The Hillsdale Forum - Spring 2006-07

8/14/2019 The Hillsdale Forum - Spring 2006-07

1/11

spring 2007

Volume IV, Issue IIIhillsdalethe forum

[ ] Church

[ ] Tuxedo[ ] Flowers[ ] Family

[ ] Friends[ ] Ring[ ]

Bride

THINGS TO FINDFULL

STORY

PAGE5


2/11

the crawler spring 20072its everything you ever needed to know...and some things you didnt

March 2007 April 2007For a flat rate of $3,000, in ad-

dition to hotel and meal costs,

cabbie Douglas Guldinez has

agreed to drive a New York

couple to their new home in

Arizona.

*At the Antwerp Zoo in Belgium,

officals have urged visitors not

to make eye contact with thechimps because it is delaying

the social integration of animals

in the group.

*After trying to conceive for five

years, a Michigan couple has

turned to the Internet in seach of

birth mothers. Where are they

looking? MySpace.

*

Britains National Health Ser-

vice recommends that medi-

cal personnel no longer use the

terms mum and dad, but

guardian, in order not to con-

fuse the children of gay

parents.

*The South Korean government

agrees to provide students whocomplain of bullying with pri-

vately funded bodyguards to

and from school grounds.

*Students in California teamed

up to increase their scores in up-

coming state-wide tests. How?

By dividing themselves racially,

then urging one another to out-score the other groups.

*After being lost in a dense fog,

two anti-whale activists were

rescued by a whaling boat. To

show their appreciation, the

pair later approached the boat

and hurled two cans of acid on board, injuring several crew

members.

*Angelina Jolie, in an attempt to

adopt a kid from every country

on Earth, added Pax Thein Jolie

to her collection.

Next month, check local list-

ings for ESPNs National Rock,

Paper, Scissor tournament. The

winner will take home $50,000

and the title of a lifetime.

*

*In Sherdian, Wyoming, a wom-

an is currently housing a goat

in the backseat of her mini-van.

Despite complaints, officials saythat as long as the car remains

clean, the animal can stay.

*Just in case you needed proofthat our society knows how

to spend its money wisely, an

anonymous music excutive re-

cently purchased the diaries of

Anna Nicole Smith at auctionfor over $50,000.

Nearly one year after Rosie

ODonnell set out to anger every

activist on earth with her rant-

ing and raving, she has decided

to leave The View in June.

*Under pressure from Liberals

who find the Fox network bi-

ased, Senators Hillary Clinton

and Barack Obama both pub-

licly refused to participate in a

televised Fox News debate

*Police arrested a man, who after

escaping the day before, robbed

the same bank again the nextday.

byBriana Mulder

The trial and conviction of Lewis Scooter

Libby is among the most shameful moments in

the history of the American Judicial System. The

Constitution promises the right to a fair trial;

Scooter Libbys trial did not meet that standard.

On July 6, 2003, Joseph Wilson, a former

U.S. Ambassador, wrote an article in the

New York Times accusing President Bush of

misrepresenting intelligence reports to justify

the Iraqi war. Eight days after Wilsonsarticle was published, Robert Novaks column

identified Wilsons wife, Valerie Plame, as a

CIA operative. Novak cited two White House

sources, but refused to name them. Libby was

immediately accused of leaking the information

to retaliate against Wilson, for his denouncement

of the Bush Administration. Wilson alleged that

Libby read, and then illegally leaked classified

CIA documents regarding Plame. Libby

claimed members of the media informed him

of Plames CIA status. In October 2005, Libby

was charged with lying regarding his role in thealleged Plame outing.

This gives rise to the first problem. Valerie

Plame was not a covert agent when Novaks

article was published. Thus, Robert

Novaks mention of Plame should have been

irrelevant. Instead, a witch-hunt ensued, in

which the American peoples emotions were

used to create a vilification of Libby.

The second problem is Richard Armitage,

not Libby, was Robert Novaks source. CIA

spokesman Bill Harlow was Novaks second

source, confirming Armitages statementregarding Plame. Charges were never brought

against Richard Armitage or Bill Harlow. Thus

how could Libby be sent to court on charges that

were seemingly excusable in the case of other

men?

The third problem is the manner in which the

trial was conducted. During the trial, the jury

was never informed Plame was not covert when

her name was disclosed. If Plame wasnt covert,

revealing her identity wasnt a crime. Nor was the

jury made aware that Richard Armitage admitted

revealing Plames identity. Shortly after the trial

ended, jurors made public statements favoring a

presidential pardon for Libby. Even if there had

been significant grounds for the charges, the way

the trail was carried out makes one question theimpartiality of the American Justice System.

In 2007, after having his name dragged through

the mud, Libby was convicted on one count of

obstruction justice, two counts of making false

statements, and two counts of perjury. This is

curious. Wilsons accusation results in Libbys

conviction on five counts. Why? It is speculated

that Prosecutor Fitzgerald used Wilson to

inflict maximum political damage to Bushs

White House and, perhaps, to enhance his own

career. Libby could be sentenced to thirty years

in prison, all because he was falsely accused oftrying to discredit Wilsons claims President

Bush went to war in Iraq on insufficient

evidence. Ironically, contrary to Wilsons

claims, the evidence regarding Iraq was later

proven to be valid. This calls into question all

of Wilsons claims, as he has obviously seems

to have little trouble in asserting falsifications.

America prides itself on having a justice

system that seeks the truth. In the case of Lewis

Scooter Libby, the truth was known. The

truth was pushed aside to make a spectacle of a

member of the rival political party. Mr.. Libbyhas served America honorably and should

receive a full pardon. Such a pardon would be a

small step towards a return to the justice desired

by the Founders for this free nation.

The Crash of Scooter

Cart

ooncourtesyofUSBCI


3/11

Hillsdaletheforum

Emilia Huneke-BergquistJulie Robison Editors-in-Chief

Samantha COnn Business Editor

Mary Kate Cavazos Subscription Manager

Brian JohnstonKate MartinStohn NishinoScott RozellG. Stolyarov II Staff WritersAnastasia EaleyThomas LeonardChristina Miller

Anthony MocnyRoger PattisonHeather Shell Contributing Writers

The Hillsdale Forum is a

student publication distributed

four times throughout the school

year.

Questions?Comments?Submissions?

Contact The Hillsdale Forum:

[email protected]

newshforum 3

hforum

photo courtesy of AP

Al Gore is prepared to fight anyone who

refuses to live green.

byAnastasia Ealey

When one thinks of Al Gore, one does

not think of peace-one may think of the

Clinton years, An Inconvenient Truth

and embarrassing attempts at stealing

the Presidency,

but rarely does

anyone think of

peace. However,only a few

months ago, after

winning an Oscar

for his role in a

documentary on

global warming,

rumor has is

that he has

been nominated

for the Nobel

Peace Prize.C o i n c i d e n c e ?

As C.S. Lewis

wrote, If you

believe that,

youll believe

anything.

Yet, what on the ever-toastier Earth does

global warming have to do with global

peace? If anything, it leads to global

despair. When people devote themselves

to the dogma of being green it is awonder they do not die from the stress

of making sure that everything they do

is green. Especially now, that, according

to Matthew J. Traum of MIT, the U.S.

Supreme Court has ruled 5-4 that carbon

dioxide (CO2) is an air pollutant subject to

federal regulation. Never mind that trees

use it to make breathable air, and humans

breathe it out every time they exhale, it

pollutes the Earth. So, if you want to be

really green, you have to cut down onhow much youre exhaling because its

polluting the environment. Did you just

gasp at the news? Thats okayjust dont

let it out.

By advancing a supposedly scientific

consensus about the environment that

has everyone living like hippies and

breathing less, Al Gore almost has a

Nobel Peace Prize in the bag. However, if

you ask him, its not easy being green

in fact, he apparently has no idea how todo it himself. According to the Tennessee

Public Policy Center, his mansion near

Nashville uses more electricity in a month

than a typical American home does in one

year, not to mention the trip he recently

made to the Nobel Prize Committee

in Oslo. According to a Reuters article

dated March 29, Gore

made a prize-lobbying

trip to address the Nobel

Peace Prize Committeeabout the dangers of

global warming. He

got a minute-long

standing ovation,

and two heads of the

committee made overly

favorable comments on

him as a prizewinner.

Nevertheless, did they

stop to consider how

much CO2 he musthave emitted into the

atmosphere on his trip

to Oslo? Or how much

CO2

he personally has

generated throughout

his career? In a

Newsbusters.com article dated February

20, Noel Sheppard did a write-up of Sean

H a n n i t y s

take on

Al Gores c a r b o n

footprint .

Apparently,

when Mr.

Gore was

VP and

campaigning

for the

presidency,

he used

private jets tofly to many

campaigning

sites, never

caring that

private jets

emit more

c a r b o n

dioxide than

commercial

airliners. On January 27th of 2000, Gore

made an extensive trip through multiplestates via private jet, and chugged more

than 22,000 pounds of carbon dioxide

into the atmosphere. So not only is his

issue a questionable qualification for a

peace prize, but he is not even adhering to

it! Did you just gasp again? You can let it

out this time. If even the prophet of man-

made global warming doom isnt walking

the walk, why should anybody else?

The broader question is whom in their

right minds gives a hypocrite a peaceprize for a practice that he doesnt follow

and that doesnt have anything to do with

peace? The answer is, to Al Gore and the

Noble Committee, like so many other

liberals, the issue of man-made global

warming is a religion. Many people

even remotely interested in science have

pointed out that the cooling and warming

we are experiencing are all natural

cycles in the Earths progression (anyone

remember El Nino or La Nina?). Beliefin man-made global warming is like

any other false religious belief; the cold,

hard facts are staring you in the face,

and you stomp your foot and haughtily

exclaim, This is what I believe, so it

must be right. What is the difference,

then, between Scientology and Global

warming? WellScientology has Tom

Cruise.

In another ten years,

when the world issizzling up and polar

bears vie for beach

umbrellas, will

anyone look back at

Al Gore and say Ah

yes; that man made

our world more

peaceful? Maybe

theyll be too busy

holding their breath

while arm-wrestlingeach other for bottles

of SPF fifty to protect

against the glowering

sun, which will

be an entertaining

spectacle for the rest

of us gas-guzzling,

heavy-breathing,

non-Green Earth

destroyers. And that is the only

Inconvenient Truth on this planet.

photo courtesy of AP

Dont worry America! We have Chuck Norris on

our side.

The Earth, The Earth, The Earth is on Fi-yah!okay...maybe not on fire, but according to Al Gore, it is gein hot in here


4/11

debate SPRING 20074

On April 18, 2007, the Supreme Court

upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

as constitutional in Gonzales v. Carhart.

This is the first national law to prohibit

a method of aborting a fetus. This law

does not stop prevent women from having

abortions, but rather prohibits a particularly

gruesome method of performing an abortion.

Signed into law in 2003, the Partial-

Birth Abortion Ban Act was immediately

opposed and declared unconstitutional by

three different U.S. district courts because

it didnt have a clause which provided for

an exemption if the womans health was

in danger. Justice Kennedy wrote in the

majority opinion that a health exception

was not needed. The ban takes into

consideration ethical and moral reasons for

opposing partial-birth abortions, including

an interest in the life of the human fetus.

Like all abortions, a partial-birth abortion

is a technique which kills the fetus.

However, while most abortion procedures

focus on the immediate removal of the

baby before the end of the first trimester

before the woman is visibly pregnantthis

procedure does not usually occur until the

baby is at or beyond a point of viability.

During a partial-birth abortion, the

physician removes the developed baby

out of the birth canal except for its head.

Up to this point, the human fetus is alive.

The skull is then punctured, the brains are

sucked out, and the human body is pulled

out, dead. The bodys organs and tissues

are then suitable and often harvested for

science experiments and organ donations.

Abortion advocates lament the loss of the

partial-birth procedure, claiming it is safest

for a woman because it minimizes the

chances of injury to the uterus. However,

they have yet to provide factual evidence to

support this claim. Physicians, on the other

hand, maintain that there are other methods

to abort the fetus that are still legal and just

as safe. The American Medical Association

endorsed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act.

Eve Gartner of the Planned Parenthood

Federation of America believes that This

ruling flies in the face of 30 years of Supreme

Court precedent and the best interest of

womens health and safety. ... This ruling

tells women that politicians, not doctors, will

make their health care decisions for them.

The argument that the Partial-Birth Abortion

Ban Act rejects precedent is ironic because

that is exactly what the originalRoe v. Wade

ruling did in 1973: it ignored the existing

precedent and based its opinion on then

current medical thinking and science. Roe

v. Wade held that abortions should be

allowed until the fetus becomes viable,

that is, potentially able to live outside the

mothers womb, albeit with artificial aid.

The Court further ruled that any state may

enact laws to regulate or prohibit abortions at

or after the point of fetal viability. The Court

indicated that viability, at that time, is usually

placed at about 7 months or 28 weeks, but

may occur earlier. With advances in medical

science, that age has now been reduced

to 20 weeks, which is when partial-birth

abortions usually occur. 20 weeks has been

documented to be the earliest a human fetus

can survive outside the womb, thanks to the

vast increase in neonatal intensive care units

and greater medical knowledge and skill.

The debate over human fetus viability

comes from recent science discoveries and

technology that allows human fetuses to

survive at a much younger stage, making

the state question if there should more

stringent regulations concerning when

a human fetuss life can be terminated.

Opponents of abortion also maintain

that there is emotional and psychological

damage done to women, as many of them

are prone to severe depression and other

mental health problems after abortions.

The ban does not violate a womans right

to an abortion. While some abortion

advocates maintain this is a constitutional

right, a casual observer of the Constitution

would be unable to find the words right to

an abortion in the Constitution. In Justice

Whites dissent for Roe v. Wade, he said,

I find nothing in the language or history

of the Constitution to support the Courts

judgment.Roe v. Wade supports a womans

right to an abortion in the first trimester but

does not carry this right into the second or

third trimester. The ruling permits for states

to place more restrictions on abortions.

The Roe v. Wade decision emphasized

its modern and scientific evidence

during the process of deciding when and

under what conditions abortions may

be performed. As medicine and science

further push back the barriers to fetal

survival at an even earlier age, Roes

philosophical rationale continues to erode.

The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act

may rejectRoe v. Wades factual conclusion

but is entirely consistent withRoes

methodology; todays medical achievements

permit the Courts to recognize the life within

the woman and to protect its sanctity, as well

as adhere to the spirit of the 1973 ruling.

by

Julie robison

ABORTION:a timeline

201860

Twenty states have

laws limiting abortion

1965

The Supreme Court overrules

a Connecticut law prohibiting

couples from receiving

information on contraceptives

1973

Roe vs Wade...

you know the details

$1976

The Hyde Amendment bans

the use of Medicaid funds to

pay for abortion procedures1977

They revise the amendment toallow funding only in the cases

involving rape, incest, or severe

long-lasting physical damage

1988

The gag rule prohibits feder-

ally funded medical facilities

from providing information and

referrals concerning abortion

1992

States allowed to restrict abortion

access as long as it does not place an

undue burden on women seeking

the procedure

FA

C

E

1994

The FACE Act

prohibits the use of

violence or force to

keep women out of

abortion clinics and

prosecutes those

who attempt to do so

2003

President Bush

passes a federal ban

on many abortion

procedures

29/312000

Nebraskas ban on partial

birth abortion is overturned,

thus negating a ban in 29 of

31 other states as well

CO

1967

Colorado becomes the first state

to legalize abortion--Hawaii,

Alaska, New York, and

Washington soon follow All information courtesy of the National Abortion Federation

Supreme Court Upholds Partial Birth Abortion Ruling


5/11

spotlighthforum 5

Marriage is the end of everything,

claims Amanda, and Carly could not

agree more, Men are dogs. I couldnt

imagine living with one, while Katherine

muses, I think Ill start a sect of Protestant

nuns.

What do these three girls have in

common? Well, to begin, they are all

friends of mineand though for purposes

of this article I havent used their real

namesthey all echo a common

sentiment among young American

women today: They dont want to get

married. Ever.

Across the nation, more and more

women are remaining single, and not

because they cannot find an eligible

man, but because they dont want to

find an eligible man. These women view

marriage as worthless at best and evil

at worst.

Why this shift in attitudes towards

marriage? Had I grown up in my favorite

period of history, the 1940s, chances

are that at twenty years old I would

have already married my high school

sweetheart and either have had a baby

or one on the way. I wouldnt be in

college with my parents paying for the air

that I breathe. I would be a responsible,

mature woman (one would hope).

Yet, since I grew up in the 1990s, I am

currently single and working on a college

degree. I probably wont be married for a

few years yet, and maybe not be a mom

for the next decade, but if I choose not to

marry, I can still support myself. Whats

changed? Many things.

When the feminist movement came

along in the 1960s, women became

more independent. In span of twenty

years, women went from getting married

out of high school and spending the

next decade having and raising babies

to attending college and having careers.

Today, it is not unheard of for women to

bear children without men. Suddenly we

can support ourselves entirelywithout

husbands. We no longerneedmen.

The feminist movement also gave

rise to the anti-male attitude. American

society spends a good deal of time

criticizing and demoralizing men. Our

sitcoms especially show the husband as

clueless and fumbling while the wife is

wise and discerning and always cleaning

up his mistakes. In school our boys are

She doesnt want a diamond?!?byChristina Miller

why bagging todays bride is harder than it used to betaught that their natural male behavior is

morally repugnant. If a young man holds

a door open for a young lady, she may

launch into a chivalry is dead rant. Yet

if he treats her like his male friends, she

may just as easily tell him what a pig he

is. Men only have to hear that theyre

The Hillsdale ForumsTop Ten Reasons to Tie the Knot

the tax break*

the chance toproduce a more conservatives

*happiness levels are higher among

married couples*

an escape from your crazy family*

havent you always wanteda mother-in-law?

*married couples live longer

*youre guaranteed

a lifetime companion*

save money on rent*

you dont have to bear any burdensalone

*

true love

dopes and good-for-nothings a few times

to start believing it. So what do they do?

Act like dopes and good-for-nothings.

We have all laughed at Ray Romano a

few times, but I think most of my female

counterparts will agree we would not

want to marry someone like him.

A third reason is the increasing

selfishness of American culture. We

live in a world where the sun rises on

our left shoulder and sets on our right.

A recent article, written by Dawn Yanek,

and featured on MSN.com, detailed the

benefits of being single: one has more

money and uninhibited spending habits,

freedom to travel, and the freedom to

make their own decisions without being

accountable to anyone. All are self-

centered motives. Marriage requires

compromising and sacrificing our own

needs for those of our husbands or

wives. When, a single woman can do

what she wants, when she wants, and if

she lives in a society that promotes such

a lifestyle, the question becomes, Why

should she give that up for marriage?

While many people claim there is no

problem with this trend, I say otherwise.

I believe the growing school of thought

that marriage is a loathsome burden

rather than Gods plan for uniting male

and female indicates a problem with

American culture.

First, marriage has a way of forcing

us to grow up and mature. I have seen

this in my high school friends who have

taken the long walk and heard tales of it

from adults who have been married for

decades. When you are married, you

have to take your spouses needs and

desires into consideration when making

decisions. You cant just decide to go get

your law degree or take that promotion

that will have you move across the

country. Learning to consider the needs

of others is a valuable life skill, and the

mark of a mature Christian, and being

married helps to hone it.

Marriage also teaches conflict resolution.

If you have a spat with a coworker, you

can go to your separate cubicles until

youre ready to talk again. If you disagree

with a friend on the phone, you can hang

up on. Have an argument with your

significant other and you can go back to

your own apartments until the next day.

But if you have a fight with your spouse,

theres no escaping. Women especially

like to mope around and pretend nothing

is wrong when we are really plotting the

offending partys tragic accidental death.

In marriage, we cannot do that. We have

to learn to fight fair.

Finally, marriage was created for the

purpose of providing a stable environment

for children. Its not all about us. Children

need two parents who love each other

and love their child for a stable home. A

right marriage fosters this environment.

Im not saying women should stop going

to college. Nor am I saying that women

should leave the workforce and bear

children every couple of years from the

ages of 20 to 40. Im not saying that its

necessarily a bad thing to be singleGod

has a different plan for each of us. What

I am saying is todays young woman

might consider not writing off marriage

so quickly. Marriage is Gods ordained

institution for bringing male and female

together. Through it we grow, mature,

and learn. And really, isnt that what the

Christian life is all about?


6/11

open forum spring 20076And thepolitically correct, pro-choice, minority, anti-war, tree hugging award goes to...

The Super Bowl is a widely accepted part

of the Americana. We throw parties and

make bets on the winners, all in anticipation

of that great game. While I love parties and

predictions, my big night comes a few weeks

later: the Academy Awards. Friends gathered

in my room for a small gala, complete with

a red carpet-walk and sparkling cider. I

watched pre-shows and was eager for the

celebration of one of my favorite diversions.

Unfortunately, this years festivities left

me feeling a little less festive than usual.

My worries had begun weeks before when

the nominees were announced, with An

Inconvenient Truth nabbing a nomination

for Best Documentary. This nomination

capped my growing fear that The Academy

lacks an understanding of documentary. A

documentary is based on facts, and the number

of scientists and sources who question the

science in Truth lead me to believe that the

facts behind the piece are less than sound.

While upset by the inclusion of the film in

the evening, I assumed that the documentary

category would be a small portion of the

night. After all, when March of the Penguins

won last years Best Documentary award,

penguins did not become the highlighting

theme. Little did I know how greatly I

underestimated the Academy: what awaited

me was a meeting of politicians and

entertainers, each seeming to be presenting

themselves as an authority in the other

arena, rather than presenting the awards.

As a Political Economy major, I have nothing

against politics, but I find it alarming when

politicians are standing on a stage, giving

a face to the entertainment world. When

only one side of the political spectrum is

represented, it traps the entertainment world

into a box half the size of what it could be.

Former Vice President Al Gore and actorLeonardo DiCaprio, nominated for his

role in Blood Diamond, shared the stage

to make a Public Service Announcement

about the importance of the environment

and taking small steps to work for an end to

the global warming crisis. Gore personally

thanked DiCaprio for his efforts for the

cause, leaving little doubt in the audiences

mind to DiCaprios politically leanings, a

sentiment backed when DiCaprio gushed

about the honor of sharing the stage with

Gore. The Academy was pushing an agenda

and they left subtly on the red carpet.

Gore and DiCaprio did not appear on stage to

present awards; their sole purpose was to give

instructions on how Americans should live

their lives. They urged the viewers to check

out www.oscar.com in order to get more eco-

friendly tips. The directives on the web site

fail to give any sort estimate of the cost of

some of their suggestions, or, in some cases,

even provide actual alternatives: Farmers:

cut down on pesticide use. Innovative and

successful farmers around the country

are switching from conventional pest

management practices, which are heavily

reliant on pesticides, to profitable alternative

agricultural practices that substantially

reduce pesticide use. This suggestion fails to

provide even one example of an alternative.

DiCaprio promised the audience that the

American Film Industry has always takenits obligations to society very seriously.

At this point, I was unsure of what which

obligations DiCaprio was speaking. It

certainly could not have been its obligation

to entertain me, as the lack of anything to do

with movie industry was causing me almost

physical pain. I remain unconvinced that

making sure Americans live their lives in

the most environmentally conscious manner

falls under an obligation of the American

Film Industry. I turn to the American

Film Industry to provide me with movies.

If they have something to say about the

environment and

recycling, make a

movie about it, but

do not use actors

who use their

fame to appeal to

a false sense of

authority. DiCaprio has been nominated

for three Academy Awards, but that

does not qualify him to lecture on

environmentally-sound principles.

This is a smaller component of the world

where actors and entertainers speak out

supporting or belittling political parties

with an air of authority. Americans have

come to accept that having any sort of name

recognition gives a person the right to an

almost unquestioned level of authority on

all topics, whether or not the speaker is

truly educated in the subject. Sean Penn,

an Oscar-winning actor, was recently

quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle

talking about the war in Iraq, saying,

You and your smarmy pundits -- and the

smarmy pundits you have in your pocket

-- can take your war and shove it. Lets

unite not only in stopping this war, but in

holding this administration accountable.

A quick look into Penns background

reveals that Penns highest degree is a high

school diploma, meaning that Penn has

not be recognized for his study of foreign

policy and national defense by any college

or university. I do not begrudge Penn his

opinions or feelings, but I resent that his

celebrity status means that his comments

will be given the same, if not more, news

attention granted to those whose profession

involves the studying of these issues.

The Oscars green theme was felt again

in Melissa Etheridges performance of I

Need to Wake Up, the Oscar-nominated

song from An Inconvenient Truth. While

she sang about the importance of waking

up to the crisis and speaking out against

it, eco-friendly suggestions such as Vote

for leaders who will solve this crisis and

Pray that people will find the strength to

change glided across the screen behind

her. The Academy showed their support

for her song and ideas by presenting her

with an Academy Award to match the one

awarded to An Inconvenient Truth. Al

Gore was praised yet again after Melissa

kissed and thanked her incredible wife.

A political agenda eclipsed the celebration

of movie-making at the awards show this

year. Besides the issue of global warming,

the actresses who were insisting upon

conflict-free diamondsdiamonds that do

not come from or fund governments that

conflict with the regulations of the UN

Security Councilmade a few headlines

in the weeks leading up to the Oscars.

This sudden awareness was spiked by the

movieBlood Diamond, a harrowing tale of

oppression under a power-hungry regime. The

movie was also nominated for five Academy

awards. I found the demand for conflict-free

diamonds a little vexing, as I found myself

wondering if this newfound advocacy will

see them through to another awards season.

I become annoyed quickly by celebrities

who use the politically correct bandwagon as

their main means of transportation. Actors

show up to awards shows with their red

ribbons and conflict-free diamonds, showing

their disgust with slave labor and I have to

wonder, Did you really need a ribbon to

prove that? Just as the global warming

crisis inspired the Oscars to go green,

conflict free demands were in high demand.

As I look ahead to next years awards

(February 24th), I find myself wondering

what will replace the green and the diamonds

next year. What new issue will have been

found that Hollywood must crusade, in order

to save America from utter destruction?

The Academy was hitting their points hard,

which says to me that they are aware that

they do not have the total support of the

country. Maybe its time that I take a cue

from Melissa Etheridge and help Hollywood

wake up to the idea that while excellent

acting and movies are greatly appreciated,

their insistence of bringing a liberal agenda

to the entertainment world only alienates me,

rather than the reform for which they hope.

byKate Martin

But Oprah, the

Oscars arent liberal!

It doesnt matter

Bono, becauseEVERYONE

GETS A BAG!!

Bring it onKarl...

Bring. It.

On.

Thats right, they

modeled Oscar

after me, and thats

is one sexy award

I wonder if my cell

phone is on vibrate...

My hair

represents

carrots,

which

grow in the

Earth. Save

the Earth

Oscar!

Hehehehe!

Oh Tommy I love you!

Whatever, just try

to keep the baby

hidden under that

dress

President Bush has

nothing on Dr. Evil

StatueimagescourtesyoftheAAMPAandOscar.com


7/11

viewpoint spring 20078

Luck exists. Success through luck does

not exist. A coin can be tossed; money can

depend on the outcome; you can bet, and

it can come up your side. That is luck. If

you follow that as a systematic strategy,

however, probability theory states quite

clearly that you can expect to end up

approximately where you started. Real-

world outlets that sustain themselves on

their customers expectations of success

through luck will not give you suchgenerous odds.

No lasting and permanent good comes

to man through luck. It might seem at first

that money could. After all, some inherit

enormous sums of itothers lack any to

begin with. Some win the lottery. Some

profit from a rise in stock prices they did

not foresee. Yet this is not success; success

lies in keeping those chance gainsand

no accident of fortune can assure this. The

wealthy heir will not remain well endowed

for long if he recklessly squanders what

he has. To continue to enjoy prosperity,

he must abstain

from frivolous

c o n s u m p t i o n ,

engage in prudent,

f o r e s i g h t e d

investment, ever

remain productive

to gain the stuff his

affluence is made of.

This is not luck: itis thrift, innovation,

d i s c i p l i n e ,

consistency; it is the

human character at

its best. If an heir has

kept his fortune for

decades, it is all his

own doing; no luck

need be invoked.

The man who wins

the lottery expected

success to come to

him by chance. By

a minuscule chance,

his expectation was

fulfilled, once. If he continues to maintain

this expectation, however, the laws of

nature dictate that prosperity will be lost to

him just as quickly as he gained it. He will

have more money to bet with; the stakes

will be higher; the astronomical probability

of loss will not change. To become

successful, he will need to reverse his pasthabits entirely and resist the temptations

that suddenly gained vast sums of money

inevitably pose. He will want to spendhis winnings to live in luxury; if he does,

his prosperity will be as a shooting star,

extinguished drastically after a mere few

seconds of radiance. Only the wisdom and

prudence of putting all his money away

and letting the law of compound interest

augment it to furnish a perpetual income

stream will save him from once again

plunging into the gamblers desperate rut.

But luck cannot furnish this outcome. Only

forbearance and foresight can.Nor is it different with great discoveries

of sciencethough

popular myths have

u n f o r t u n a t e l y

spread the

c o n t r a r y

impress ion.

An apple

might indeed

have fallen on

Newtons head.

The apple did

not create the

Unive rs a l

Law of

Gravitation. It was

neither necessary

nor sufficient for

the discovery to

arise. Other apples

also fell on other

headsthousands of

them. No other manwould have arrived

at Newtons insight

if struck by a similar

applebecause he did

not do what Newton

did. To what moments

ought history credit

the discovery of the

Universal Law of

Gravitation? To the

hours Newton spent

in his study, day

after day, year after

year, inventing the

Calculus, analyzing

astronomical data, writing, reasoning,

struggling. The struggling was likely the

most important of these. A genius succeeds

not through flashes of inspiration, not

through some light-headed caper in the

land of the muses. This misconception

is the reason why those who hold it do

not accomplish on the level of Newton,Leonardo, or Voltaire. The great man works,

hestrains himselfto conquer problems at a

level of difficulty unimaginable to most.The true genius is a man, in body and mind

like other men, who chooses for himself an

exceptionally difficult task and gives it the

full effort it demands. No luck is involved;

he was not just born that way; no intricate

combination of genetic base pairs can pre-

determine a mans resolve and the number

of hours he puts in at night after the rest of

the world has long gone to sleep. Nor were

special, mystical faculties anywhere to

be seen. One does not intuitthe Calculusor the motion of planets. The men who

make history understand

that the results

of their work

ul t imate ly

d e p e n d

on the

strength of

their will,

the potency

of their effort,

and the rigor of

their reasoningon them and

them alone. Serendipity might offer an

occasional clue to the proper pathbut it

is a mans own responsibility to notice it,

interpret it, and apply it with the utmost

diligence. Another man, had an apple

struck him, might have thought it only

an occasion to get his head inspected for

bruises.

The delusion that any success can be

easyattainable through mere chanceisthe reason for the continued prominence

of disappointment, disillusionment, and

unhappiness in an age which abounds with

material goods and opportunities alike.

If a man thinks he can succeed through

mere chance, he sees no need to exert

himself; if a man attributes his failure to

pure luck, he will not accept responsibility

for his own predicament. The great man

accomplishes more precisely because he

recognizes thatin the long runhe is

the sole determining factor of his fate.

No obstacle, not even death itself, can

ultimately undo the fruits of his resolve;

Newtons discoveries have survived him

by centuriesand the generations that

followed him did not preserve his work by

random chance or whim. The Nobel, Ford,

and Rockefeller fortunes continue to shape

the economic and cultural dynamic of

the world, over a century after they were

accumulated.

Others watch the great manMozart athis piano, Edison at his laboratoryand

think: how easily and how effortlessly

these prodigies seem to accomplish theirfeats! But such observers see only the

results; they do not see the process that

attained them. They do not see the hours

of methodical preparation, the days of

developing incomplete but promising

thoughts, the months and years of building

on a base of skill and knowledge at the

expense of leisure and luxury. The regular

times Mozart spent alone, experimenting

with combinations of notes to find those

fruitful few; the thousands of failed attemptsEdison made at a technical problem before

finding one that solved itthose the

public does not see. This omission distorts,

discolors, and impoverishes the prevailing

view of men who succeed at monumental

tasks.

There exists no special breed of men with

extraordinary faculties or propensities for

success. Biologically, all men are quite

indistinguishable from Paleolithic savages

who lusted after nothing less ignominious

than the blood of the neighboring tribe.

The men who build a civilization, the men

who through inaction allow it to fall into

disrepair, and the men who wantonly tear

it apart, differ only in how they choose to

approach the world. Those who succeed

in their endeavorsat whatever level or

occupationdo so because of a thorough

and active reliance on themselves. Those

who fail waste time in idleness, hoping

for luck to bring success to them. Or they

accumulate resentment of the successfulwishing to expropriate, to equalize, to pull

down those they consider undeserving of

riches and honors. The jealous think that

they will somehow become better off if

they undermine the men who struggle to

produce, to furnish the goods and ideas

used by the rest of mankindwho ask

for nothing more in exchange than the

liberty to act as they reason fit and the

right to keep what they have earned. Yet

the expropriators will ultimately be as

underminedas greatly worse offas

the expropriated; they will think that they

suffer only because their luck has changed

for the worse. Yet reality will remain

adamant. Like millions in the oppressing

and oppressed, regulating and regulated,

commanding and obeying nations of the

world, those who believe success is a

function of luck will continue to suffer.

Must have...

LOTTO TICKETS!

byg. sTOLYarov III

The Illusion of Success Through Luck


9/11

politics spring 200710

Ask a typical person who would describe

themselves as conservative what their

main beliefs are, and that person would

likely say that they are in favor of limited

government, more religion, a strong military,

etc. They would likely be against abortion,

gun control, wasteful social programs, or

other liberal reforms. While it is good

to be well-informed and have an opinion

on important policy issues, defining

conservatism based on what it is for oragainst can be difficult, if not dangerous.

When defining conservatism, the obvious

question that we must ask is what we are

trying to conserve. In light of ever-

expanding government and deteriorating

morality in culture, most conservatives

today would agree that society as it currently

is should not be conserved. So already,

we have a problem defining the term.

Perhaps then we could define conservatism

in terms of Right and Left, on a political

scale. Policies that are more traditional ortested by time are on the Right, while newer or

more contemporary policies are on the Left.

But defining beliefs in terms of Right and

Left can be problematic as well. A policy

can be on the Right in one way and on the

Left in another. This applies especially to

moral issues. For example, a constitutional

amendment banning gay marriage would bean effort to promote morality, but it would

also involve the federal government in an

area that has traditionally been left to the

states. This is also true in our current War on

Terror. While having a strong military may

be a more conservative policy, spreading

democracy and foreign intervention itself

were not advocated by many of the Founders.

Historically, the terms conservative

and liberal also have changed meanings.

Today, conservatives usually support

government intervention in morality butnot in economics, while liberals advocate

limited government regulation of morality

but intervention in economics. The term

liberal used to refer to more liberty in all

areas of life, while conservatism once did

not have the emphasis on religion that it does

today. Technology also is a factor, because

recent innovations such as the Internet

and more powerful weaponry require new

applications of old, constitutional principles.

Even though it is difficult to define what

conservatism is, perhaps Russell Kirk offersa solution. In The Politics of Prudence, Kirk

tells us to use prudence instead of adhering

to ideologies. This means being judicious,

cautious, [and] sagacious instead of

thinking of politics as a revolutionary

instrument for transforming society and even

transforming human nature. Kirk identifies

ten principles of conservatism:1.) Beliefin an enduring moral order 2.) Adherenceto custom, convention, and continuity 3.) A

principle of prescription from things past

4.) Using prudence, or thinking of the long-

term consequences of actions 5.) Emphasis of

variety, or individualism instead of equality

6.) A belief that human beings cannot be

perfected 7). A belief in private property,

which allows for freedom 8.) Community,

or locals making their own decisions instead

of a centralized administration 9.) Prudent

restraints on power and human passions10.) Belief in change, but a rejection

of mystical Progress (what is new is

not necessarily better than what is old)

In short, we need to reject the idea that

enacting or preventing a certain policy

will solve all of our problems and should

therefore be pursued at all costs. Instead,

when a particular issue arises in society,each person should weigh the pros and

cons of a possible solution before making

a decision. A solution may solve a problem,

but it could create new ones. For example,

outlawing guns may cut down on accidental

injuries, but violent crimes would certainly

go up, likely outweighing any positives.

Defining conservatism may be difficult, but

it is important because conservatives must

know what the driving force is behind their

beliefs. Conservatives must not only have

ends they want to achieve, but a means ofgetting there as well. It is therefore important

to be skeptical instead of simply accepting

everything that some politician or media

pundit tells us to. Above all, we must be

careful, analyzing every situation, so that we

can make informed and prudent decisions.

byBrian Johnston

What Exactly is Conservatism?

Dear Mr. Congressman,

How long has it been since you have read a letter from a constituent? How longhas it been since you took the time to personally respond to a letter? The internwho read this before you and the staff assistant who will respond to this lettermay never even tell you about the thoughts I am expressing. I know youre abusy man, but how often do you sit down and read the opinions of those whoelected you? Do those opinions go into your voting decision? Are you too busybefriending those around you, logrolling bills to become more powerful in Congress?

Granted you cannot read all the mail, or take the opinions of a passionate minoritywhen thinking of the dispassionate majority, but how dedicated are you to your district?

Will you taint your honored office by pulling a William Jefferson, or just not store your money in your freezer? Or will you be a man of your people, meeting withCapitol tour groups, getting to know the names of your free labor interns, occasionallyresponding with a hand written letter to a hometown group about an issue? Are youmore focused on lobbyist receptions, drinking in the perks of your office, or moreconcerned with being in your district, getting to know those who you represent?

I have spent time in Washington and know the many pitfalls you have to avoid, but in todays politically correct, question dodging, fluff issue den that is politics, are you going to vote on behalf on the constituent, or for your own gain?

I respect the work you have done to achieve what you have, but I ask that interns and staffersarent the only ones who read the mail, respond to the letters, or answer the phones. I hopeyou do not only take calls from influential businessmen and lobbyists, but from the peoplewho matter. This letter is filled with questions, but also a charge that you draw upon the rootsof our Republic and fulfill the obligation of representing the electoral, and not yourself.

Sincerely,

Scott RozellConstituent 7th District of Michigan.

The

Hillsdale

Forum

See? Even Hippies like it!

Support the paper today! [email protected]

photo courtesy of www.radicalhippie.com


10/11

profilehforum 11

Twice each semester, Phillips

Auditorium fills to capacity and beyond

for the week-long seminars we know

as CCAs.

After watching the custom for four

years, I have heard every constructive

suggestion in the book. Students,

frustrated with the difficulty in getting

good seats request all seating be on

a first-come, first-served basis. Theeldest and wisest guests carefully

make their way down the treacherous

stairs because no elevator reaches the

auditorium. The balconies can never

open soon enough.

Rarely do complaints arise against

the school from the guests. Special

dinners, receptions, and class visits

keep them occupied.

Complaints flow freely from the

students often against those who work

in the stately Moss Hall. InstitutionalAdvancement brings guests to campus

to impress them with the brilliance

of us, the students. Dr. Arnn and his

associates escort the rich and interested

guests about campus disrupting the

quiet of the library, the noise of the

dining hall, and the atmosphere of

the classroom. And we students

complain.

These people are not the purpose of

the college. The colleges job is to

educate, and we pay them much todo so on our behalf. We only require

silent books, noisy food, and learning

classrooms not disruptions.

The people that come to our campus

come from all walks of life; yet, from

student, to faculty, to housekeeper, to

CCA guest, we all came to Hillsdale

for the same reason. None of us came

for the location, the size of the town,

and certainly not for the weather. We

came to Hillsdale College because of

what it is a college.The Oxford English Dictionary (a

resource every college student should

learn to use and will come to love)

defines college as, An organized

society of persons performing certain

common functions and possessing

special rights and privileges; a body

of colleagues... We are a voluntary

association here to perform a certain

common function and possessing

special rights and privileges and we

students do not easily give up our

special rights and privileges!

This body of colleagues is here for

the purpose of our proper education,

not to strut in front of outside guests.

We are colleagues i.e. a confederate or

an ally with all those who are a part of

this college.

But it couldnt mean could it?

No. Those who interrupt our studies,

who take the best seats in the CCAs,

and who stop us for directions on the

smallest campus in Michigan could notpossibly be ourallies could they?

Indeed. Each person who sets foot

on this campus or who contacts our

college in support of its mission is

our colleague. We easily remember

that the college needs us, its students,

in order to function as what it is. Yet

we forget that much as it needs us, we

need it. Our administration, faculty,

staff, donors, and guests bring to us

rules, wisdom, cleanliness, money, and

camaraderie. Our campus is beautifuland our learning is possible because of

the league of people who make it so.

At a dinner during the most recent

CCA, I sat next to a guest who was

somewhat new to the school. We

struck up the usual conversation,

How did you learn about Hillsdale?

What brought you here?

Finally, she came around to ask a

question that had been bothering her

for some time. She said, I dont

understand. My husband and I donthave much money. We cant give

much to the school at all; yet we

are wined and dined and always so

impressed with the programs put on

here. Why does the school do this for

people like us?

Then it hit me: the college isnt just

about getting money from donors. Its

about educating students. Its about

passing on the real meaning of the

liberal arts. Its about a true discussion

of the highest things. And its about building an association of colleagues

to fulfill these purposes.

The disruptions in the library and the

difficulty of finding a seat in the CCA

are small prices to pay for the benefit

of building our colleges allies. We can

better serve our school and ultimately

ourselves by escorting the lost guest to

the proper classroom and on the way

asking why they are taking the time to

become one of our colleagues.

byStephani Francl

CCA: a Fund-Raiser in Disguise,

or a True Hillsdale Experience?

6:00 PM - Opening Flag Burning Ceremony6:05 PM - Pledge of Allegiance to the U.N.6:15 PM - Secular Prayers by Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton

6:30 PM - Antiwar Concert by Barbara Streisand6:40 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast7:00 PM - Tribute to France7:30 PM - Collect Offerings for al-Zawahri Defense Fund7:45 PM - Antiwar Rally (Moderated by Michael Moore)8:25 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast8:30 PM - Terrorist Appeasement Workshop9:00 PM - Roundtable Discussion of Taxes: Higher Taxes For Everyone But You9:15 PM - Clinton Seminar on The Successful Selling of White House Mementos on eBay9:40 PM - Gay Marriage Ceremony (Both Male and Female Couples)10:00 PM - Posting the Iraqi Colors by Sean Penn and Tim Robbins10:20 PM - Howard Dean Screamfest Yeeearrrrrrrg!10:30 PM - Seminar: The Boy Scouts and Other Threats to National Security10:50 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast11:05 PM - Maximizing Welfare Workshop11:50 PM - Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast12:00 PM- Ted Kennedy Proposes a Toast

The recently release schedule for the 2008 Democratic National Convention:

all cartoons courtsey of USBCI


11/11

the back page spring 200712

The Hillsdale Forum

Hillsdale, Michigan

49242

the 2007 Campus Outrage Awards:Each year, the Collegiate Network, a daughter organization of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, re-

wards stupidity as they expose the most ridiculous events taking place on college campuses today. Andthough Hillsdale loves being rewarded, let us hope this is one trophy we never bring home...

1st place: William & Mary

College President Gene Nichol secretly removes a large cross from the

college chapel, then, on Valentines Day allocated $1,200 of student fed-

eration funding to sponsor a Sex Workers Art Show featuring strippers,

sex workers, and topless women.

2nd place: University ofCalifornia-Berkeley

Got a drug conviction? Great!

Now there is a scholarship for

you! In order to Remove Im-

pediment to Students Education

the $500 RISE scholarship now

exsists for students with history

of drug use.

3rd place: Johns Hopkins University

After exposing the presence of a pornographic film

director on their campus, The Carrollton Record

found that 600 copies of their paper stolen, and an-

other 300 removed from dormitories. Upon investiga-

tion, it was discovered that the school administration

had decided to ban all offensive matieral from the

dorm, including The Carrollton Record.

4th place: The University

of Michigan

Despite the new Michigan Civil

Rights Initiative, which many

of you may remember voting on

back in November, U of M has

decided to not only rise above

the law, but to fight it as well.

With a pledge to devote full

focus to defending diversity

President Mary Coleman has

officially challenged MCRI in

court, and refuses to implement

its standards against affirmative

action on her campus.

All information and facts courtsey of www.campusmagazine.org and the Collegiate Network

Documents

The Hillsdale Forum - Spring 2006-07