Many argue that ROTC may have a legal right to be on campus, but morally it doesn’t deserve place. but that it does not so on a moral ground. This argument is based on the premise that the teaching of war and values contrary to the Catholic faith and the Gospel.

It is true that war is against the teachings of the Catholic Church, but only in the case of unjust war. St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest theologians and doctors of the Church, addresses this issue in the Summa Theologica. In Part II, Question 40, he says that in order for a war to be moral “a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault”. In other words, if nation A attacks nation B, nation B may rightfully strike back at nation A. St. Thomas also cites Romans 13:4, saying that the nation that attacks out of self defense “beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”. Clearly, it is not against the teaching of the Catholic Church to wage a just war.

In order to carry out a just war, a military is needed, which in turn requires soldiers. Any Catholic would hope that these soldiers would be trained under the guidance of the Catholic Church, so that they may be led to make morally sound decisions in war. It is not contrary to Catholic teaching to train soldiers for this purpose. Therefore, ROTC does, morally speaking, have a rightful place here at Marquette.

While this justifies the presence of ROTC at Marquette in light of just wars, this argument does not justify, however, the presence of ROTC at Marquette in light of unjust wars, which, unfortunately, are all too common. So what is one to do if he is called to fight a war that is deemed unjust by the Catholic Church? And how can we justify training soldiers to fight these unjust wars at a Catholic University? To answer these questions, I quote the gospel of St. Mark, which says to “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God the things that are God’s” (Mark 12:17). The meaning here is that Catholics have a twofold duty in life: to God and to country. Catholics who do wish to serve their nation by joining the military, although there are many other ways to serve one’s country, do so because they recognize the need for soldiers to fight just wars in order to preserve and protect the ground you walk on. In doing so, they pledge, out of the humility that the Catholic Church so strongly instills in its faithful, to do the will of their country, whatever it may be. As citizens, all should vote for the candidates who will keep us out of unjust wars, but that is not always going to be the case. A soldier cannot pick and choose his battles; as such would be detrimental to the cohesion of the armed forces. Just as it is not our choice to decide what God asks of us, so it is not our choice to decide what our nation asks of us.

Finally, the classes that the ROTC students receive do not teach them to kill blindly, and “without conscience”. They simply give our nation’s future officers some of the tools they will need to carry out the wars this nation sends them to fight. How they choose to employ those tools is based entirely on their moral compasses, which are formed through their education.

To say that ROTC does not have a rightful place here at Marquette because it supports war, or because the ROTC classes teach future military officers to kill without conscience is clearly an uneducated opinion.

by John Schelstrate
john.schelstrate@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Recently an international investor purchased an apartment complex near the intersection of 15th and Kilbourn. The new owner then notified the current residents that they have one month to vacate the premises. The owner now plans on renovating the interior and having it available for use by the fall of 2010. While this may not sound bad at first, when one realizes that the purpose of this is to remove the residents, many of whom are not Marquette students, and replace them with exclusively MU students, one sees that this is a horrific idea. This housing discrimination is something which should not be accepted by the MU community. The university should step in and say that it does not condone exclusive housing units which discriminate based upon whether or not the individual seeking to live there is a student at Marquette. Marquette, as a Jesuit institution of higher learning, must live up to its core values and embrace all people, not just its students. One of the reasons that many people chose Marquette over other urban universities is that it proudly boasts of having no walls or fences, and that it welcomes the people of Milwaukee to freely walk though campus and interact with the students. The policy of preventing these people from living near campus, however, is one which effectively declares that students are, for one reason or another, superior and better tenants.

As a Jesuit university Marquette should be open to all people living in the neighborhood around its campus. Simply because an individual does not attend Marquette does not mean that that person should not be allowed to live in the campus area. While one cannot state categorically that the policies of the management company which only allows students to live in its buildings are classist or racist, mainly because Marquette students are from a variety of economic backgrounds and races, the fact still remains that the majority if Marquette students are white, and the majority of non-Marquette students who live in the campus area are African-American. In addition, whether the perception is true or not, MU students are, by and large, considered to be of at least middle class background, and it is likely that these students will be in a higher economic group than the current residents, most of whom are categorized as low income residents. The fact that Marquette is not speaking out against the removal of non-students in favor of students is appalling. We as a campus community must speak up and declare that we will not accept housing discrimination, based on any categories, to exist in our community. Marquette should take the lead in this by opening campus owned apartment complexes to anyone who is willing to pay the rent for these apartments. While many argue that the purpose of these university properties is to guarantee that students have housing in the area of campus, the fact still remains that most students who live in apartments live in ones which are not owned by the university, and have been able to find housing.

Outside of financial incentives, i.e. charging much higher rent to students than to the current low income residents, there is no reason why the new owners of the property should exclude the current residents from remaining in their homes. Even if the owners were to argue that the increase in rent would be the reason why they are kicking out the current residents, what they cannot justify is limiting those living in the apartments to students. While it is true that students can afford higher rents than many of those living in the Marquette area, it does not mean that those individuals should be excluded from even trying to live in the building, and as such financial motivations cannot be a legitimate justification for this discrimination.

Another argument which could be posited would be that the non-students are somehow more dangerous than students, or more likely to cause property damage. It may be true that there are more criminals who are not students than there are who are students, it is also true that property management companies often check to see if people with criminal records live in their buildings, and this could happen also for this company. As such, there is no inherently greater danger to having non-students live in a building as there is with students. In addition, one needs only to visit any one of a number of apartment complexes on a Friday or Saturday night to see the willingness of MU students to drink while underage and to commit any number of minor criminal offences, like disorderly conduct or vandalism. The simple fact is that college students in general, like any group of young people, are a rowdy group, and are no less noisy and destructive than the average non-student living in Marquette’s neighborhood. As such, we as a community must realize that the limitation of housing to students only is a discriminatory act and one which should not be supported whatsoever.

By: Jonathan Stepp
jonathan.stepp@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Today one turns on the news whether it be on CNN, Fox or MSNBC and find themselves bombarded with loud-mouthed people talking about potential bridges to nowhere, healthcare reforms, taxes, education, political scandals, employment, spending freezes and spending increases. All equally deserving of the American public’s attention, right? But has one ever stopped to consider why?

The fact of the matter is most people do not really care to look into things waiting to be moved along in that mess known as the “journey of a bill.” They just let it sit on Capitol Hill, making School House Rock videos, until it is suddenly and sporadically shot to the floor of the House where it is voted on by a congress comprised of 535 elected people. And we the constituents do not bat an eyelash. That is until we suddenly realize we are all wearing pink suits because our politicians passed the hypothetical equal appearance act with the intent to help eliminate racial profiling. And what do you and I do at that point? We complain and ask, “how could we have let this happened?”

In all reality it is partially us the constituents’ fault. Perhaps you were one of the few people in the United States that was not energized by the 2008 election, and now sit in your political science classes counting the number of kids around you sleeping and then twittering about it. That does not change the fact that every decision made up on Capitol Hill will affect you, either directly with things like tuition subsides, or indirectly through things such as new taxes. You might be saying to yourself,
“I’m just a simple college student at this very moment, so why worry about all that political crap?”

Well there is a simple answer to that. Unless you are Van Wilder and plan on attending Marquette for the rest of your life, you are training for the real world. A world that will tax you more, a world you will have a greater influence on, and one that you must safeguard for future generations. The point being, whether Democrat or Republican, Independent or Moderate (a.k.a too scared to have an opinion) the world will soon be in your hands. And in the United States we are blessed with the opportunity to have a direct impact on those who we elect to make decisions for us.

So next time you turn on the news do not be so quick to flip the channel because Bill O’Reilly or Anderson Cooper is talking politics. Take two minutes, even make it a study break, and just listen. Hear what’s going on in our country. Or rather your country. If you do not like what is happening, call up your representative and tell them, it’s their job to vote for the America you want to inherit. So that way, when we walk across that stage and Father Wild hands off that piece of paper that unlocks our future, and grants us safer passage through our countries ups and downs, we will personally know we did our best to make this country something we can be proud of.

by Wade Balkonis
wade.balkonis@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

The new bipartisan Jobs Bill backed by Senators Baucus (D- Mont) and Grassley (R-IOWA) is a weak attempt at creating an incentive for firms to start hiring again. The fact of the matter is that the majority of jobs that have been lost in the past two years is due to the United States no longer being competitive in some industries. The majority of lost jobs are in manufacturing and in low to unskilled labor. We have been undercut in labor costs by many countries in Latin America and China, the most infamous of supplier of cheap labor. The bulk of the jobs bill instills incentives for businesses to start hiring by offering tax breaks when one hires an unemployed worker and to buy new equipment.

Theoretically, this sounds absolutely fantastic. However, those workers that have lost their jobs have no industry to return to because it is not viable anymore. Simply put, manufacturing in low-technology industries is dead in the United States. This means that this bill will not help people back into jobs because those businesses that could have hired them are either bought out by other larger companies or those businesses are not there anymore. It’s wonderful to create an incentive for an industry that is no longer viable, right? The real kicker is that House Democrats are essentially pushing Republicans to vote for this “bipartisan jobs bill” based on the fact that it is loaded with tax cuts advocated for by Republicans. This bill doesn’t make sense when the real problem is that the United States is losing the industries that it seeks to help in this bill. For example, giving GM a tax cut for hiring unemployed workers is not going to help GM become a viable company in the future if it does not address the problems that prohibit GM from becoming competitive today. GM must be able to compete against a company like Toyota that produces the same quality cars at a lower price. Those problems need to be addressed before any hiring can occur. This bill ultimately creates a broader victory plan for a war in the global economy without setting the initial, smaller and more intricate battles that can win this war.

Therefore, the Democrats win in the public arena by publicizing that they came up with a bipartisan jobs bill that the Republicans will most likely shoot down because of the sheer ineffectiveness of the bill when logically argued. A jobs bill that is almost useless (some moderate to high tech industry will benefit from this bill,) should not be used by Democrats to make the Republicans a scapegoat for the United States jobs situation. The bill is simply not responsive to present day economic realities in the US.Party politics aside, what can be done to renew hiring in the labor market? The United States needs to have an upper hand in the industries that in which it succeeds and the ability to export while the dollar is weak. While the influx of money comes back into American hands from these exports, smart investments into our education and economy need to be made. More efficient means of production are necessary and that cannot happen without a higher education standard. While our competition, China for example, continues to exploit their low skill labor force that can only stay viable for so long, the United States can be moving onto the next step and furthering the machinery that both effectively creates the goods bought from the low cost labor and also creating new industry.

There has been no bill passed by Congress that helps to stimulate new industry. Obviously,renewable resources are the newest industry that looks to be promising, but it requires a higher education standard. While advocating environmental technology simply for the sake of being green makes little economic sense, when such industries promise to stimulate the economy, investments in them make good sense. The renewable resources industry is in its infancy, just as the computer industry was in the late 1970s and early 1980s when many said it would not work. The most competitive arena of industry are those that seek to lower costs and maintain efficiency. It seems completely ridiculous that no Congressperson can step up and actually create an intelligent and stimulating jobs bill. Instead Congress has created a bill that just uses party politics to pit opposing sides against each other like small children on a kindergarten playground.

by Natalia Antas
natalia.antas@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

There are many issues that do not have a clear cut answer or a solution that would better off everyone if implemented. One such issue is the fuzzy legal line between an armed security force and a police force, in relation to the Marquette University Department of Public Safety (DPS). Recently an article appeared arguing
that as non-sworn law enforcement officers, DPS routinely oversteps their legal authority and has adopted a mentality above and beyond their legal status as security officers. There is a fine line to walk between protecting campus residents and property and overstepping their authority. However, in the big picture, DPS does a fantastic job of securing campus and keeping students safe.

First, there is an argument that DPS should become actual sworn law-enforcement officers or simply defer to the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) in all matters in which life and property are not immediately
threatened. If DPS were a police department, their citations and actions would carry with it the full force of law. Marquette students who choose to drink underage, instead of being told to pour it out in the alley or having a referral to meet with a Hall Director would instead face monetary fines and attain a criminal record in the State of Wisconsin. Such records are public information and do not go away with graduation. If students would prefer police action in response to general underage partying and typical, if not quite acceptable,
collegiate behavior, then making DPS a police department makes sense. In addition, DPS has every right to enforce University policies against underage drinking. This means they are doing students a favor telling them to go home or pour out alcohol rather than referring them to a disciplinary board or the police.

Second, creating excessively cumbersome regulations for DPS places the campus in greater jeopardy than it already is in given its location and surroundings. Last issue’s article argued that camera usage in order to respond to crimes ongoing violates DPS authority as private citizens since citizens cannot ‘respond’ to a crime. This is an argument that makes sense only when considering the protective cocoon of theoretical
ideas discussed behind locked doors, but irrational in practice. Marquette is surrounded on three sides by dangerous neighborhoods. The South Side of Milwaukee across the 16th Street Bridge is home to violent
and organized street gangs.. The west and north sides are full of violent, homegrown street gangs involved in violent crimes such as armed robberies and shootings on a daily basis. Ask anyone who has ever been robbed on campus if they want an armed Public Safety Department to see and respond or to wait for MPD to leave the scene of a shooting up the road to come down and take their statement in twenty minutes. DPS provides rapid assistance to a small area and is completely and solely focused on campus and student safety where as MPD has many responsibilities and Marquette is in a busy area for the police. DPS has student’s best interests at heart. Their focus is to make sure students don’t get out of hand or put themselves in a potentially situation. They ensure that students aren’t hassled or threatened by people not affiliated with Marquette and do a good job providing a deterrent for the numerous criminally inclined people that live in close proximity
to Marquette. Read the crime reports in the Journal Sentinel. Take note of how many crimes are reported
within two miles of campus, then look and see what the DPS reports involve. It is news when there is an armed robbery here; it is routine if it occurs just a few blocks from campus. This is entirely attributable
to the fine job they do. If DPS breaks up a party, it is because the party was probably out of hand. Students who have to pour out their alcohol in an alley know they are unable to possess it in the first place.. Whether or not someone likes a law does not mean violations of that law will or should be ignored.

The bottom line is that, with very few exceptions, the only time students have negative experiences with DPS is when they were out of line or violating the law and/or University’s policies. It is entirely up to the students what sort of interaction they have with DPS.. In the big picture, they keep Marquette safe and deserve a ‘thank you’ rather than a hard time from the students they serve and protect.

by Austin Wozniak
earl.wozniak@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Marquette University’s Department of Public Safety ostensibly exists in order to ensure the security of students at Marquette. With ninety four officers and staff members, DPS works to uphold the law in the campus area. They use both cameras and street patrols in order to monitor anyone who walks into that area. The blue and yellow cars and armed officers create the perception of authority. This then begs the question, what power exactly does DPS actually have?

According to Wisconsin State Statute 967.02 (5) a law enforcement officer is anyone who “…by virtue of the person’s office or public employment is vested by the law with the duty to maintain public order or to make arrests for crimes while acting within the scope of the person’s authority.” Given that DPS officers and staffers are employed by Marquette University they fail to meet the most basic requirement of this position. As such, they cannot be termed law enforcement officers. As a result DPS officers do not have the authority to arrest people. They can, however, act upon citizen’s arrests, as can any other person. Through a series of Wisconsin Supreme Court Rulings, including Radloff v. National Food Stores and Waukesha v. Gorz, a series of crimes have been determined which allow for citizen’s arrest. According to both the “Spring 2005 City of Madison Legal Update” and a 2008 Memorandum from Wisconsin Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to the Brown County Sheriff’s Department, felonies and a handful of misdemeanors are cause for citizen’s arrest. The misdemeanors which are severe enough for one to be subject to citizen’s arrest are battery, fourth degree or greater sexual assault, endangering safety by use of a dangerous weapon, carrying a concealed weapon, and disorderly conduct. From this analysis one can see that DPS has absolutely no authority whatsoever to enforce the law, outside of that of citizen’s arrest power.

One need only to read the weekly DPS reports in order to discover reports of DPS officers exceeding their authority in order to “protect” Marquette students and “uphold” the law. While their intentions might be good, they still are beyond their legal authority. An example of this is the any one of dozens of instances of DPS officers detaining students on public property for underage possession of alcohol. While I am not advocating underage alcohol possession nor consumption, the fact still remains that DPS officers cannot detain these students. Stopping students in alleyways, searching them, and seizing the alcohol is well beyond the legal authority of DPS.

Another example of DPS exceeding its authority occurred on the night of Friday, September 11, 2009. A group of area residents were standing on a sidewalk between 17th and 18th streets along Kilbourn. The residents were approached by a DPS officer in a patrol car, who angrily ordered them to leave the sidewalk area near the alleyway. The residents then informed the officer that he did not have the legal authority to demand that they leave public areas. The officer then left his vehicle approached the residents, and again ordered them to leave the area. He then threatened to run over the residents with his patrol car. He then contacted his superiors, and informed them that he had encountered “uncooperative individuals.” The fact that he assumed that he had authority over people standing on a sidewalk shows the mentality of DPS. After contacting his superiors, two commanding officers and five other officers arrived in four separate patrol cars. The officers proceeded to surround the residents and interrogate them. The commanding officers eventually admitted that no in fact they did not have the authority to order residents to leave sidewalks, and that in addition they did not have the authority to threaten to run over residents.

While one can argue that this case is an extreme and does not represent the actions of the majority of DPS officers, the fact still remains that DPS officers do patrol the area and do in fact step beyond their legal authority, given that they have no legal jurisdiction and cannot act to enforce the law to any degree more than any MU student can. The extralegal actions of DPS are further shown through their use of cameras to monitor the campus area, which they claim are to enable them to respond to crimes. The problem with this is, however, that cameras, in all likelihood, do not meet the definition of presence in regards to the law. As such, DPS officers are not present during the commission of the crime, and cannot act to respond to it, given that one has to be present when a crime is committed in order for a citizen’s arrest to occur. I cannot, for example, watch a crime on live television and then go and arrest the person, much the same DPS cannot watch a crime being committed on its security cameras and then go and detain the person, for doing so would, in all likelihood, be the equivalent of illegal imprisonment, which is a Class H felony under Wisconsin State Statute 940.30.

Marquette’s DPS officers are just ordinary citizens with no special authority or privileges. They cannot do anything that you and I cannot do. I therefore urge all people who read this to openly resist the assault upon the rule of law which is represented by DPS officers acting as law enforcement officers. If they can do whatever they please in the name of the law, then we might as well hire Xe (formerly known as Blackwater) and DynCorp to protect us, because at least they have helicopters and assault rifles and could really protect us. We must remember the quote from Benjamin Franklin, “those who would sacrifice liberty for temporal security deserve neither liberty nor temporal security”, and fight against this assault on freedom and the law.

Popularity: 2% [?]

Imagine walking down the street and seeing a shiny penny on the sidewalk in front of you. There is a brief moment where you stop and think, “Is it really worth the effort to bend over and pick this penny up?” If you are like me, you walk by Mr. Lincoln’s welcoming visage. Some would label this action as “laziness”, however, in walking by this penny, I feel that I am being more efficient.

If you are one of those who deem me lazy, keep this in mind: In terms of energy efficiency, we are collectively walking by millions of pennies everyday. Energy efficiency is using less energy to provide the same amount of energy service. Energy efficient solutions can be as simple as flipping off a light switch or as holistic as a LEED certified building which uses energy conservation techniques in every facet of the building’s design.

At Marquette University, the opportunities for savings through energy efficiency are endless. Currently, Cobeen, McCormick, and Schroeder Residence Halls are involved in the MU Unplugged Competition to see which building can conserve the most energy through efficiency measures. One way to lower energy usage is to lower phantom electricity usage. Phantom electricity, or electricity drawn by appliances when they are not in operation, account for 6-10% of energy spent per household. By simply turning off lights, powering down computers, unplugging phone chargers, and lowering the thermostat 2 to 3 degrees(all easier than bending over to pick up a penny), we could not only save money on energy bills but also conserve energy for future usage. By lowering or eliminating phantom electricity, these residence halls can reduce their energy usage by 6-10% for a combined real cost savings of nearly $3,000 a month.

These behavioral changes represent a small portion of the tremendous potential of energy efficiency. According to a McKinsey Report entitled, “Unlocking Energy Efficiency in the U.S. Economy”, with an upfront investment in energy efficient technologies and infrastructure of $520 billion, the United States could yield $1.2 trillion in energy savings by 2020 and reduce demand by about 23% annually. That is a lot of pennies. For the green conscious among us, these reforms would abate 1.1 gigatons of greenhouse gas annually, equivalent to the annual output of nearly 11 million Americans.

To capitalize on this savings potential, Marquette needs to take several steps. First, students need to lead by example. If, as a student body, we make energy efficiency a top priority, and demonstrate its importance by lowering our energy costs, the administration will respond. Second, the Office of Sustainability needs to take an energy efficiency inventory and determine where the greatest gains can be made. Typically, this includes building infrastructure like HVAC systems, heating and cooling systems, lighting systems and other mechanisms that are not working at their full potential. An in depth study could identify several pilot projects to show the cost savings potential of energy efficiency.

Finally, the administration needs to make energy efficiency a headline issue for the University. The longer we wait to act, the more our energy infrastructure will degrade and the more money and energy we will be wasting. One way for the University to show they are serious about energy efficiency is to pledge $1 million dollars to act on the recommendations of the Sustainability Office. Any savings generated by these pilot programs must be reinvested into other efficiency projects. These actions will show a strong commitment by the University and make Marquette a leader in the field of energy efficiency.

Critics contend that although energy efficiency may save money in the long-term, the upfront costs are too high. However, with the rising cost of energy, even the most expensive efficiency technologies still result in savings. Energy Efficiency is truly a win-win where the University can make money while saving the environment. In the case of energy efficiency, a penny saved is truly a penny earned.

by Ryan Michaels
ryan.michaels@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Although bailouts, derivatives, and mortgage defaults dominate the headlines about the economic recession, the downturn has left more people homeless right here in Milwaukee. Last January 28, the Milwaukee Continuum of Care, a broad-based alliance of area organizations committed to ending homelessness, counted 1,660 homeless people in shelters, transitional housing, and on the street. The MCC volunteers surveyed 919 homeless adults, of which 34 percent were chronically homeless. Obviously, these numbers do not even take into account those who had found temporary shelter with family or friends. Joe Volk, executive director of Community Advocates, a local group serving low-income individuals and families, said in October that he expected even more Milwaukeeans had become homeless since January due to increased unemployment.

The winter brings added hardship for the homeless as the search for shelter becomes crucial. Some municipal governments, including New York City, have put in place “Code Blue” systems, where the government takes specific and public actions to protect the homeless when the temperature falls below certain thresholds. Milwaukee does not have an official “Code Blue” alert system in place, but not because the city doesn’t care about homelessness.

In fact, the city and county governments and the Milwaukee Shelter Task Force, a group of shelters and other organizations serving the homeless, collaborate during cold weather to suspend rules so shelters can take in more people, identify additional facilities that could be used to keep the homeless warm, protect those serving the homeless, and educate the public. According to Ken Schmidt, chair of the Milwaukee Shelter Task Force, “on the surface, the ‘as needed’ cold weather response in Milwaukee may not appear to be as organized as other urban centers,” but “this may be because the preventative activities are not publicized in the same way.” Schmidt commended the city and county officials, calling them “sensitive to the issue, quick to action and more than willing to be cooperative with the shelter system’s efforts.”

Of course, every person in the Marquette community realizes homelessness’s persistence just by walking around campus. Like everyone else, I have been asked for money countless times, and I have also witnessed public safety officers removing the homeless from campus. On many occasions, I have been just as guilty as most students of refusing to make simple eye contact with the homeless, of passing by faster than I need to, of failing to acknowledge their humanity. I find it easy sometimes to emotionally distance myself from “them” instead of reflecting on why I am walking to class while others walk the same streets just trying to survive. Even referring to these children of God as “the homeless” allows us to mentally separate ourselves from their lived reality. Although we seldom refer to ourselves as “the housed” because we are so much more than where we sleep, we write off a diverse group of people by labeling them for what they lack.

At an urban Jesuit university like Marquette, discussing homelessness almost seems cliché, a rite of passage on the journey toward becoming men and women for others, or something along those lines. Although often failing to acknowledge the homeless people we pass by, we at least acknowledge homelessness as a problem in Milwaukee. Yet the problem seems too immense and intractable for overstressed college students to deal with. Homelessness does not lend itself to easy long-term solutions, and even participating in community service activities can feel pointless and frustrating.

If they decide to “be the difference” on this issue, many students end up advocating for yet another government program, such as Milwaukee’s housing trust fund. Regardless of the merits of any individual government, non-profit, or business program, we set ourselves up for disappointment by relieving ourselves of a certain level of personal responsibility and projecting our hopes and expectations unto a given program. With a complex social problem such as homelessness, a successful program certainly relieves suffering and saves lives, but no social engineering scheme or technocratic magic can “solve” the problems of social marginalization and deprivation and the spiritual decay which permits this to continue.

When Jesus said, “What you do unto the least of these, you do unto me,” he challenged the social hierarchy that pushed “the least of these” to the margins of society and called upon his followers to acknowledge that everyone has intrinsic worth in God’s eyes, regardless of the artificially constructed norms of ostracism and division. Until we, as individuals, can meaningfully reach out to the homeless fellow travelers of our streets, “we” collectively, whether viewed as society or the church or the government, can never truly come alongside them and address the problem.

Direct action and advocacy remain important tools but fail to address the way we emotionally distance ourselves from those in need and the resulting dehumanization of us all. As Lilla Watson and other Australian aboriginal activists told sympathizers in the 1970s, “If you have come to help me because you feel called to help me, please go away … but if you have come because your liberation is bound up with mine, please stay and let’s work together.” Only when we realize our own individual responsibility to our homeless neighbors will we ever be able to work together with them to end homelessness.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Separation of Church and State. We all learned about it in a history or government class. Though taken from the thoughts of John Locke, the phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson, and referred to the First Amendment of the US Constitution. By this principle, church affairs and governmental affairs could remain independent of one another. As the founding fathers intended, our country has maintained freedom of religion, allowing the separation of church and state to function.

A few hundred years later, one might beg the question: Why are bishops meddling in the governmental affairs, telling politicians the do’s and don’ts of their profession? Another look tells us why.

In certain situations, the roles of the church leaders and governmental officials overlap. Such an example is the recent controversy of Bishop Thomas Tobin, of the diocese of Providence, Rhode Island, who made a public statement maintaining that Senator Patrick Kennedy, D-RI, cannot receive communion because of his open support of pro-abortion policies. While most Catholics will acknowledge the truth of the statement, they still wonder why such a public statement is necessary. Statements like this are necessary because Patrick Kennedy is a public representative who is leading others away from following a moral right, and that is gravely wrong. That abortion is wrong has been stated numerous times in Catholic doctrine. Just last February, Pope Benedict XVI privately met with Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, during which he stated the need for Catholics, and more importantly, politicians, to uphold the dignity of the human person.

A great many people were surprised by the seemingly outspoken statement of Bishop Thomas Tobin- Catholics and non-Catholics, pro-life and pro-abortion advocates alike. However, this should come as no surprise; since the Second Vatican council, and through earlier church teachings, support of abortion, like that of Kennedy, is a grave matter. In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it states the following: “Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life” (CCC, 2272). It seems reasonable that most people would agree that actively promoting pro-choice/abortion policies is cooperation in the act of abortion. This form of indirect ‘cooperation’ is more grave then direct cooperation. Think of it as legalizing theft without stealing anything. The act of helping others to steal is a graver act still.

You can’t have your pie and eat it too. Faith influences every aspect of life: work, school, social. While in governmental policies there may be a separation between church and state, there should be no such thing in any Catholic, or Catholic politician. If Catholic by name, Catholic in the game. It’s time to step up to the plate and play with authenticity. Just look to Bishop Tobin.

by Joanna Parkes
joanna.parkes@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

Throughout the current debate regarding the ways in which the healthcare system should be fixed, one option is almost always left out: single payer health care. In this system, the government would pay for the healthcare of its citizens, and thereby grant all citizens equal access to healthcare. Taxes would be used to pay for this system, and while many balk at the thought of giving the government more money, it would be done in the best interest of all citizens.

The first argument that many level against this is that it is a socialist plot to ruin America, much like how fluoridating the water system has destroyed our precious bodily fluids. While it is true that single payer health are does socialize the healthcare industry, decrying it as a socialist plot is both unfounded and illogical. If one applies the logic of those who oppose government run healthcare to other service industries in the U.S., one would have to oppose fire departments, the police, public schools, public libraries, and the department of public works. Only the most extreme capitalist libertarians call for the privatization of these public services, and as such, the common argument leveled against public healthcare, i.e. that it is evil, applies to the services which we consider essential to any functioning society. Healthcare is no less essential to a properly running society than public schools are. People in the U.S. have no less of a right to have their crimes solved, than do they to be taken care of in case of ill health.

Another argument which many, particularly politically conservative Christians, level against the idea of single payer healthcare is that it is somehow antithetical to Christianity. This argument is in and of itself an absurdity. As Pope John XXIII stated in section 11 of his encyclical Pacem in Terris:

“He [man] has the right to bodily integrity and to the means necessary for the proper development of life, particularly food, clothing, shelter, medical care, rest, and, finally, the necessary social services. In consequence, he has the right to be looked after in the event of illhealth; disability stemming from his work; widowhood; old age; enforced unemployment; or whenever through no fault of his own he is deprived of the means of livelihood.”

A third argument which is leveled against the single payer system is that government inefficiency will lead to massive lines and people being unable to received treatment for non-life threatening issues. The problem with this argument is that it is based upon the false assumption that one is able to quickly receive treatment under the current system. This is of course an absurdity. Few if any people go to an emergency room or a doctor’s office without waiting in line. Only those with the ability to afford treatment have the luxury to complain about waiting in line. The millions without insurance, or who lack sufficient coverage, are not able to wait for treatment, since they are rarely, if ever, treated. Under a single payer system they would be treated, and would have life threatening conditions taken care of. To those who still complain about waiting in lines I ask this question: Is your comfort and convenience more important than the life of another person?

As one can see, the most common arguments against government run healthcare fail due to lack of a solid logical grounding. The merits of the system, however, have yet to be fully analyzed, and as such I will proceed to do that to show it is preferable to the current system in the U.S. One of the most obvious advantages of this system is that profit will not be a motivating factor for the actions of the insurer. In the current, for profit, system, private insurance corporations provide a service to consumers, in which in exchange for monthly payments, they will pay for the medical costs of certain covered procedures, and at doctors who accept the insurance offered by these corporations. As a result the corporations earn their profits when they receive more money from their customers than they pay for the medical needs of those who they insure. In order to maximize their potential profits these companies find ways to deny coverage to those who pay for their insurance. In some cases they will simply claim that the individual had a pre-existing condition which the individual had not previously mentioned, and as such the company does not have to cover that person. Some companies, however, arbitrarily terminate coverage in order to avoid paying for costly procedures, thereby harming the consumer who relies upon this insurance to pay for care. The lack of this profit motive would eliminate the reason for the denial of coverage for many Americans.

Many people claim that the coverage which would be provided under a single payer system would be below that of the current U.S. healthcare system. When one looks to a number of statistics, it is clear this is not the case. For example, according to the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), the infant mortality rate in the U.S. is 6.7, whereas it is 2.5 in Sweden, 3.8 in Germany, and 5.0 in the UK. In addition, according to the OECD, the life expectancy is 78.1 in the U.S., 80.8 in Sweden, 79.8 in Germany, and 79.5 in the UK. One can see the discrepancy between the U.S. and the other countries, all of whom have some form of guaranteed healthcare for all citizens. By granting healthcare to all people living in the U.S. we will no longer lag behind the rest of the first world in terms of quality of life. Another gap between the rich and the poor will be closed, allowing for everyone in the U.S. to truly be able to live their lives to the fullest. We in America need to remember our duty to our fellow man and embrace the concept of single payer healthcare.

by Jonathan Stepp
jonathan.stepp@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]