v1i1 - Morris NorthStar

Volume I, Issue I
December 2012
UMM’s Official Renewable and Sustainable Student Newspaper
Joe Basel Pays
Morris a Visit
Higher Education
Bubble: How UMM Can
Capitalize
Questionable
Ink
A search for
true freedom of
speech
Using 1,000% Recycleable Paper!
Pro-Gun
Heroism
Hollywood
reasoning is
the wrong
approach
to the right
argument
Contents
The Opinions
Ottortail Petition
8
Why go for the big fish when you can take down the minnow?
The Hypocrisy of Our Time
by Tony Bannach
The smoke and mirror affect of politics on foreign policy
12
Freedom Trend
13
A conservative trend towards non-interventionism
The Features
Questionable Ink
6
by John Geiger
Contributors
John Geiger
Happy Christmas!
Is the pen mightier than the sword?
Drew Geiger
Pro-Gun Heroism
Tony Banach
9
by Wry Guy
Samuel Preus
Wry Guy
Rachel Wingenbach
Joe Basel Pays Morris a Visit
Copy Editors
Mary Preus
Hollywood reasoning is the wrong approach to the right argument
by Samuel Preus
Higher Education Bubble: How Morris Can Capitalize
Nicole Warren
Layout
John Geiger
Cartoons
The NorthStar
Samuel Preus
The Regulars
Executive Staff
Samuel Preus, Editor-in-Chief
[email protected]
3
Letter from the Editor
4
Encouragement
5
by Rachel Wingenbach
Women’s rights, from a woman!
A Word from Our Founder
by Frederick Douglass
The NorthStar
14
Daniel Fossen, Managing Editor
[email protected]
John Geiger, Publisher
[email protected]
Nicole Warren, Mary Preus, Assistant
Managing Editors
warre356/[email protected]
10
Humor
Our Tax System Explained in Beer
(http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/
the-tax-system-explained-in-beer/ )
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and
the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill
the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like
this…
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing
The fifth would pay $1
The sixth would pay $3
The seventh would pay $7
The eighth would pay $12
The ninth would pay $18
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59
So, that’s what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed
quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the
owner threw them a curve ball.
“Since you are all such good customers,” he said, “I’m
going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20″.
Drinks for the ten men would now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay
our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They
would still drink for free. But what about the other six
men ? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that
everyone would get his fair share?
The bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce
each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he
was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had
been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts
he suggested that each should now pay.
And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing
(100% saving).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid $5 instead of $7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% saving).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first
four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar,
the men began to compare their savings.
“I only got a dollar out of the $20 saving,” declared the
sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,”but he got $10!”
“Yeah, that’s right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved
a dollar too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit
than me!”
“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he
get $10 back, when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the
breaks!”
“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we
didn’t get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the
poor!”
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks
so the nine sat down and had their beers without him.
But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered
something important. They didn’t have enough money
between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and government
ministers, is how our tax system works. The people who
already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most
benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack
them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up
anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas,
where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
q: How do you confuse a
liberal?
a: You don’t, they’re born
that way
q: What do you call a
basement full of liberals?
a: Whine cellar
q: What’s the difference
between a liberal and a
sack of manure?
a: The sack
December 2012 Letter from the Editor
T
Dear UMM campus,
he NorthStar staff and I are quite pleased
to finally release our first issue as your official
conservative student newspaper. There has been
a lot of hard work and patience involved in creating
this alternative paper. As engaged students on
campus, we find it of the utmost importance to
promote a larger scale marketplace of ideas on
campus. A conservative intellectual alternative
begs our attention, and we at the NorthStar will
present this alternative voice unabridged and full
of compelling perspectives.
The NorthStar is in many respects a revival of
Morris’s former conservative student newspaper
The Counterweight. Founded in 2005 by three
ambitious conservative students, The CW had
great success on campus, publishing a total of six
volumes in five years. The NorthStar has inherited
useful resources from The CW, and we are very
grateful therefore.
As our cover page celebrates it, we are proud to
have named our paper after Frederick Douglass’
1847 newspaper, The North Star. Just as the
honorable Mr. Douglass sought to use the printing
press to spread his objectives towards liberty and
progress back in the 19th century, so also do we,
the Morris NorthStar, persevere down the same
path towards a broader marketplace of ideas,
namely that which defends the principles of life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
In the midst of an idealistic state of university
influence, the principles of freedom can be
particularly offensive. We are on our own, thinking
on our own, and constantly being influenced by
leftist ideas- so much that we forget our core
principles. Ends begin to justify means in every
aspect of our daily lives. We feel a certain way
and begin to reject the freedoms endowed to us
MISSION STATEMENT
EXPOSE: The NorthStar will strive to expose the campus community to different
perspectives on current events and issues important to students. Our hope is to present
new angles on new and old issues and to encourage diversity of thought.
EDUCATE: The NorthStar will facilitate opportunities to develop leadership,
journalistic skills, and business skills by writing, producing, and distributing our
publication. Additionally, our goal is to stimulate and educate UMM students by
providing information that directly affects our campus.
EXPRESS: The NorthStar will allow for freedom of speech to express the ideas
of students. Our intention is to encourage this expression through feature stories,
editorials, satires, profiles, and many other means including, of course, letters to the
editor from readers like you.
SUBMISSION POLICY
The opinions and ideas expressed in The NorthStar are the opinions and ideas of
the individual columnists or authors. They do not necessarily reflect the opinions
of other students, staff, faculty, or administration of the University of Minnesota,
Morris.
The NorthStar welcomes letters to the editor and letters to columnists or writers.
Letters may be submitted to The NorthStar at [email protected]. Letters
must be submitted with the author’s name and contact information. Letters will be
selected for publication at the editors’ discretion. We reserve the right to edit those
letters published for length, libelous content, or other reasons.
Prospective writers should be advised that any written correspondence with
The NorthStar staff about the publication is liable for publication unless otherwise
specified.
The NorthStar
by nature and embrace the entitlements felt by
our desires. These are powerful feelings, which
entrap us with emotional logic and persuasion.
The NorthStar embraces core principles and
historic evidence, admittedly quite contaminated
by imposing variables. So contaminated, in
fact, that parallelisms within history, e.g. those
connecting success with freedom and failure with
intervention, are more and more difficult to identify
with real surety. Facts are confused with agendas,
agendas influenced by rotten politics.
But the message of freedom never gets old. We’re
told, albeit in a round about way, that complete
freedom of opportunity promotes and raises up
some while enslaving and suppressing others. As
promoters of freedom, we reject this faulty notion
at its root and will continue to defend our fine
principles through education and intellect.
of the NorthStar, we hope you will recognize
our efforts to promote the indispensable liberty
endowed to us by our Creator, whose lovely tone
no force can tame, the nature of which tirelessly
shines her blessings upon us in our every pursuit
and prayer.
Thank you,
Your NorthStar Editor-in-Chief,
Samuel Herman Preus
Special thanks to all those who have helped our
staff with the paper, in particular the help and
support from Joe Basel, Ben Wetmore, David
Swenson.
So, campus, when you enjoy the future issues
Words from the Wise
“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may
be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”
-- George Washington
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government
when it deserves it.” -- Mark Twain
“A government big enough to give you everything you want is a
government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
-- Gerald Ford
“Honesty is the first chapter in the book of wisdom.”
-- Thomas Jefferson
Encouragement
Women’s rights, from a woman!
B
irth control and contraceptives
are provided free of charge to all
students on campus. But how does
the school fund this “generosity”? The
University of Minnesota, Morris is a
public university that receives money
from the government. It also receives
money from alumni donations and
from, of course, us. So it is a reasonable
hypothesis that the money to “protect”
us students comes from one of these
sources.
Alumni-money is usually in some
way described by the donor, for example
as “chemistry research”, so I think it
is reasonable to rule out this source as
where the money comes from. That
leaves government funds and our
own money. Usually money from
the government goes to fund further
developments in the college but with
the new health care bill government
money could be a possible source of
money. But where does the government
get its money; us, the citizens on the
United States, through taxes. So who is
paying for our “free” birth control and
contraceptives? Either it is us directly by
paying our way through school or it is us
and the rest of the American people.
But why is our school using money
that should be going to its student’s
education to buy birth control and other
contraceptives? I want my tuition and
fees going towards my education, not
someone else’s personal life. I don’t
agree in having sex before marriage for
various reasons and I don’t want to pay
for someone else’s life style that I am
completely against. I work hard to pay
for school and I know many others do
too. I want my money going towards
what I intended: education.
“I want my money
going towards what
I intended it for:
education.”
One more question to think about:
why is our school even providing these
things to us in the first place? Many
people can’t afford their necessary
medications and we are being given
medication to satisfy our own personal
pleasures? I wouldn’t be so upset if my
money was going toward medication
for people who really needed it but no,
it goes to people who are very selfish in
my opinion. I know that people won’t
stop having sex just because I said
it’s bad, so I can understand if Health
Services just gave out information on
birth control and contraceptives and
even where one can obtain them and
learn how to use them. But I think these
people should pay for them themselves.
This is a personal act and I don’t think
the whole campus should have to pay
for an individual’s actions.
I see the school giving out
contraceptives as a way of promoting
sex. Why is the school promoting sex?
Like I’ve said many times already, we
are here for an education, not in sex,
but in the fields we choose. And does
the school talk about the risks of birth
control and the risks of having sex
with numerous people? Birth control
does not protect against STIs, and a
girl can still get pregnant while on the
medication. The average number of
pregnancies per 100 people is about 2 to
9. Although this is low, if a girl is on
some other medication they may have
a greater risk that they will become
pregnant. Also, birth control has many
side effects including breast tenderness/
enlargement, spotting between periods,
nausea/vomiting, bloating, headaches,
decreased sex drive, changes in eyes that
make it more difficult to wear contact
lenses, and sometimes weight gain.
More serious side effects that are rare
(yet still possible) are blood clots in legs,
lungs, or heart or brain. Also, stroke,
heart attack, cervical cancer, ectopic
pregnancy, and very rarely infertility
can occur. Does our school tell us all
that? Contraceptives have more side
effects- between 15 and 24 per 100- but
if used improperly that number greatly
increases. Although contraceptives can
protect against some STIs, they can’t
protect against all, and if they are used
improperly, the chance it will protect
against a disease is greatly reduced.
I don’t want my education to come
second. I worked hard to get where I
am now and have to keep working hard
to afford school. But if my money is
going to people doing something I don’t
agree with, I feel like all my work is for
not. Just something to think about next
time you hear people talking about the
“free condoms”.
Rachel Wingenbach
Columnist
Hate Us?
Write Us!
Love Us?
[email protected] December 2012
Become an ISI member.
“ISI gave me an education that even Harvard couldn’t.”
—Christopher Lacaria, Harvard alumnus
Since 1953 people have turned to ISI for a deeper understanding of the
principles that make America free and prosperous—the core ideas behind the
free market, the American Founding, and Western civilization that are rarely
taught in the classroom.
ISI members enjoy access to a host of exclusive events, resources, and opportunities designed
to educate for liberty. Sign up for free! Email us at [email protected]
Rothbard:
A Life Lived for Liberty
Economic History, Rothbard_2013A — with David Gordon
COST: $59 LENGTH: 6 WEEKLY LECTURES
DATES: JANUARY 8, 2013 - FEBRUARY 18, 2013
STATUS: UPCOMING ONLINE
Austrian Macroeconomics
Economics, Econ_Macro_2013_A — with Joseph Salerno
COST: $59 LENGTH: 6 WEEKLY LECTURES
DATES: JANUARY 9, 2013 - FEBRUARY 19, 2013
STATUS: UPCOMING ONLINE
The NorthStar
Ludwig von Mises Academy
visit mises.org
Questionable Ink
What does freedom of speech really mean on a college campus?
All views should
be treated equal
on a campus that
promotes the
spreading of ideas.
What happens,
however, when this
is tested by a student
via listserve? Are
all opinions treated
equally?
Should they be?
I
t is said that the pen is
mightier than the sword. History
has shown that the most positive
change has come through discussion
and freethinking, not force. The first
amendment keeps sacred the right
to free speech but what about the
campus administration?
On Thursday November 28,
Joe Basel came to speak about the
Higher Education Bubble. As an
accomplished alumnus, who is well
known for his conservative views, it
is understandable that the campus
liberals would write him off before
even meeting or listening to Basel.
There were several outspoken students
who attempted to discredit him even
before his arrival on campus.
Some students were kinder about
there views. “I’m willing to hear
out what looks to be the right wing
version of Michael Moo[r]e,” replied
one student to the original listserve
posting, which invited students to
come to the speech. Others, however,
were not so open-minded; one student
smearing Basel with a left-slanted
interpretation of his past before
cutting down his approach- which the
student had not yet listened to.
opinion of something on campus or
someone we will not approve messages
that could violate the student code of
conduct.”
“Is this the kind of person
whom we should look to for advice
or leadership? NO!” the student
exclaimed. The one sided viewpoint
ended with a sturdy assumption, “I
would be very surprised if this speech
is anything more than lambasting
what he sees as a liberal approaches
to higher education.”
The message was clear; my smartass remark was not acceptable. A
review of the guidelines would easily
state that I broke the rules. I must have
included a harassing remark about
Basel. I did not adhere to Section 5
Subd. 6 in the student conduct codetitled Threatening, Harassing or
Assaultive Conduct.
Question: Should this sort of
speech be allowed for the whole
campus to read, even if the students
writing are going of opinion? The
answer is simple- yes. Students have
the right to say what they want and
have an equal right to be quoted for it.
Liberals came to Basel’s presentation
expecting to rip him apart, but
many found what he had to say very
compelling and non-partisan.
At this point a third question must
be raised. Why is my rude evaluation
of Basel harassment, and not the
student who quotably stated that
“[Joe’s methods have] been nothing
but a lame excuse to ruffle feathers and
cause an uproar among the rest of us
‘liberals’.” Is it because Swenson, or
whoever the moderator was, agreed
with the first several opinions but saw
the hypocrisy pointed out in mine?
“History has
shown that the
most positive
change
has
come through
discussion and
freethinking,
not force.”
When
David
Swenson,
or
whatever moderator allowed these
posts to be sent out to listserve, he or
they said yes to freedom of speech.
Great. Now here is another question:
Why didn’t my “reply all” get sent
out to listserve when I sarcastically
replied to the left-leaning comments?
If students are allowed to now give
opinion, and attack Joe Basel without
knowing him, why can’t my comment
be posted?
The night of the Basel presentation
I took the liberty of “playing
liberal” and took a cheap shot at
the conservative speaker. Although I
found what he had to say compelling,
I decided to test what the school would
allow. After sending my message, I
received the standard response- my
response has been received by the
UMM moderators and they would
review the message.
The following morning I wanted
to check my email to see the posting.
My response was not posted, but I did
see a different listserve message from
David Swenson. “Just a reminder
to everyone, there is a policy on use
of the ummstudents list:” the email
began. It contained a reminder that
you may not send ride requests as
well as something else, “Please also
be careful when sending out your
As found on the UMM website,
part of the school mission states,
“preparing its students to be global
citizens who value and pursue
intellectual growth, civic engagement,
intercultural
competence,
and
environmental stewardship.” It would
be nice to see a liberal arts school
that promotes intellectual growth,
promote growth of more than one
side of every issue.
“I fully agree
that the pen is
mightier than
the sword, but
what happens
when the pen
December 2012 some
of
us
are given does
not come with
ink?”
If the purpose of the listserve is
announcements, no opinion should
be allowed, the school has that right.
However, if one opinion is allowed,
they all should be. If this route is
not taken, the school should no
longer advertise an environment
that promotes a wide range of
viewpoints.
At this point you all may have a
question for me: What was it that I
said which was censored from the
listserve. I will respond with a request;
ask David Swenson. If he feels it is
inappropriate, then I guess you have
to trust him.
The irony of the matter is that, in
silencing my email the night of Joe
Basel’s speech, the school has pointed
out a bigger flaw in its system; limiting
some speech but not other does not
work forever. I fully agree that the pen
is mightier than the sword, but what
happens when the pen some of us are
given does not come with ink? Does
that mean we should stop writing?
John Geiger
Publisher
You! Yes, you! Subscribe to The NorthStar!
A donation of $25 or more will get you a one year subscription to The NorthStar
Name: __________________________________________________
Address: ________________________________________________
City: ________________________ State: ________ Zip: _________
Please make checks payable to The NorthStar.
The NorthStar
Mail to:
The NorthStar
600 East 4th Street
Morris, MN 56267
The Ottertail Petition: an
Exercise in Misinformed
Swag
“Barkeep!” he shouted, “Hither! Fix me an
expensive drink, paid for by the profits I have
made from the wheezing, coughing, polluted-upon
masses! Bwahahaha!”
Or at least, that’s what several of the most fervent
supporters of the recent petition to force Ottertail
to adopt a more ‘green’ stance in their power
production role likely envision. This image is
grossly inaccurate. Let us count the ways!
The overarching
problem is that these
old coal plants, which
are
intrinsically
economically
inefficient, are kept
alive by the breathing
machine of the false
Three! Three reasons! Ahahah – The problem
lies not within the power companies’ greed – as
greed is also the reason the vast majority of
consumers, including the signers of the petition,
continue to economically encourage the burning
of coal for electric power by not going off the
grid. This lack of a viable medium through which
consumers can interact with the market financially
is a real problem, and the key reason petitioning
a company for a certain demand is in fact a good
idea, but this is the wrong case to make. The
reality
perpetrated
by our corrupt legal
system.
In summary, stop pointing the finger at the street
dealer; take out Escobar.
Shout out to the two economics classes I have
taken at Morris which have granted me flawless
omniscience on this issue, shout out to Drizzy,
shout out to Rolling Rock – thanks for the
inspiration, shout out to my mom’s pot roast,
shout out to T. Boone Pickens, and shout out to
Carric – best support NA.
#5w@g #YOLO #KONY2012thereisstilltime!!1!!!
#noseriouslytboonepickens
RE
ER T
One! One reason! Ahahah. – Mr. Potter was a
paraplegic. He couldn’t swivel in an office chair
Two! Two reasons! Ahahah. – Ottertail is simply
performing the service that other corporations
nationwide are likewise performing. To punish
them is not at all removed from punishing a
singular Sonic franchise for having sugary drinks,
while leaving all of McDonalds and/or the King’s
own Burger stores alone. There is a problem with
using dirty energy, don’t get us wrong, but this is
the wrong target; to tackle this issue, petitioning
the widespread market or at least the largest
members (heh) would be much more effective
and not isolate individual power companies by
holding them to more aggressive standards than
their immediate competitors, thus making them
economic losers in the situation this petition
creates. Ottertail isn’t Exxon Mobil or Cargil. It’s
Ottertail, meng.
overarching problem is that these old coal plants,
which are intrinsically economically inefficient, are
kept alive by the breathing machine of the false
reality perpetrated by our corrupt legal system.
That is, whenever a Technology-Based Effluent
Standard (TBES) or Tradable Discharge Permit
(TDP) system is enacted by Congress or a given
State legislature, the companies with lobbying
control get ‘grandfathered in’ – because any sort
of environmental restrictions would likely raise
their costs of production, they won’t accept the bill
(and thus, neither will their pocketed legislators
from both sides of the aisle). To get the legislation
to pass, legislators offer the companies in place
free or discounted allowances or rates, effectively
reducing their costs compared to the competition
who must suffer the full financial penalty of the
legislation and thereby giving them an economic
edge. This system is present in the nation today,
most relevantly in the thermally-produced energy
market.
AL
“Barkeep!”
he
shouted, “Hither! Fix
me an expensive drink,
paid for by the profits
I have made from the
wheezing, coughing,
polluted-upon masses!
Bwahahaha!”
without using his arms, because his legs are
paralyzed. Besides, he would have been in his
wheelchair, anyway.
SATI
s the petition fell 37 votes short (according
to the petition’s home page on change.org),
the CEO of Ottertail, who is actually Mr. Potter,
began laughing maniacally, swiveling in his chair
to face his desk, stroking his cat (figuratively, not
literally).
A
Why go for the big fish when you can take
down the minnow?
December 2012 Pro-Gun Heroism
I
Hollywood reasoning is the wrong approach
to the right argument.
t’s no secret that America has a
gun problem. The firearm crime rate in the
U.S. is one of the highest in the developed
world, higher even than ethnically-tense
Eastern Europe. The method by which
the nation should alleviate this societal
burden is a topic of fervent dispute.
“Regardless
of
which side you happen
to be on, there are
people on your side
who are holding the
wrong picket signs.”
While the loudest Democrats
generally call for regulation ranging from
handgun bans to full-on recalls of all
firearms, the loudest of the Republicans
vary from defending assault weapons to
vying for minimal-paperwork ownership
of mountable machine guns and artillery
cannonry.
Regardless of which side you happen
to be on, there are people on your side
who are holding the wrong picket signs.
Predictably, I’ll assert that the incorrect
stance on the blue side is the notion
that tighter gun regulations mean fewer
guns in the hands of criminals. That is
a statistically and logically unfounded
argument. You’ve heard the swathes of
evidence – the most contemporary being
D.C. and the recent tragic events in the
UK – areas with a higher proportion of
registered gun owners regularly have
lower firearm crime rates. The logic is
simple: criminals are less likely to pull a
gun on someone if they are likely to have
a gun.
But know that the fear of an
10 The NorthStar
armed target is intensively the only
protection relaxed gun control offers;
most gun owners are in serious lack of
proper training, and nearly all have never
had prior experience firing their gun
outside of a range, let alone at an attacker.
In the chaos of an encounter, even the
trained often seize up and react purely on
instinct. With all this factored in, it’s easy
to imagine how the fantasy of a pictureperfect ending – the offender is either
disarmed or the sole casualty – is far from
typical and closer to myth. Bystanders get
shot, the armed citizen gets killed because
their endorphin-pumped bodies are
clumsier than they remember them being
on the range, and anything else that could
go wrong does. Damn it, Murphy.
Sorry, Republicans, I’m not done
weeding out the bad arguments yet.
The Second Amendment was written
with the intent of creating an armed
populace; that much is obvious. Where
the disagreement often arises is in the
purpose of that militia. Based on the
language used in the document and the
context of the authors and their era, I am
convinced that the goal was to prevent any
tyrannical government from getting too
comfortable in power. Yes, I am talking
about revolutions. The problem with that
nowadays is that the U.S. military, or the
theoretical opposition to any revolting
group, has tanks, battleships, fighter jets,
bombers, missile systems, and scores of
other technological goliaths to the measly
small arms available to citizens. Back
then, organized armies had cannons and
cavalry. Now, the populace then could
easily replicate a cavalry brigade with
their own horses, so that leaves only the
artillery as an advantage, and as any Age
of Empires 3 players know, cannons are
hellishly slow and easy to counter. Case
in point, Joe Schmoe and his rag-tag band
of anarchists or whoever isn’t going to be
toppling the U.S. government anytime
this century, so using protection from the
government as a reason for increased gun
ownership is silly.
“The
Second
Amendment
was
written with the intent
of creating an armed
populace,”
Finally, the most looming fear I have
of gun restriction (and in fact one of the
few I’d be willing to even picket for) is
the potential for creating a black market.
You take away guns with a partial ban or
a full recall, and a directly proportional
amount of guns will show up on the black
market, as they do now. People go where
they can for guns, whether it’s allowed
or not. And once people have those guns
and don’t need to fear being tied to any
crime that the gun is involved with due to
a lack of gun registration, then they will
get bolder (for the same reason, the “gun
show loophole” should be closed as soon
as legislatively possible… so, in the next
decade). We’ve seen how well prohibition
has worked, with alcohol first, and then
marijuana – how many of you reading
this couldn’t get access to weed in the
next day? Prohibition is facilitation of
ownership.
As you can see, the heroic notion of
a brave, armed man stickin’ it to thugs
and Uncle Sam singlehandedly is folly.
The truth is, the things to really fear from
gun bans are much less glamorous, and
accordingly more important.
Wry Guy
Columnist
This protestor means business.
Joe Basel Pays Morris a
Education Bubble: How can Morris
Visit Higher
Capitalize?
L
ast Wednesday, the NorthStar enjoyed
its debut event, hosting one of UMM’s most
renowned alumni, Joseph Basel. Mr. Basel,
founder of Morris’ former conservative student
newspaper, The Counterweight, currently works
as Executive Producer at American Lion Studios
and is CEO of the American Phoenix Foundation,
headquartered in Austin, TX. Basel flew all the
way from Austin for the occasion and spoke about
the higher education bubble as well as how UMM
can capitalize from it.
“During Wednesday’s
lecture
Basel
mentioned
three
ways we as students
benefit from pursuing
a higher education:
(1) learning skills,
(2) getting a degree,
(3) networking.”
Drawing in a pleasing crowd, Basel
pointed out the inflationary proponents of today’s
educational system, including the indulging access
to cheap government credit for both students
and University infrastructure. The effects of this
bloated market have led to higher tuition prices for
students and, at the same time, a lower net quality
of education.
But what’s wrong with cheap credit?
Of course education should be cheap! Being
educated is useful and helps us! However, we
don’t go to school just to go to school. And
pumping money into the system to create a higher
demand doesn’t simply increase the value of
education. It might give more people degrees,
but it leaves us with a poorer quality of education.
The mere absorption of knowledge is of no benefit
to society. Not unless we use this information to
add value in whatever we do and the quality of our
education remains marketable and competitive.
During Wednesday’s lecture Basel mentioned
three ways we as students benefit from pursuing
a higher education: (1) learning skills, (2) getting
a degree, and (3) networking.
Learning skills in college is the first
and most important of the three benefits. Without
skills, our education is useless.
An earned
degree is supposed to be proof of our skills and
accomplishments. It helps employers determine
whom to hire. Networking is not necessarily going
to parties every weekend (although buying your
professor a drink or two is never a bad idea),
but rather meeting friends or future employers at
conferences and events
“Over
88%
of
college
students
borrow money to
finance school and
the average student
debt after four years
is over $25,000.”
or interning with potential references. Clearly
these are all great benefits, but only one actually
returns a net benefit to society. That benefit,
learning skills, is losing its quality at a rapid pace.
Before we consider the problem
of higher education’s diminishing quality, it is
important to address this issue economically. As
education becomes easier to afford, via government
subsidies, more students (often unqualified or
overqualified) enter the market, causing schools
to grow and profits to expand. The expansion
of schools results from fake wealth entering the
system. Ultimately, schools absorb the wealth,
yet they fail to add any value with it. According
to supply and demand, any business would be
smart to raise its prices when people have access
to more money. What difference should it make
whether that money has been earned or not when
it’s guaranteed by the government?
Take the housing market, for example. We saw
the housing bubble inflate because Americans
“needed” housing. More and more unqualified
people bought homes, causing housing projects to
Basel amzed the audience with his balanced and practical approach.
December 2012 11
more and more money to pass out degrees
that prove nothing besides the fact we are able
to mostly go to class, mostly get good grades,
mostly give effort, and mostly not cause any public
terror; simply put, a degree today does not equal
a degree from years past. We pay thousands of
dollars to receive a piece of paper that proves
to our hopeful employers that we can survive in a
populated setting for a few years without getting
caught committing a serious crime while “kind of
writing papers and stuff.”
Basel was stumped by a tough
question from a student... not.
expand and prices to rise. Unfortunately, we saw
that same bubble pop in 2008 with over a million
Americans foreclosing on their mortgages. A
similar effect will eventually result in the education
bubble when students realize they are receiving
only a fraction of what they pay for.
According to dshort.com, college tuition
and fees have inflated 112% since 2000. Today,
the average cost of tuition for four-year institutions
is over $20,000. That’s pretty expensive when we
consider the average cost was under $3,500 in
1980. Comparing this with technology, in 1986 a
very basic Macintosh computer cost $2,600. Today
Mac Minis are being sold for $600 to anybody with
a Christmas list. Why have these two markets
run completely opposite courses? Education is
functioning within a bubble fueled by government
subsidies. If the government decided everyone
was entitled to a Macbook and issued credit for
every American towards a new laptop, the price of
laptops would skyrocket just as education has.
Almost every student graduates college
with debt. Over 88% of college students borrow
money to finance school and the average student
debt after four years is over $25,000. Great, this
just means there’s a nice support group, so why
be concerned?
The concern comes in when we
consider the diminishing quality of education
today. As Basel pointed out, we are spending
12 The NorthStar
“Not to suggest
we should all drop
out
of
school,
marry a beautiful
Miami conservative,
and
start
a
wildly
successful
business,”
It’s true that many students work hard
to get good grades and capitalize on opportunities
at college, and Joseph Basel said nothing to
discredit them or their hard work. He pointed
out that education costs too much and earning
a degree doesn’t mean too much any more. We
are witnessing a time where our degrees are no
Special thanks to
Joe Basel from the
NorthStar staff!
longer sufficient to qualify us for jobs. There is
an obvious need for cheaper alternatives to the
current system. As he pointed out multiple times,
information is free, so don’t be ruled by the system
especially when system is as broken as it is.
Basel has certainly capitalized on the
education bubble. He explained how he only
finished college because his mother wanted him
to. Basel later on explained how he did not take
a single skill from his college curriculum to use in
managing his businesses.
Not to suggest we should all drop out
of school, marry a beautiful Miami conservative,
and start a wildly successful business (but good
idea, Joe). However, it doesn’t require $100,000
in debt and a master’s degree to be successful.
Although education will definitely be a hot topic
issue moving forward, it is important to remember
that Morris is better than most universities. It
offers great opportunities for us to get involved
building up our skills and knowledge outside of
the classroom. His forecast leaves us with urgent
problems to deal with in the higher education
system. That said, just because we have been
robbed of quality education doesn’t mean we
can’t succeed. Basel pointed out, that America’s
most successful businessmen are where they
are because of their hard work, not their college
degree.
Samuel Preus Editor-in-Chief
Students, professors, and several other guests came to see Basel in action.
The Hypocrisy of
Our Time
The smoke and mirror effect of politics on foreign affairs.
I
n 1974 President Nixon
resigned from office after subsequent
pressure from both the legislative
branch and the press, as well as the high
courts. They had ordered him to hand
over the “Watergate tapes”, which
would eventually give definitive proof
of his involvement in the Watergate
scandal. The 1972 scandal involved
the break-in of the DNC headquarters
which was based at the Watergate
hotel in D.C. at the time. The purpose
of the break-in was to wiretap the
the Democratic headquarters for
campaign information. The reaction
of the political establishment, BOTH
Republicans and Democrats, and
the press against the President and
his men was swift, vigorous , and
ultimately successful. Keep in mind
that this (absolutely appropriate)
reaction was caused by a scandal
involved in election malpractice, and
in election which history suggests
Nixon was almost guaranteed to win
in the first place.
“On
September
11, 2012 a large
group of terrorists
associated
with
the local Libyan
branch
of
AlQaeda swarmed the
American consulate
in Benghazi.”
Now fast forward to present day. In
September 2012 the general election
was well underway, an election that
will be discussed by future historians
for numerous reasons. On the 11th
anniversary of 9-11 an event occurred
which broke the election news cycle
and still remains a story today. The
Libya debacle, sometimes referred to
as “Benghazi-Gate”, illustrates the
stunning hypocrisy and bias of both
today’s journalists and politicians.
“Obama
knew
about
Petraeus’ affair during the
campaign, and was using this
to blackmail Petraeus into
not testifying until after the
election to prevent it from
impacting him in the polls.”
On September 11, 2012 a large
group of terrorists associated with
the local Libyan branch of Al-Qaeda
swarmed the American consulate
in Benghazi. The terrorists were
armed with all types of weaponry
from high-powered assault rifles
to RPGs.
Normally an embassy
or consulate is provided security
from some sort of attachment of
US forces, usually Marines, but this
wasn’t the case in Benghazi. There
were only a few security contractors
at hand. As a result, the security
there was outmatched and fell to the
terrorists. The lives of Sean Smith,
Tyrone Woods, Glen Doherty, and
U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens
were lost that day.
Of course, as the events were first
unfolding live and in the following
days, this information was not yet
known or reported. At first, the White
President Nixon (left) and President Obama (right). At least Nixon
resigned.
House and the State department
concluded that the Benghazi “riot”, as
well as the demonstrations in Cairo,
Egypt were a result of an Anti-Muslim
film that had recently appeared on
Youtube. In an address from the Rose
Garden President Obama did state the
word “terror” in his speech, however
it did not indicate that Benghazi
itself was terror related. Obama said
toward the end of the address, “no act
of terror can ever shake our resolve,”
which itself is a very vague line, that
only addresses a national sentiment,
not specifically citing Benghazi as a
result of an attack. So the “it was a
riot based off a video” idea stuck...
for a while.
But after a while strange
incidents occurred.
After reports
from government officials that an
investigation was ongoing, CNN went
to Benghazi to do some investigating
of their own. They found out that
not only were there no U.S officials
on the ground investigating, but that
CNN themselves had arrived first,
and accessed classified files and
documents found inside.
Then the narrative began to
unfold as a Libyan Al-Qaeda affiliate
started to claim responsibility for the
consulate assault. Then emails were
being discovered from Ambassador
Stevens and the security attachment
there had been requesting additional
security weeks prior to the attack.
This left three plausible and equally
disturbing scenarios: 1- The State
department’s system for responding
to potential threats was seriously
flawed and mishap prone. 2- The
State department denied the request
for more security. 3- They ignored
the requests entirely. Meanwhile, the
mainstream media largely ignored
these developments, with the main
reporting being done by conservative
outlets such as The Drudge Report
and Breitbart.com.
As things were seemingly reaching
December 2012 13
a fever pitch during the campaign,
Libya made its presence felt in the
second debate, but was dropped by
the Romney campaign as the media’s
continual assertion that pressuring
Obama about the truth of Benghazi
was somehow another one of
Romney’s “gaffes”.
Since the election Benghazi-Gate
has not disappeared. The revelation
of General David Petraeus’ affair
added a new realm of intrigue to the
story. The news (surprise!) broke
just after Obama’s reelection, and
now Petraeus has testified that he
knew since the attack occurred that
it was terrorism, which leads to the
thought that maybe the White House,
and the State Department spinned
“terror attack” into “riot based on a
video”to keep Obama’s foreign policy
credentials still appearing strong
going into the election. It also seems
reasonable to think that President
Obama knew about Petraeus’ affair
during the campaign, and was using
this to blackmail Petraeus into not
testifying until after the election to
prevent it from impacting him in the
polls.
Of course, now all of the media
firestorm is focused on the Libya
hearings in Congress right now, and
one person, ambassador Susan Rice,
who was since the beginning been
involved in the controversy. In the midst of her testimony a
new low of politics and journalism
is starting to reach an all-time high,
that being the new ethos of our
zeitgeist: faux outrage.
And the
outrage is most definitely fake due
to the political underpinnings of
this scandal (Ambassador Rice is
being considered to take outgoing
Secretary of State Clinton’s position,
but if this scandal damages her, it is
likely Obama will tap Massachusetts
Senator John Kerry to fill the slot,
which in turn will give recently ousted
Republican Scott Brown a chance to
get back into the Senate.) To prevent
Rice (and the administration) from
looking bad, mainstream news outlets
(and to pretend that mainstream news
outlets such as NBC, CBS, New York
Times, etc. do not lean left is willful
ignorance) and Democrats in the
House and Senate have now decided
to name anyone who criticizes
Ambassador Rice’s ineptitude as
racist (as Rice is black.).
Newspapers
such
as
the
Washington Post and the New York
times have suggested that attacks on
the failed leadership of Ambassador
Rice
by
former
Republican
presidential candidate and war hero
John McCain as “racist”. South
Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn
(D) said that the criticisms of Rice
were littered with racist “code
words”. So according to Mr. Clyburn,
who is himself black, words such as
“incompetent” or “failure”, are no
longer acceptable for white people to
use, because insteading of meaning
what they say in the dictionary, they
are used as the language of the new
country-wide secret society of white
Americans, all of whom hate black
people.
Meanwhile after all of the
political posturing, the incendiary
comments on the talk-shows and
in the newspapers and blogs, four
Americans are dead. In the 1970s
politicians of both parties and the
mainstream press searched for the
truth for the sake of finding the truth.
However, in the spirit of the times,
we should ignore the deaths of our
fellow citizens and focus on banning
racist words like “incompetent” from
the dictionary.
Freedom Trend
The conservative trend towards non-interventionism.
T
he GOP has adopted
a hawkish stance towards foreign
policy in the last decade. Since
September 11, Republicans have
been overwhelmingly supportive
of the “War on Terrorism,” being
sidetracked and supporting useless
wars and aggression in the Middle
East. It is a shame to consider the
GOP’s abandonment of former
president Bush’s foreign policy during
the 2000 presidential campaign.
Bush, debating former Vice President
Al Gore, said about foreign nations,
“if we’re an arrogant nation, they’ll
resent us; if we’re a humble nation,
but strong, they’ll welcome us.”
How different this stance is from
the course actually taken by Bush’s
administration with GOP support.
However, U.S. foreign policy is a
popular disgrace among America’s
younger generation.
Thanks to
names, popular among college-age
students, such as Congressman Ron
14 The NorthStar
Tony Bannach
Columnist
Paul, conservatives in the legislature
and electorate seem to be trending
towards a humbler foreign policy.
One of Paul’s most notable public
challenges was during a Republican
primary debate in 2007. Paul argued
that U.S. foreign policy of sanctioning,
bombing, and overthrowing foreign
governments was the biggest threat to
our national security, in effect causing
terrorist attacks. In response, New
York mayor Rudy Giuliani blasted
Paul for asserting the U.S. “invited
the 9/11 attacks.” “I don’t think I’ve
ever heard that before, and I’ve heard
some pretty absurd explanations
for September 11th,” he said.
Emotionally driven, Giuliani received
great applause for this statement. Dr.
Paul didn’t back down.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy stance
is not emotionally driven. Rather,
it’s intellectually based. A serious
educational stance takes time to set
into the minds of the broader public,
but it surely is working today. Paul
points out the devastating
“Paul
argued
that U.S. foreign
policy of sanctioning,
bombing,
and overthrowing
f o r e i g n
governments was
the biggest threat
to
our
national
security,”
financial implications due to
American interventionism as well as
the unintended violent repercussions
to national security.
Conservatives are becoming more
and more supportive of Paul’s staunch
non-interventionism. In 2002, only
seven congressional Republicans,
including Paul, opposed the Iraq War.
Today, however, as Paul gets ready to
end his congressional career, we are
witnessing conservative trends of
congressional and public support for
a humble foreign policy. In fact, a
majority of registered Republicans are
now for the first time in opposition to
the war in Afghanistan.
This
trend
towards
noninterventionism is a trend towards
freedom and is consistent with all
other conservative values. Ron Paul
has expressed this very well as a truly
conservative platform. As Dr. Paul
leaves office this year, we thank him
for his bold intellectual service.
Columnist
And Now, a Word from Our Original
Founder, Frederick Douglass...
The North Star,
3 December
1847
W
appreciation of the zeal, integrity, or ability of the
noble band of white laborers, in this department
of our cause; but, from a sincere and settled
conviction that such a Journal, if conducted with
only moderate skill and ability, would do a most
important and indispensable work, which it would
be wholly impossible for our white friends to do
for us.
It is neither a reflection on the fidelity, nor a
disparagement of the ability of our friends
and fellow-laborers, to assert what “common
sense affirms and only folly denies,” that the
man who has suffered the wrong is the man
to demand redress,—that the man STRUCK
is the man to CRY OUT—and that he who has
endured the cruel pangs of Slavery is the man
to advocate Liberty. It is evident we must be
our own representatives and advocates, not
exclusively, but peculiarly—not distinct from, but
in connection with our white friends. In the grand
struggle for liberty and equality now waging, it
Animated by this intense desire, we have pursued is meet, right and essential that there should
arise in our ranks authors and editors, as well as
our object, till on the threshold of obtaining it.
Our press and printing materials are bought, and orators, for it is in these capacities that the most
not wholly unaware of the duties, hardships and
paid for. Our office secured, and is well situated, permanent good can be rendered to our cause.
responsibilities of our position. We have easily
in the centre of business, in this enterprising
imagined some, and friends have not hesitated
city. Our office Agent, an industrious and amiable Hitherto the immediate victims of slavery and
to inform us of others. Many doubtless are yet to
young man, thoroughly devoted to the interests prejudice, owing to various causes, have had
be revealed by that infallible teacher, experience.
of humanity, has already entered upon his duties. little share in this department of effort: they
A view of them solemnize, but do not appal us.
have frequently undertaken, and almost as
Printers well recommended have offered their
We have counted the cost. Our mind is made up,
frequently failed. This latter fact has often been
services, and are ready to work as soon as we
and we are resolved to go forward.
urged by our friends against our engaging in the
are prepared for the regular publication of our
present enterprise; but, so far from convincing
paper. Kind friends are rallying round us, with
In aspiring to our present position, the aid of
words and deeds of encouragement. Subscribers us of the impolicy of our course, it serves to
circumstances has been so strikingly apparent as
confirm us in the necessity, if not the wisdom
are steadily, if not rapidly coming in, and some
to almost stamp our humble aspirations with the
of the best minds in the country are generously of our undertaking. That others have failed,
solemn sanctions of a Divine Providence. Nine
offering to lend us the powerful aid of their pens. is a reason for OUR earnestly endeavoring to
years ago, as most of our readers are aware, we
succeed. Our race must be vindicated from the
The sincere wish of our heart, so long and so
were held as a slave, shrouded in the midnight
embarrassing imputations resulting from former
devoutly cherished seems now upon the eve of
ignorance of that infernal system—sunken in the
non-success. We believe that what ought to
complete realization.
depths of senility and degradation—registered
be done, can be done. We say this, in no selfwith four footed beasts and creeping things—
confident or boastful spirit, but with a full sense
It is scarcely necessary for us to say that our
regarded as property—compelled to toil
of our weakness and unworthiness, relying
desire to occupy our present position at the
without wages—with a heart swollen with bitter
upon the Most High for wisdom and strength to
head of an Antislavery Journal, has resulted
anguish—and a spirit crushed and broken. By a
from no unworthy distrust or ungrateful want of support us in our righteous undertaking. We are
e are now about to assume the
management of the editorial department of a
newspaper, devoted to the cause of Liberty,
Humanity and Progress. The position is one
which, with the purest motives, we have long
desired to occupy. It has long been our anxious
wish to see, in this slave-holding, slave-trading,
and Negro-hating land, a printing-press and
paper, permanently established, under the
complete control and direction of the immediate
victims of slavery and oppression.
singular combination of circumstances we finally
succeeded in escaping from the grasp of the man
who claimed us as his property, and succeeded in
safely reaching New Bedford, Mass. In this town
we worked three years as a daily laborer on the
wharves. Six years ago we became a Lecturer on
Slavery. Under the apprehension of being retaken into bondage, two years ago we embarked
for England. During our stay in that country, kind
friends, anxious for our safety, ransomed us from
slavery, by the payment of a large sum. The same
friends, as unexpectedly as generously, placed in
our hands the necessary means of purchasing
a printing press and printing materials. Finding
ourself now in a favorable position for aiming an
important blow at slavery and prejudice, we feel
urged on in our enterprise by a sense of duty to
God and man, firmly believing that our effort will
be crowned with entire success.
December 2012 15
Coming up Next Time:
SATI
ER T
Planned Parenthood: Comprehensive
guide to defying nature... fo free
RE
AL
You didn’t build that: A guide to how
the government built your business
Orientation Celebration: Why it rocks to be straight
Pollution: A correlation between squirrel droppings
and rising temperatures in the Atlantic
Man I’m a Happy Liberal.. Said No One Ever
A Public Service Announcement:
ER T
SATI
RE
AL
When properly used the “victims” of satire are in a position where they cannot tell if they have been attacked or
not, and the attacker has the ability to deny that any attack has taken place. The satirist does this through hiding
their purpose; because this satire is often misunderstood. The use of sarcasm, irony, and
other forms of humor from which it cannot be easily distinguished often compound this
misunderstanding. This can lead to many problems ranging from slight irritation with
the satirist to a complete misunderstanding of the author’s intentions and opinions.
All students at UMM are encouraged to think critically, and as critical thinkers one
should possess the ability to distinguish between satire and the statement of an opinion.
However, in order to reduce any possibility of causing “alarm, anger, fear, or resentment
in others” (UMM Bias Incident Policy) due to satire, The NorthStar has decided that it will
never advocate the use of satire in any of its articles unless the article is accompanied
by a symbol announcing to the reader that they need to beware as the article they are
about to read contains satire.
Readers beware... this issue may contain satire!