The Rice Thresher, Vol. 94, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 3, 2006 Page: 2 of 20
twenty pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 3,2006
the Rice Thresher
Controversial scholar
worth student attention
Nationally influential and politically polarizing speakers do not
appear on campus to talk to undergrads every day. But today, thanks
to the efforts of the Baker Institute Student Forum, students have
the opportunity to interact with one of the minds behind one of the
government's most controversial recent policies. A panel featuring
former Bush Administration Justice Department official John Yoo
begins at today 4 p.m. in Baker Hall. BISF should be praised for
landing a big name speaker from across the country just days before
the election. We just hope students make the most of it.
Yoo is a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley and
was U.S. deputy assistant attorney general during George W. Bush's
first term. He is best known for supporting a legal justification of
torture in the United States, and he played a key role in the creation
of the USA PATRIOT Act. He has publicly criticized the separation
of powers in U.S. government, and he has received criticism for his
views from both liberal and conservative political pundits, as well as
his own students. But Yoo's influence on national policy is consider-
able, and Bush supporters have praised him for promoting measures
to expedite executive conduct in the wake of Sept. 11.
Having such a high-profile figure available to students so close to
election day is a big deal, and we hope students give the forum the
attention and respect it deserves. Rice students are trained to raise
intelligent questions, and when we can use this training to address
issues outside the hedges, we should.
Off-campus housing helps
grads and undergrads
Rice's recent purchase of additional property for graduate housing
is commendable. (See story, page 7.) We are happy to see that the
university is taking an interest in the quality of life of its graduate popu-
lation, and we hope the project continues as well as it has begun.
The near-doubling in Rice-subsidized off-campus housing will serve
a few key purposes: It will make the university more attractive to pro-
spective graduate students—particularly international and out-of-state
ones. And while we respect that the housing should be available primar-
ily to graduate students, we hope the university will consider opening
some of the additional space to undergraduates as well.
President David Leebron promoted the idea of off-campus
undergraduate housing during his Call to Conversation, and we
think permitting undergraduates to use a portion of the potential
Shakespeare Road graduate housing would be a great way to test
this idea. We do not want to see an exodus from Rice's residential
college system, but providing an alternative—particularly one within
a short and safe walking distance from campus — would provide
undergraduates with a more diverse range of housing options.
Having a neighborhood of students in a centralized, off-campus
location would provide security and community, not to mention
affordability, during the transition to independent residential life.
Vote Tuesday and
reverse apathetic trend
In last November's election, Rice students put the "pathetic" in
"apathetic." A mere 263 of about 1400 students registered to vote at the
Rice Memorial Center showed up to the booths. That 19 percent turnout
rate was only one point higher than Harris County's 18 percent.
Granted, some would say the stakes were not as high in last
year's local and state issues as in this year's midterm elections.
Proposition 2. the Texas constitutional amendment banning gay
marriage, was the most hyped 2005 ballot item in an election that
featured a mayoral race with no major challengers. But if gay mar-
riage, an issue particularly resonant with our generation, could not
motivate students to vote, something is wrong.
Tuesday is voting day, and with convenient on-campus booths avail-
able, we hope Rice students show that they actually care about what's
goingon in the world. On Wednesday, Harvard University's Institute of
Politics released a national poll showing 32 percent of 18-to-24-year-olds
"definitely" intend to vote — which indicates that our demographic is
prepped for its highest turnout rate in a midterm election in 25 years.
Will Rice students be part of that trend? We hope >o.
Unsigned editorials represent the majority opinion of the Thresher
editorial staff.
OCT AA/& 7?UC€ rb 7KG P*>LLS
006 Election Gui
HELLO, PoUTtCALLy IH0W fVlUCH /ouHtfcrrG
Movmrep 4tee STvPmJTtfgfiLXX QOUMTS
XVM WILLYj YwR O-hieTER
CpWxA asks fa do
2.00b
To vontfo THIS toesqay!
AS Ybv CAN THIS
YeAR'S "How /huch YtutK
fOTE CfiWTS" LS3/BJL FoR
TK-l/TX-iM
{* c'/
HOWj THEVj CAM YOU 0
ck&k out hot
local RACESf
{lo&tf Beer Bike
Thciwe Election
TX-I3M SlTVTg fteP.
(China)
□ Ellen Cohen
LOXACUb)
jji Mhair pclcrvieziar
<A7M5*/*1
FQ% fytffoNG. CeNCJErtNGP
rt3oUT //win/ fe^A/TS
7~4£/A/fr QV*
HAvs TH&e Ftfsr-
R UrttViNb Fo<t TEXAS
House/ IT'S n«e AN
fzL££1'OML KAueN VS.
wins j we Lose/
TX-? U.S.
[ j John Colberts on
□ "J (*r»
t I T)reu> Parks
Jim HGNUEY 1$ A 6AAP
OF SofTHW&TeRN SA^T/Sl
LOGICAL 5e/Ht*ARY
AHto AN EXfEtT P£5Aie
COACH,,. THANK 6>OP
He's A veNodLAl FoZ
Some Also,
John Cul3&RtSon it
TH£ ONUf CANVlVAT€
MTHOCIT A
jup(*E5 Jt>, ANYoN£f\
Alain
W/?lT£-j/S
$AP THAT You CAA/T
fAK£?A*T /A/ TY-2Z's
lAT*lVe-l*J
£FPotT? NOT/
TH&E Ate LOTS OF
v/voppolep RACES in
it/HI OA You CAN luRlTZ
IN anything YOU want!
NOTHING MAK&S *
covnty cue#* u>se
FAITH IN HBA NA-TION*
FiATi/te cpwre u/ce
CoVNTtNb VOTES ft>/l
KlA FAfiT" OR "AL HA/6Y
Guest column
Libertarianism puts personal freedom first
When I first became politically aware,
I identified as a Democrat because I
was — and still am — socially liberal.
However, as I gained more knowledge
of how the government
implements policy, I began
to realize the Democratic
Party's system was flawed.
The basis for this feeling is
purely economic: whenever
government departments
are the sole distributor
of services to the people,
it creates a monopoly in
which politicians are robber
barons and we, the people,
are screwed.
I know what you are
thinking: The government cannot
be a monopoly because monopolies
only happen when capitalist policies
prevent the government from mak-
ing the free market a fair market.
That is a lie. In fact, the government
creates monopolies just as often as it
destroys them. But when the govern-
ment decides it will provide a service
as a social program, it eliminates our
freedom to choose by giving itself
total control of the market.
This is a problem because when-
ever any seller has monopolistic con-
trol of a market, it becomes immune
to the refining effects of competition.
Therefore, the seller ends up provid-
ing a good of poorer quality than that
which would be produced if it had to
compete. In other words, monopolies
do not evolve because they terminate
the roles of market forces in a given
environment. As a result, they sell
low-quality products to consumers,
who must buy them because they
have no other options.
Currently, our government's
monopolistic character creates one
severe problem for Americans: We
are forced to pay high prices for bad
goods. A perfect example of this, on
the state level, is the well-loathed
Department of Motor Vehicles. The
purpose of the I )M V is important and
necessary — ensuring that only safe
drivers are legally allowed to drive.
However, without any competition
for this service, the DM V does not do
its job nearly as well as it should. In
Texas, this inefficiency has produced
dangerous policies — such as not
requiring behind-the-wheel tests for
new drivers who pass driver's educa-
Garrett
Schumann
tion. In this case, taxpaying Texans
are paying the state for a service
someone else — a private driving
instructor—provides, clear evidence
that state and federal
bureaucracies cannot ser-
vice our needs as well
as the private market.
But because these gov-
ernment departments
are monopolistic, citi-
zens are powerless to
influence them.
These views make
me Libertarian because
Libertarians are the only
people who recognize the
same problems. Demo-
crats come close, but they want to
increase the size of the government,
make it a larger monopoly and forge
impassable iron triangles. And
Republicans are too socially restric-
tive and big-government oriented to
suit my needs, although many people
think inaccurately that Libertarians
and Republicans are very similar.
Essentially, I am a Libertarian
because libertarians believe in mak-
ing personal freedom a priority in our
government, whether it is freedom to
choose to have an abortion, freedom
to carry a firearm or even freedom
to not wear a seat belt.
Being Libertarian does not mean
I want to ignore people who need
assistance: I just do not think it helps
to create monopolistic relationships
between the government seller
and citizen buyer for essential ser-
vices like healthcare and education. If
monopolies would not be tolerated in
any other market, we should not let
the government create one in these
most important markets. As the great
economist Milton Friedman once
said, "Many people want the govern-
ment to protect the consumer. A much
more urgent problem is to protect the
consumer from the government."
Moreover, eliminating the gov-
ernment monopoly would not leave
people needy. Private enterprise and
charity would easily and efficiently
serve recipients of government aid
because their demands would still
exist. Through these means, people
would be free to solve their problems
how they want to — not how the
government wants them to. 1 feel it
is fundamentally liberal to believe
this because liberalism has always
pursued the expansion of freedom.
When our constitution was ratified
in 1789, the government was handed
a clear set of priorities: protect Ameri-
cans' life, liberty, pursuit of property
and other enumerated rights. But I
fear our country has lost its identity.
I feel our government has grown
so large it violates the freedoms it
should protect. I feel our leaders do
not understand the true relationship
of power between the people and the
government and continually increase
the ways the government con'aols
our lives. I feel these are the greatest
threats to my liberty. That is why I
am a Libertarian.
Garrett Schumann is a Hanszen
College freshman.
CONTACTING THE
THRESHER
Letters
■ Letters to the editor
should be sent to the Thresher
by e-mail to thresher®rice. edu.
Letters must be received by
5 p.m. on the Monday prior to
a Friday publication date.
■ All letters to the editor
must be signed and include
college and year if the writer
is a Rice student.
■ Letters should be no lon-
ger than 250 words in length
The Thresher reserves the
right to edit letters for both
content and length.
Subscribing
■ Annual subscriptions are
available for $50 domestic and
$125 international via first
class mail.
Advertising
m We accept display and clas-
sified advertisements. Adver-
tisements must be received by
5 p.m. on the Monday prior
to a Friday publication date.
I'lease contact our advertising
manager at (713)348-3%7 or
thresher-ads@rice.edu for
more information.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Brown, David. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 94, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 3, 2006, newspaper, November 3, 2006; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443090/m1/2/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.