his triumph mostly to himself. He planned to watch his win last night with State House and college friends at the Sports Depot. "I'm covering everyone's first drink," he joked. "I think that's generous enough."

Pawson said he was almost eliminated during his very first game, back in 2007; he also had trouble with fashion questions during the championship. "There was a category all about ... who designed what dress. That did not go well." Still, his love of politics and study of world capitals more than made up for it. The most fun has been deciding -- with his wife, of course -- how to spend his haul. Student loans, charity donations, a house down payment and European vacation have all made the list. Interestingly, the tourney's second-place winner was Larissa Kelly, originally from Newton, who took home $100,000, according to producers.

A recent ASCMC survey came out and asked what we should be spending money on for activities. Might I suggest the Hub Quiz (which is exceptionally popular)? You never know when it might pay off.

For those of you inclined to stroll down memory lane, Dan Pawson was in the Washington semester program when the savages attacked on 9-11. He wrote about it for The Claremont Independent. Let me see if I can dig up a copy...

CMC Student in Huffington Post on Difference between Liberalism and Conservatism

I’ve taken to writing about the future of conservatism recently both on this blog in my debate with Dan O’Toole, and in the pages of the CI. Both Dan and I have commented on the differences between liberals and conservatives, even though we disagree to some extent. Now that I’ve seen Sahil’s article in the Huffington Post on his take of the difference, I had to comment.

First, I think Sahil’s article is very well written. I would expect nothing less from a fellow writing center tutor! He writes well, but I take issue with some of his arguments. I will go line-by-line on this one. My comments are in bold.

Key Difference Between Modern Liberalism and Conservatism: Nuance

By Sahil Kapur (Huffington Post)

We live in a complex era. Our problems are challenging and daunting. Finding the right solutions demands that we abandon dogma in favor of pragmatism. This underscores the current political debate between liberalism and conservatism. Crooks and Liars offers an interesting take on conservatism and 13-year-old CPAC speaker Jonathan Krohn:

‘After all, conservative thought (as it were) has always reflected the way a 13-year-old would view the world: like a highly dualistic, light-and-darkness morality fable, filled with heroic patriots and defenders of freedom contending against the slithering forces of puling liberal evil.’

It's witty and hyperbolic but there's a grain of truth to this, namely that at the core of the conservative ideology lies a thirst for heroes and villains, a visceral resistance to change, rigid adherence to tradition, fear of the unknown, a tribal tendency to chastise those who are different, and the encapsulation of complex realities into simplistic principles.

[This is just too juicy. Really? The core of conservative ideology does not lie in a thirst for heroes and villains; but many of us do tend to believe that good and evil exists in the world. Is that so wrong? Is it wrong to think that Saddam Hussein was a villain? Is it wrong to think that Hitler was evil? If you don’t think those things, then, well, there’s no real argument to fighting against what they did and believed. I certainly hope you wouldn’t take that view.

But more importantly, we don’t believe in good and evil simply; that you believe so is more indicative of the simplistic thinking of which you accuse us. Many religious conservatives do believe in good and evil, but one need not have a religious basis for the distinction. Many of us believe in natural rights, and natural law; that is, we believe that human beings can reason from nature what is by nature right and by nature “not right,” or rather, what is “against nature.” I will leave it at this for now – I’d only recommend that you pick up Aristotle or Locke for more on this topic.

Visceral resistance to change and rigid adherence to tradition? Conservatives would hardly adhere to the tradition of slavery! The institution of slavery, was, of course, by nature wrong, and thus conservatives should and did (Lincoln) oppose it. But of course, you yourself would have no way to establish that slavery was wrong in the first place, since you don’t believe in “heroes” or “villains.”

Conservatives believe that tradition is important because it impacts the character of a people and the character of their politics. One cannot cast off tradition and expect the rest of society to come along responsibly and orderly. The main point here is that culture and tradition are important. For more on this, just read Burke.

I will add, however, that I find it ironic given your statements on tradition that you accuse us of a “tribal tendency to chastise those who are different.” In fact, we understand the importance of tradition to every society and would not dream of undermining, say, the important traditions of Islam while trying to promote democracy in the Islamic world. Which brings me back full circle: we respect tradition, but not if that tradition is “naturally” bad. Again, we wouldn’t hesitate to reject the status quo and push for “change” in a fascist society.

Essentially, your rejection of any grounds for determining what is good change or bad change, and what is good tradition or bad tradition, ruins your whole argument. You say we have a visceral resistance to change, but you never acknowledge that change can be bad.]

Personal responsibility, individual liberty and less government are wonderful ideas, but like all successful concepts, they require nuance. To what extent does the poor son of a crackhead single mother who grew up without access to a good education have the personal responsibility to buy health care at exorbitant prices? Should he be expected to create a stable, happy life for himself while paying the same flat tax rate as Donald Trump?

At what point should Trump's individual liberty be so obstructed as to afford the government a slightly larger fraction of his multi-billion dollar pie so it can be spent on health care and education for the less fortunate? At what point should the Constitutional rights of oil companies to destroy the environment be called into question, so as to protect our planet and our children from our wastefulness and stubborn refusal to evolve?

In the modern conservative movement, 'less government' refers to the conviction that government is always and inherently bad. But there's nothing liberal or ideological about public services or building schools, bridges and roads. How about if big government were to slash that Social Security check to your ailing grandmother, forcing her to live in poverty? How about if big government were to cut Medicaid and your poor cousin could no longer afford treatment for a life-threatening disease?

[This all sounds great, except conservatives don’t believe in any of what you are implying. Of course we would support helping the son of the crack addict get on his feet, in the form of treatment programs and job programs. But after that, it’s up to him. Of course conservatives don’t believe in zero environmental regulations. We live on this planet too. But we seem to understand precisely what you accuse us of not understanding: nuance. We understand that business growth is also important, and that we have to strike a balance. Our thinking on this matter is not simplistic at all. And of course we wouldn’t support stopping the checks from reaching your grandmother. Once we promised it to her, we have little choice. But I think conservatives would agree that children should support their parents, and then we’d have fewer problems with social security. But then again, not everyone believes in family values.]

The alleged tenets of modern conservatism are great; they just need to be tempered with reality. That's where liberalism steps in. It subscribes to these principles but on a more thoughtful, nuanced level. Conservatives often decry liberalism as without a core philosophy. What they don't realize is that liberals do have core values; liberals simply understand that reality is far too complex and multidimensional to reduce ideology to a few overly simplistic catchphrases.

[Per my comments above: can you elaborate on what exactly this “complex and multidimensional” understanding of reality is? You haven’t given one iota of description.]

Government has flaws, but so does the private sector (as amply proven by the current economic crisis). It's important to realize the shades of gray in both. Some issues are so important and encompassing they demand government activism -- like combating climate change and providing health care and a quality education to everyone. Modern conservatism's unyielding assumption that government is categorically bad underscores its lack of nuance and extreme nature.

[Government is not categorically bad. It’s essential for national security. But it’s certainly NOT essential for health care or education. Let’s not forget how crappy decades of government-run schools have fared. But while you brought up the financial crisis, let’s not forget the government’s role in encouraging bad loans. What do you make of Fannie and Freddie?]

Complex times like these require complex thinkers, and conservative purists like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and all the others who still believe government should play no role in helping us out of this crisis are plainly not complex thinkers. The self-fulfilling tragedy is that those who run for office on a platform that government is bad are very likely to prove it if elected, by sitting on the sidelines and refusing to act when necessary.

Principles are vital, but they need a healthy dose of reality to make sure they continue to yield the desired results. Our core values should be cherished on their merits and questioned on their limitations. Any idea pushed to an extreme can prove more destructive than worthwhile. There's a fine line between principle and dogma; and we all know the latter isn't a virtue.

What Really Happened Between Me and Ross

Unfortunately, Ross Boomer's post today on The Forum in which he called me "pudgy" and "questionably evil." (He subsequently changed the post to what is written here.)

As several of my friends have been harassed by rumors on campus that I threatened to blackmail Ross, I have no choice but to respond to these untrue accusations. I had previously said that I would not put the email chain out of respect for Ross's privacy. I am keeping that promise, but I will provide the email chain to anyone who wants it.

This is the email that I sent to Ross. You'll noted that I never threatened him. It makes no sense for me to harass him because if I had, the blog post would still be easily accessible.

Dear Ross,

We have never removed anything from the Claremont Conservative in the year and several months that we have run the site.

I think it's disgusting and extremely immoral for you to have censored me on the Forum website.

I frankly don't want to get involved in your private life, but you ought to realize that if you run a website or make public decisions, those who oppose those decisions won't be as charitable as I am. And I can't say I'd blame them after you threatened my right to speech, with your capitalized "EVER."

Nevertheless, I'm willing to take the higher ground, even if you are not. I still expect an apology, even if it is private, and a revision of the policy towards censorship. My parents and I sacrifice a lot to be able to attend Claremont and $300+ (student fees) is no small amount of money. I expect to be able to participate fully in all things that receive my money.

Don't take this as CC policy; take it as a personal favor.

Best,
Charles

The Forum Changes Hands

Correction: I was mistaken when I suggested that the process for selecting Abhi Nemani as editor of The Forum was opaque and corrupt. Now if only we can get their budget and spending and allotment of spending to reflect same level of transparency...

Luckily, Ross Boomer, the Forum's Censor-in-Chief, is now gone. You might remember when he said that criticizing him was "b----ing" and attacked me personal again on the Forum website and when he deleted my completely appropriate comment against homosexual marriage.

I thought that this matter was settled, but Ross referred to me, sub silentio, as "pudgy" and
"questionably evil" in his missive from The Forum. He suggests that I tried to blackmail him. (I'll have you know that there's nothing "pudgy" about me. My last BMI analysis suggested that I was at "normal weight." As for "evil," I think that ad hominem attack speaks for itself.)

Ross is now starting this rumor that I threatened to out him as a homosexual, in some kind of sick retribution against his censorship of my views. Nothing like that happened and I'd be more than willing to share my entire correspondence with Ross with anyone who would like to see it, just email me. What actually happened was that he demanded that I take down a blog post about him on this site and got all of his friends to call my friends and tell me to do it. I left the blog post up and told him that I would leave it up until he restored my comment, but I eventually took it down after trying to be the better man. He responded by spreading rumors about me.

So long, Ross, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Pam Gann Offers to Ease Staff into Retirement

From: President Gann
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:33 AM
To: DL-Staff
Subject: Announcement from President Gann

March 23, 2009

Dear Staff Members,

In my last update in January regarding the College’s response to the economic downturn, I highlighted several measures that have or will be implemented to reduce the operating budget to prepare for the expected reduction in endowment support over the next several years.

As I indicated in my update, employee-related expenses represent approximately 56% of the College’s core operating budget, and it will be necessary to reduce these costs in order to avoid significant budget deficits in future years. Toward this end, the College has decided to offer a voluntary early retirement plan (VERP). The VERP is intended to provide a generous retirement package to qualifying employees who choose to retire effective August 1, 2009, while also helping the College to manage its overall costs.

Subject to certain limited exceptions, the VERP will generally be available to all benefits-eligible staff members who are 55 years of age or older, and who have ten or more years of continuous service with CMC. The VERP registration period will be open from Tuesday, March 31 through Thursday, May 7, 2009. The VERP will be available to no more than twenty (20) eligible employees. The College expects to open this program on a one-time only basis.

In addition to the VERP, the College is also evaluating the feasibility of implementing an Alternative Work Schedule Program. In particular, the College is currently reviewing a number of 12-month staff positions to identify positions that could potentially be adjusted to a 9 or 10-month work schedule with a pro rata reduction in salary. We expect have a better understanding of the feasibility of implementing this program once we have assessed the results of the VERP.

Within the next week, staff members who are eligible for the VERP will receive a letter from Susan Cozzitarto, the Director of Human Resources, which will explain the VERP, including the proposed benefit structure and registration process, in greater detail.

Sincerely,

Pamela B. Gann

UPDATE: Turns out I was informed. It is only staff.

Screening Questions? That's Too Bad

Will David Plouffe speak on the record when he comes to Bridges? 

If history is any indication, he won't. Watch this video to find out more. 

We already know that Victoria Din CMC 11 of the Claremont Democrats is screening questions for Plouffe. That's a shame and something you'd never see from Republican speakers. Karl Rove and Chertoff both took questions from the audience. Why won't Plouffe? 

CMC Course Catalogs: Can We Please Have a Return to This?

A loyal blog reader sent me this course catalogue information that he typed up from our first year as a college way back in 1946. Goodness gracious, things have changed. 

There's too much to discuss in this blog post, but suffice it to say, notice the lack of IR courses (a good thing) and the heavy focus on political economy (also a good thing). Equally a good thing is the emphasis on "work experience" at a "private employer."  

Although it's to the absolute shame of this college that it stopped teaching history freshman year and replaced it with the ever-feckless Civilization/Freshman Humanities Seminar. 

CMC Catalogs

1946:

"Dr. Gerald I. Jordan, Assistant Professor of Political Economy, received his doctor's degree at UC in public administration and public law.

"Stuart R. Briggs, Assistant Professor of Accounting, is a graduate of Brown Uni with graduate work in economics."

"The old term 'political economy' has been revived to express the broader approach used in this program."

FRESHMAN YEAR

History Ia, Ib: This course will survey thought and action in the western world from the earliest civilization to the present. The study of selected writings from the past together with recent historical analysis will seek to show the continuity of development in ideas and institutions throughout the period, and thus to promote an increased understanding of modern social and economic organization, political ideas and practices, and the influence upon thought of scientific and technological advances.

Political Economy, Ia, Ib: Comparative governmental and business systems: This course gives the student an opportunity to compare and contrast the major types of political-economic systems now existing in the world. The first semester is devoted to analysis of the American system of constitutional government and of free business enterprise. The second semester contrasts the individual liberty and controlled economy of England with the authoritarian government and socialized business system of Soviet Russia.

English, Ia, Ib:

Science, Ia, Ib:

Spanish, Ia, Ib:

SOPHOMORE YEAR

Political Economy, 51a, 51b: Economic Analysis: This course serves as an introduction to the methods of economic analysis as applied to fundamental problems of the business world.

Political Economy, 52a, 52b: Mathematics and Statistics: The first semester of this course is an introduction to those portions of higher mathematics necessary for the understanding of statistics and for advanced economic analysis. The second semester is an introduction to statistical methods as used in business and economic problems.

Spanish, 51a, 51b

English, 51a, 51b

Political Economy 53a, 53b: Accounting and Budgeting: Analysis of Theory and method of maintaining accounting records and budgeting controls in private enterprise and in governmental agencies. Emphasis will be laid on the fundamental principles of construction and interpretation of financial records.

JUNIOR YEAR

Political Economy, 131a, 131b: Industrial Relations and Personnel Management: Analysis of the underlying problems and practical techniques of approach to management-employee relations in industry and in the public service. This will include review of the main problems of Personnel Organization in Business and in Civil Service, Employment, Classification, Wage and Salary Administration, Performance Ratings, Collective Bargaining, Training and Testing. In each field, examples will be drawn from both private and public experience.

Political Economy, 133a, 133b, 134a, 134b: Problems of the American Political and Economic System: The introduction to American constitutional history will use to a large extent the case method of study. In each of the three specific problem courses, the methods of study of both business economics and political science will be used, and each problem field will be studied from the viewpoint of business management, the investor, labor, and government.

133a American Constitutional History: First Semester

133b Corporations and Public Utilities and their control: Second Semester

134a Money and Banking: First Semester

134b Property and Individual Rights: Second Semester

Political Economy 135a, 135b Advanced Accounting and Fiscal Control: Special problems of accounting, including income tax and cost accounting, will be considered.

Electives

During the Junior Year, students may select one elective from the list of courses in Pomona and Scripps Colleges given below or may take with faculty approval one of the courses offered in CGS.

SENIOR YEAR

Political Economy, 141a, 141b Business Cycles and Efforts to Control Them: This course is a thorough analysis of the greatest internal problem of American society, the control of major economic fluctuations. It will include historical, theoretical, and statistical analysis of the courses of cyclical fluctuations, study of their social effects, and study of the methods tried in the United States, Sweden, and elsewhere to reduce fluctuations. Special Attention will be given to the effect of economic changes on merchandizing and investment policies.

Political Economy, 152a, 152b: International Business and Political Relations: This course will include analysis of the forces governing international economic relations, including balance of payments, trade and quote agreements, and tariff walls. Problem of foreign markets and investments will be analyzed. Simultaneously the political forces governing international relations will be considered. In the second semester, one or more problem areas such as the Far East and Latin America will be intensely analyzed.

Political Economy, 153a: Administrative Organization in Business and Government: This course analyzes the problems of internal administrative organization as they appear both in government departments and in business corporations. Where necessary examples from military or other large-scale organizations will also be used. The latter part of the course will be devoted to problems of production engineering and analysis of business procedures.

Political Economy, 154a: Administrative and Business Law: This course analyzes the regulation of business by administrative tribunals, and the position of the courts as arbiters in business disputes. There is also a review of the basic principles of business law.

Political Economy, 155a, 155b: Honors Course, 1 year: If the student wishes to secure an honors degree, he will register in this course. Members of the faculty will give special supervision to the preparation of honors theses and preparations for honors examinations.

WORK EXPERIENCE

It is believe that, in a program of this type, practical experience is essential during the college years if the course material is to be adequately assimilated. Therefore students will be expected to work in some private enterprise or in some governmental agency during two or more summer vacations and to present, upon returning in the autumn, certification by the employer of the work performed. The school staff will aid in suggesting suitable positions. Exemptions from this requirement will be inadvisable, or when instructive travel or suitable research is presented as a substitute summer program.

Dan Pawson, CI and CMC Alum, Makes it To Final Round of Tournament of Champions

Will he end up winning? Tune in Monday to find out! 

It's a two-night event and the grand prize is $250,000.

Join the Facebook group to show your support. (There's a link to see when the show will come in your area, but LA will be 7:00 PM PS)

Click here to see more that I've written on Dan Pawson, CMC '03. Here's more on him in The Gloucester Times (a Massachusetts paper).