We are just about at the half-way point of Lent. Some of us are dismayed and wondering how we could only be at the half-way point. Others are kind of surprised they already broke their Lenten promises. And there are plenty of us who observe lent and just do not understand what it is.

Fasting is commonly understood to simply mean giving up something. In the strict sense of the term in Catholic theology and discipline, fasting is eating one regular meal and two smaller meals which combined do not equal a regular one. And abstaining, which is often considered the same as fasting, is not eating meat.

But after restraining ourselves for a few days during Lent, many Catholics do not understand why they bothered giving up candy, facebook, soda, or whatever they chose. And then many Catholics say, “Why don’t we just promise to be nice for Lent, instead of some aimless fasting?” Or some will say, “Why bother fasting for forty days if you’re to gorge yourself on Easter morning?” And still others will say, “Why not skip fasting and do something meaningful, like helping out at a homeless shelter?”

Well, for Catholics you’re supposed to be nice 365, and occasionally 366, days out of the year, not 40. So if anything being nice should be a New Years’ resolution, not a Lenten one. And “gorging yourself” is a sin according to Catholic teaching. In fact, the sin, which is called gluttony, is considered one of the seven capital sins. And there is still room in Lent for helping out those in need.

But skeptics of fasting are on the right track. If there is no purpose, why bother? St. Thomas Aquinas himself might have said the same thing, unless of course there is a purpose.

The purpose of Lent is to conquer our temptations to sin, drawing ourselves away from the world to grow closer to God. Although we are in the world, we are meant to be dead to it. That is why Lent opens up with Ash Wednesday, when we wear black ashes on our forehead reminding us of our own mortality. As for temptation, traditionally, the first Sunday in Lent would always feature the gospel story of Jesus fasting for 40 days and then proceeding to be tempted by Satan. The forty-day long fast was meant to prepare our Lord for temptation. We were meant to follow this example so we could also conquer temptation.

Those skeptics should then be happy and energized for Lent. The whole purpose is to conquer our flesh and raise ourselves closer to God, helping us to do things like avoid gluttony and become kind. Miraculous transformations do not occur over night. We have to allow our hearts to be malleable to God’s Will in order that we might do what He wants us to do.

But once our hearts are softened ready to do the will of God, we still have a couple more things to do in which we actually do the will of God. In Lent we are told to work on our prayer lives. Aside from the beautiful Masses during Holy Week and the Good Friday Services, we still have other ways of making Lent holier for us. Among them are the Stations of the Cross in which we follow our Lord as he ascends Mt. Calvary to die. We should also try and go to Confession during Lent. These help us to love God all the more.

And once we truly love God we are able to love our neighbor. Our love for neighbor is supposed to stem from a love for God. When Mother Teresa was asked why she went out to help so many poor, unfortunate people, she said it was because she saw Jesus in everyone. This is the kind of love we are supposed to develop during Lent and the manner in which we are meant to give alms.

For those practical people out there, still unsatisfied with these intangible goals, fasting still holds great importance for you. If everyone were to follow the strict, canonical rules of fasting and abstaining mentioned earlier for the whole forty days out of Lent with at least partial abstinence on all days save Friday, you could drive down the price of food thereby making it more affordable for those in need. This is not completely implausible considering this was standard practice for years in the Catholic Church. And if you’re still not satisfied, just save the money you were going to spend on food and give it to some charity or some person who needs it more than you do. Don’t worry, they’re out there

More importantly, remember to fast vigorously, pray hard, and give alms generously for the rest of this Lent. And if we do these things well, we will grow closer to God. And maybe, at the end of this life, Our Lord can say to us as He said to the Good Thief, “This day, thou shalt be with Me in paradise.”

by Adam Ryback
adam.ryback@mu.edu

Popularity: 1% [?]

As much as anything else, strong personalities drive contemporary American politics and the accompanying 24-hour news cycle. The compelling life stories of both Barack Obama and John McCain helped them package their messages and win their parties’ presidential nominations, and certainly President Obama’s charisma and personal mannerisms contributed to his triumph in the general election. Other political figures such as Sarah Palin, Al Franken, Dick Cheney, and Jesse Jackson owe much of their support and notoriety to their styles of campaigning and speaking. Political ideas without compelling advocates tend to go nowhere, and this especially holds true for ideas and philosophies which fall between the cracks of our limiting two-party system. The media elites and intelligentsia, as well as the greater public, also dismiss as crazy those causes which are associated exclusively with a single offbeat public figure.

Following his 2008 libertarian campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Congressman Ron Paul of Texas, one of the few politicians I support on most issues, has used his newfound celebrity to promote a number of causes, including his signature battle against the powerful Federal Reserve system. In light of the financial crisis, his ideas, particularly his push for a transparent and full audit of the Fed, have now gained significantly more grassroots and congressional support than in previous years. However, to the media, Ron Paul and libertarianism have become one and the same phenomenon. Even as Paul’s celebrity forces the media to mention libertarianism as an alternative to liberalism and conservatism, their unfair portrayal of Dr. Paul as a conspiracy theorist, a racist, and a crazy, cranky old man allows them to quickly dismiss his ideas and the diverse and much broader libertarian movement.

Liberals and conservatives have dozens of articulate and popular spokespersons with national profiles, who each appeal to different demographic and cultural groups within the American public. Libertarians like myself seem to have only Dr. Paul, who has done an amazing job in terms of securing media appearances and communicating a consistent message that makes his opponents in both parties look like hypocrites. America would be a better place if more political alternatives were discussed in the public arena, and libertarianism will only be able to challenge the more established philosophies if the public can recognize more than one public figure as a libertarian.

Fortunately for the sake of political diversity, former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson has formed a new non-profit, the Our America Initiative, to create a national platform for advocating libertarian approaches to public policy. Like Dr. Paul, Johnson represents the small and long ignored libertarian wing of the Republican Party. However, Johnson has the potential to reach Americans who are turned off by Dr. Paul’s economics lectures that I love so dearly. For starters, the former governor has eight years of executive experience with a record of making New Mexico’s government smaller and more efficient. He also benefits from being more than twenty years younger than the good doctor and having spent most of his life in the private sector building up his construction business. Most importantly, he climbed Mount Everest with a broken leg.

I had a chance to hear Governor Johnson speak at a conference recently, and he has an understated, calm, and straightforward approach which will help advocate for libertarian issues nationally. Johnson agrees with Dr. Paul on most issues and endorsed him in the 2008 race, but the governor communicates these ideas in a fresh way. He also appeals more to liberals and others wary who might view libertarianism as a right-wing reactionary cult. For example, he was the only sitting Republican governor in 2000 not to endorse George W. Bush for president, and he remains the highest ranking government official in American history to call for an end to the racist, unsuccessful, and costly “war on drugs.” Unlike Dr. Paul, Johnson also supports increased legal immigration rather than focusing on harsher border enforcement.

The American libertarian movement draws on multiple and occasionally even contradictory philosophical, cultural, and political traditions. While Dr. Paul has greatly swelled the ranks of political active libertarians and created new organizations to channel our energy, he still represents only part of the larger movement. Johnson’s return to the American political arena for the first time since he was term-limited out of office in 2003 will give the public another figure to associate with the ideas of liberty, one who cannot be so easily ignored.

Of course, part of the problem libertarianism faces will not be solved by having more nationally known libertarian figures, and that is that many people, probably including some reading this column, do not fully understand what the philosophy is all about. Johnson’s communication style will also help here, as he gave the simplest and most effective summary of libertarian beliefs I have yet heard: “I want to empower you to do your thing.” I only hope that we can hear that message from more and more new voices in the coming years.

by Andrew Marshall
andrew.marshall@mu.edu

Popularity: 2% [?]

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% [?]

When Republican Senator-elect Scott Brown takes office later this month, he will give his party back the crucial forty-first senator needed to block any unwanted votes on legislation. His victory in the Massachusetts special election finally hands the Republican congressional minority a real voice in the legislative process for the first time since Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania defected to the Democrats last April. Even President Obama acknowledged the Republicans’ new power in his State of the Union address last week, telling the opposition that if they “insist that sixty votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town, then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well.”

Yet the president’s challenge to Republican leadership meant next to nothing in terms of actually generating bipartisan support for his partisan policies. Instead, he sought to launch a preemptive strike in the blame game already playing out to decide whom voters ultimately will hold responsible for Congress’s record in the November elections. With the near-universal healthcare plan, the cap-and-trade legislation aimed at fighting global warming, and other key initiatives now facing likely failure or at least significant reduction in scope, Democrats hope to blame Republicans for the lack of major legislation this year.

With all due respect, however, I believe President Obama has it all wrong. Rather than blaming Scott Brown and the Republicans for gridlock, we ought to thank them for at least temporarily slowing the political sausage-making machine. Regardless of Obamacare’s propriety, its legislative history has been embarrassing. From the Democratic negotiations with healthcare corporations hoping to making even more profit by getting in on the deal to the special treatment included for Louisiana and Nebraska to secure the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, respectively, the appearance of corruption and insider deals marked every step in Obamacare’s progression from lofty campaign promise to the House and Senate bills. As for the president’s audacious campaign pledge to open healthcare negotiations up to the public, or at least the political junkies, by broadcasting the sessions on C-SPAN, the Democratic leaders now seem to believe that industry and union lobbyists and Democratic politicians represent our interests, so the people apparently don’t need to actually see the great ones at work.

Besides angering conservatives and many independents, the Democrats also disgusted and disappointed some genuine progressives, who watched their priorities, such as a separate floor vote on universal healthcare and a meaningful public option to compete with the corporate health plans, die in the negotiations. The corporations and Democratic political insiders, along with the Democratic leadership itself, have thus far succeeded in manipulating and defeating the people power movement of hope which gave the Democrats the presidency and the largest congressional majorities in decades. Likewise, the “Tea Party” movement, itself an angrier version of people power, may well sweep the Republicans into Congress this fall only to discover just how quickly the Republican power players manage to crush their anti-government dreams.

The healthcare reform process reveals the structural weaknesses of representative democracy, which remains what British Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill called “the worst form of government except for all those other forms.” The voters arguably hold their representatives accountable in elections, but congresspersons rarely face serious reelection competition and can use their connections to raise significant amounts of money to fight off any legitimate challengers who emerge. Whether “conservative” George W. Bush or “liberal” Barack H. Obama sits in the Oval Office, and whether a Republican or Democrat holds the House Speaker’s gavel, the political realities remain the same. Most voters don’t have the time or interest to effectively organize, while the bureaucrats of Big Government and the lobbyists of Big Business and Big Labor have a much easier time making their voices heard. This fundamental collective action problem undermines democracy’s ability to represent the people and maintain limits on government power.

With the State’s machinery gridlocked through the 2012 elections, perhaps we can actually voluntarily work together to address our problems. President Obama and many of his Republican opponents operate on the simple premise, usually left unstated, that only the government can address major problems such as healthcare and so, despite the problems with special interests, we should rely on the government to fix healthcare, banking, the BCS, and anything other industries or activities important to us. By channeling our aspirations through the State’s system of control, we lose hope in our ability to meaningfully and concretely act on the status quo through our own consumption choices, boycotts, and voluntary organizations. The combination of political gridlock and voluntary action will not magically solve our problems, but it has to be better than waiting on our political would-be messiahs.

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% [?]