9/11 Remembered with Campus Memorial

By: Kaitlyn Stephens and Deema Tarazi

September 11, 2001 will forever be ingrained in the minds of United States citizens. Most people remember this date clearly, and it will stick with them for the rest of their life, especially the ones who lost loved ones. We even remember where we were and what we were doing when the planes hit the twin towers, regardless of age or world-view. This year, for the eighth anniversary, The College Republicans spray-painted the rock as they do every year.

The rock was painted in red, white, and blue. The rock read “Never Forget 9/11,” on one side. In rows behind the rocks, were American flags to represent each victim who was tragically killed in the 9/11 attacks.

The event was sponsored by the MSU College Republicans, however, there was no indication of the sponsorship near the rock. This was a deliberate move by the College Republicans. “We wanted this event to be non-partisan and for everybody to come together as Americans, not republicans or democrats,” said MSU College Republican Vice-Chair Ashley Towner.

Many people were passing by the memorial, merely walking to their classes. However, there were a few people who stopped by the memorial to take pictures, one was Hannah, a freshman who noticed the memorial on her way to class, said “We are still in a war, people die every day. [The attacks] happened eight years ago, but the war still affects our society.”

Another man was taking pictures of the memorial for a project to show all of the various uses and paint schemes that occur throughout the year at the rock. This same man remembered the first memorial that was conducted eight years ago. He explained that when 9/11 happened, College Republicans came out right away and spray-painted the rock. Out of respect for the people who passed away, the University asked other organizations to not spray over this memorial for a week.

Outside of those who took pictures and stopped by on their way to class to view the memorial, many people also slowed down in their cars to glance at the rock.

The memorial is very beautiful and moving. The colors of the American flag are always inspirational, especially on a day of remembrance. Hopefully Americans will continue to remember the tragic events of 9/11 and continue to preserve their sentiments. Just as it was used in the past to unite the students of this university, the people of Michigan, and Americans across the country, it will hopefully continue to have the same effect and continue to unite us as Americans.

The Big Game: UM Seeks Revenge on Sparty

By: Shane Henry

Can you feel the earth tremble beneath your feet?

Do you hear the sound of forests crashing to the ground?

You should, because Paul Bunyan and Babe the Blue-Ox are back in town for this upcoming weekend as Sparty plays host to arch-rival Michigan.

After an embarrassing home loss last year, the Wolverines have come back to East Lansing to reclaim the rights to the Paul Bunyan Trophy, not to mention bragging rights in the series in which Michigan leads 67-29-5.

Head Coach Rich Rodriguez took the reigns for the program last year and ended the season a disappointing 3-9, the worst record in school history. After reloading the program with a great recruiting class which included the likes of quarterbacks Tate Forcier and Denard Robinson, Big Blue is now 4-0 this year and looking for revenge.

The exact opposite can be said for the Spartans.

After piling up a 35-21 victory last year against the Wolverines, MSU finished the season an impressive 9-4 season under Head Coach Mark Dantonio. This year, MSU has struggled to find its rhythm, starting the season 1-3 through its first 4 games.

With the graduation of Javon Ringer and Bryan Hoyer from last year, the Spartans have suffered from a lack of leadership on offense, particularly at running back.

But Dantonio amassed a great recruiting class of his own, bringing in true freshman running backs Larry Caper and Edwin Baker. And along with the red-shirt freshman Caulton Ray, they have managed to fill the running back slot. Yet the Spartans have yet to find a middle ground at the position as they have started the season a disappointing 1-3.

But the offense isn’t the only of the Spartans’ struggles. Their defense has given up an average of 26 points per game, two of which 30 or more points were allowed.

On the other hand, Michigan is having defensive struggles this year as well. Still, the Wolverines’ deadly spread offense has compensated for the defense by averaging 38 points per game and an impressive 240 yards rushing per game.

Last year, the Spartans had Javon Ringer amass 194 yards on the ground along with two touchdowns in a game in which the Spartans managed to pass for 306 yards under the arm of Bryan Hoyer.

This is a much different Spartan team, and an even more improved Michigan team.

Simply put, if the Spartans wish to maintain control of the mighty Paul Bunyan Trophy, they are going to have to stop the powerhouse offense of Michigan and take advantage of the Wolverines’ undersized defense.

If the Spartans fail to stop Forcier and the endless onslaught of Wolverine running-backs, then we may be in for one hell of a shootout.

Speaker Brings Controversy to Campus

By: Christian Hokans

If you drove by the Kellogg Center on Tuesday evening, you might have been a bit surprised by what you saw. The sidewalk was flooded with a medley of individuals, from top hat wearing “coal barons” to activists shouting for health care reform. Why was the sidewalk littered with this colorful assortment? Because of one man: Glenn Beck.

Beck was the keynote speaker at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s “Future Forum.” The event was hosted by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce on Tuesday, Sep. 15 at the Kellogg Center. The main topic was the state of Michigan and its future. Other speakers included State Senator Mike Bishop along with President and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Thomas J. Donohue.

Glenn Beck is a radio personality and talk show host on Fox News. He was also recently featured on the cover of Time magazine. Because he deals mainly with current political issues, Beck regularly draws a great deal of controversy.

The MSU College Democrats organized the protest against Beck. Dem’s President Mitchell Rivard said, “We are not here to protest Glenn Beck. We are here to protest his statements and urge his financial backers on Fox News to remove their support for him.” They were not the only side of the issue present however. Supporters for Beck were present as well, one organizer saying, “I have been watching Glenn Beck for years and he makes sense, I think Washington has gotten arrogant and out of touch with the rest of the country.”

It was not merely a clash of two ideologies. The protest represented a variety of issues, including alternative energy, health care reform, corporate corruption and race. People held signs with slogans such as “Corporate Greed Kills,” “Health Care Reform Now,” and “Say No to Socialism.” Individuals themselves varied as well. Students and other community members alike stood side by side with signs in hand. The comic relief when a small gathering of “Coal Barons” arrived in top hats with giant dollar bills spilling from their suit coats. They were present in support of the Power Shift Michigan Conference that is taking place in Lansing from October 9-11.

As the gathering grew, both sides split into opposing factions on each side of the Kellogg Center drive way. Members of the MSU ACLU looked on “to make sure that basic rights [were] protected,” said one representative. Local News stations were also present covering the event.

While the protest went on, members of the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a private organization representing Michigan’s business interests, flowed in and out of the convention center. Some joined in with the protest, others just looked on. A pair near the door had their own outlook on the issue. “He’s just an entertainer like Cher or Michael Moore. I don’t see the problem.”

Maybe the best perspective on the matter, though, was summed up by a Vietnam veteran who sat on a bench across the street from the protest. “I’m just thankful that people can do this in our country.”

Public Option won’t Work, will Lead to Single Payer

By: Ameek Sodhi

Congress has adjourned for their August recess. Apparently, they needed a break from all the hard work they’ve been doing. The ticket item when they return will be one that affects each and every American: healthcare reform. It is one- sixth of our economy, and Congress is about to dive right into its deepest problems. But before they get carried away, let’s look at all options to make the most rational and economically sound decision about the American Healthcare System.

I will give Democrats credit for wanting to pass reform in the first place. The system is clearly broken and needs fixing. All the statistics they cite regarding costs being unsustainable in the future are all correct. Good job. Regardless of their recognition of a broken system, nationalizing healthcare will not fix the problem. Let’s start with the cornerstone of any left-wing bill that will emerge from this debate: The Public Option. It will lead to a single payer system, and it won’t work. Let me explain.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, healthcare costs $10 to produce, while $3 for administrative costs. That’s $13 for private insurance healthcare. The Public Option would come on the market and sell healthcare for say, $8 less than it costs to produce the equipment used for the procedures, let alone the doctor’s salary. How could government do such a thing? They would subsidize the $5 hole with tax dollars every year. It’s how France, England, and other countries with Socialized medicine finance their healthcare systems.

President Obama wants to get one-third of the costs to pay for this health care overhaul from taxpayers over the next ten years. It will be a subsidy to this Public Option, and it will drive private insurance out of business. The claim that you can keep your insurance if you like it does not make sense because private insurers can’t sell insurance for $8. They’ll lose money. But what’s so wrong about shutting out private insurance? Can’t government magically run health care for less money?

The CBO report tells a different tale. All the noise from the left about this report baffles me. The nonpartisan CBO’s head was appointed by the most liberal congress in decades, so criticism that the report was unfair or biased does not float very well. God Bless the guy for having the guts to present the report when he was expected to carry through for the liberals who put him in power. The report said, quite frankly, that health care costs will increase, not decrease, under the proposed legislation in Congress. It could not have been clearer. The skyrocketing costs, that we all agree are out of control, will get worse. And because of that, the deficit will increase to the tune of over 200 billion dollars. The Lewin Group along with the CATO Institute have concluded similar findings in their estimates. I find it very, very hard for anyone to defend this plan as it stands now, given the mountain of evidence against it.

None of the proposals given by Congress, thus far at least, address the fundamental problem with our healthcare system: cost.

It’s also worth considering why other countries spend less on healthcare. Other countries spend less because their citizens are waiting in line for an x-ray. People in America survive cancer 15% more than in other advanced countries because they don’t die in line waiting for chemotherapy. And, it’s important to note they eat much healthier than we do. That makes a big difference.

There is a reason people fly from all over the world to Boston, New York and Cincinnati. We have the most advanced care in the world. Let’s not mess with the world class quality we offer. The problem is that costs are much too high. So let’s fix that since it’s the main problem.

The first issue in addressing cost is that we should allow competition of insurers between state lines. As it stands now, someone in one state cannot get health insurance from an insurer in another. Insurance companies in states with higher costs feel no pressure to reduce costs because there is no competition from less expensive insurers across state lines. Let’s change that by allowing competition across states. Those same high cost insurers in certain states will be forced to reduce their prices; otherwise their consumers will simply drop their plans and buy insurance plans from less expensive out-of-state companies. Free market competition will make prices go down and quality go up because these insurers will have work to harder for less cost to keep their customers happy.

We can also do a lot to improve the employer-based structure we have now. We should allow small businesses and individuals to join pools, so that risk is spread out and therefore everyone’s costs will come down. Also, incentive based programs in companies have proven to be very effective. Some companies already pay their employees to get healthier and actually save money on healthcare costs as their employees are less prone to get preventable sicknesses. Remember, a large part of the reason we’re relatively unhealthy compared to other countries is that we eat very unhealthy.

Finally, it makes sense that all of the procedures, outcomes, and records be more transparent electronically. It would make it easier for individuals, businesses and doctors to make the most cost-effective healthcare decisions. The market works best when buyers and sellers have the most up to date and complete information. Healthcare should be no different.

Overall, I think there is a lot we can do to fix the healthcare system in our country. I hope congress looks at its own estimates and at all possible paths before it commits our tax dollars towards this effort.

Defending America

By: Fred Fico

Freedom is the foundation of America and freedom is what makes America the greatest nation on earth. Freedom in America is defined and governed by the civil rights of individuals that are independent of and superior to generic identities such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin.

Freedom is the identity that enables all these other identities: human beings are either free or they are not free, and they must be free before they can choose anything else. Moreover, freedom enables what universities claim to honor: the open enquiry that aims to illuminate what is true.

Yet, freedom is under attack at the colleges and universities where it ought to be most valued, including here at Michigan State University. The intellectual part of that attack takes place under the names “multiculturalism,” “diversity” or “cultural relativism.” The actual attack takes place through “speech codes,” prohibitions of “hate speech,” and, here at MSU, through “anti-discrimination” policies.

America practices a process for political decision-making that reflects three simple and easily observable principles that govern the relationship of individuals to one another and to their government. The first is that the majority rules, based on the free electoral choices made by individuals. The second is that individuals who make up minorities have the rights to freedom of conscience, expression, and organization that give them the possibility of becoming a majority. The third is that individuals who make up majorities and minorities accept and honor the first two principles as the “ground rules” for all other political struggle.

The university-based assault on this notion of freedom exalts a “multiculturalism” in which the U.S. idea of freedom is merely culturally determined and not fundamental to human nature. Not all people are, in its view, capable of this freedom or even want it. Further, the “moral” argument is made that this western idea of freedom should not be “imposed” on others.

More fundamental still, the idea of cultural relativism is anchored not in individual rights but in group, class, race or cultural identity. In effect, individuals have no rights; indeed, the idea of freedom is grounded in individual rights has no meaning in the context of multiculturalism or cultural relativism.

This attack on freedom in our universities has three origins. First, many faculty oppose any possibility that America might become militarily involved to “spread democracy.” Second, given militant and violent threats from secular and theocratic dictatorships, faculty cultural relativists resort to passivity as a safer course than confrontation. And third, cultural relativism is consistent with a distorted ethic of “tolerance” widely held and acclaimed by liberal faculty. “I’m OK, you’re OK” has metastasized into “My political system is OK; your political system is OK.”

Faculty who exalt this kind of multiculturalism thereby shirk their duty to value and defend our freedom and undermine the very ground they themselves stand upon. In particular, such faculty cannot credibly respond to attempts to destroy our freedom because it “offends” some accuser’s culture. More broadly still, faculty cultural relativists cannot credibly respond to those who would use democratic process to abolish democracy because they consider the collective will to be superior to individual rights. And worst of all, such faculty inculcate these doctrines in the classroom and thereby intellectually disarm the students they teach.

An organization started here at MSU last year, Conservative Faculty and Staff, is committed to defending the intellectual foundation of our freedom and freedom’s practical exercise here on campus. We will invite appropriate speakers to campus and address student organizations and groups to make these points. We will publish opinion pieces and disseminate information on this topic.

We will also identify the attempts to suppress freedom of speech (often carried out by faculty in classrooms in the name of “diversity” and by administrators implementing speech codes and anti-discrimination policies) and defend those so attacked, especially students. Ideological indoctrination in our classrooms and suppression of free speech in public forums is unacceptable and we will oppose these utterly and vigorously.

To summarize this as simply and clearly as possible, we will protect and defend freedom here at Michigan State University. To learn more, contact us at cfsatmsu@gmail.com

——
Fred Fico is the Chair of Conservative Faculty and Staff at Michigan State University, he is also a Journalism professor.

Bouchard Encourages Student Involvement at Campus Talk

By: Christian Hokans

With anxiety over more and more government regulation in the wake of the current economic recession, it may seem counter intuitive to elect a police officer to our state’s highest office. But don’t tell that to prospective gubernatorial candidate and current sheriff of Oakland county Mike Bouchard.

On Wednesday, Sep 8, Bouchard came to campus to tell students why he is the right man for the job and to ask for student involvement in his campaign. Bouchard addressed the MSU College Republicans at 8 p.m. in the Wonders Hall Kiva and laid out his plans for Michigan’s future. His talk included the auto industry fallout, student involvement in campaigns, and making Michigan more attractive to business.

Bouchard started his talk by telling of his past experiences at MSU where he graduated with a degree in Criminal Justice before becoming a state police officer. As an officer, Bouchard says he saw firsthand how judges “weren’t remembering victims’ rights, only criminals’.” This injustice motivated him to run for local office, thus starting his political career.

He went on to tell of his time in the state legislature where he passed almost 90 bills, nearly nine times as many as his fellow senators. Today Bouchard heads up one of the largest sheriff’s offices in the country, serving 1.2 million constituents. As a member of the police department, Bouchard said he had a chance to see firsthand the evils of government waste.

“Government has to reflect the reality in Michigan,” said Bouchard, as he talked about his plans to cut state spending on wasteful projects such as new snack stands in the state capitol.

As the sheriff of Oakland County, Bouchard has cut over $20 million from his budget in a number of creative ways, such as privatizing the meal services to prison inmates.

Along with fiscal responsibility, Bouchard says making Michigan attractive to outside business is also important. Reforming the state tax code would be among his top priorities as governor. Bouchard was not overly utopian in his goals, however, as he acknowledged that he will need to “work across the aisle” to bring a change in state policies.

Student involvement in the upcoming campaign was also one of Bouchard’s top priorities during his speech. He explained that there are many opportunities for students to get involved in politics, including everything from attending rallies and putting up signs to going to the upcoming Mackinac Island Republican Leadership Conference which runs from Sep 25-27.

Bouchard then illustrated how important every person is to a campaign by telling the story of a downstate candidate he knew that won by a single vote. Bouchard ended his speech with a rousing “Go Green” and was presented a MSU Republicans T-shirt by the group president Louie Glinzak.

The 2010 Michigan Governor’s race will hold primaries in Aug 2010 and elections on Nov 2, 2010. Other prospective Republican candidates are Sen. Tom George, Attorney General Mike Cox, Rep. Pete Hoekstra, Rick Snyder, and Timothy Rujan. For more information on getting involved in the upcoming elections, contact the MSU chapter of College Republicans.