A More Traditional Valentine's Day

February is a big month for feminists. It's the time of year they transform campuses across the country into cesspits of shameless degradation and vulgar objectification. That's right - it's Vagina Monologues time.

In just a few days this gross production will be performed here at Bucknell. Luckily, we BUCCers have been preparing for the assault on values, modesty, and (ironically) women.

Like last year, we're holding a flower sale to remind Bucknellians what Valentine's Day is all about - a celebration of love and relationships. We set up a stand in the LC Mall where people can buy carnations for $2 each and roses for $6 each. Roses are new for 2007; last year we only had the carnations. Hopefully they'll bring in more sales.

We're accepting BUIDs this year too, and sales have been going great. All our proceeds will be donated to the Susquehanna Valley Women in Transition, which is a shelter for battered women and children.

Hopefully feminists will soon realize there are other ways to address serious issues besides performing a play about reproductive organs. We'll update later on how much money we raised.

Cheers,
Samantha
Vice President, Events

Meghan's CW article is on IWF: http://iwf.org/campuscorner/news/news_detail.asp?ArticleID=1027
It's also up on www.thecounterweight.org.

February COUNTERWEIGHT Available Online

The BUCC printed the first issue of THE COUNTERWEIGHT for this spring semester. It addressed a number of issues including:

• The lack of basic American History or Government in Bucknell's Common Learning Agenda and the "brain drain" that occurs to students in college
• The disproportionate Democratic party registration of Bucknell's faculty
• The negative effects of the faculty proposed living wage for Bucknell
• The distortion of feminism at Bucknell by liberal feminist thinkers and the V-DAY movement

I hope everyone checks out the new COUNTERWEIGHT and let us know what you think!

Nick-BUCC President

In Memoriam: Milton Friedman

"The Society that puts equality ahead of freedom

will end up with neither equality nor freedom"

Milton Friedman, one of the leading free market economists of the past 100 years, has died at the age of 94. His insight, passion, and clarity will be missed.

More On Peltier

The No Parole Peltier Association, a group of law enforcement officers opposed to the release of double murderer Leonard Peltier, has posted their take (scroll down a bit) on the Department of Sociology and Anthropology event at Bucknell University in support of Peltier earlier in the semester. In case you've forgoten with whom the event was cosponsored, it was the good folks over at the Jericho Movement. The same Jericho movement that actively supports both terrorist conspirators and convicted murderers (see: here, here, here , and here among others).

Again, gold star to Sociology and Anthropology.

Free Trade

Donald Boudreaux expounds on the "logic" of protectionism, with the help of a manure machine:

Let's revisit some of the 'logic' of protectionism. Many people today are torn by the age-old worry that trade with foreigners will reduce domestic employment or wages or both. The logic of this fear, such as it is, isn't. Indeed, the illogical, baseless, and factually mistaken beliefs that sustain fears of free trade are too numerous to review even in any decent-size book, much less in a single blog-post.

So let's keep this entry short by asking a simple question of all protectionists: if a machine were discovered that, with only water combined with dried leaves or dirt or animal manure, could at the mere flip of a switch produce almost unlimited quantities of high-quality automobiles, household furniture, life-saving pharmaceuticals, personal computers, cell phones, clothing, and chia pets, would humankind suffer from this discovery?

Read the whole post here.

You can see Dr. Boudreaux debate Thea Lee, national policy director of the AFL-CIO, at Bucknell on November 2 at 7PM in the Vaughan Lit (Trout) Auditorium on the topic "Is Free Trade Good for America?" Dr. Boudreaux will be arguing in favor of his manure machine!

The debate is part of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute's Cicero's Podium: Great Issues Debate Series, and will be cohosted by the Bucknell Conservatives Club and the Students for Fair Trade (with far too many cosponsors to mention).

Peltier

As we reported in the last issue of The Counterweight, Bucknell's Sociology and Anthropology Department hosted a "Free Leonard Peltier" event at Bucknell on September 30. For those of you unfamiliar with Peltier, check out this article about the brutal murderer from the Wall Street Journal.

For a complete review of the dispicable event, and hopefully an explanation from Sociology and Anthropology as to why they felt it was appropriate to host an event supporting a double murderer, check out the October 26 issue of The Counterweight.

9/11 Memorial Project Reactions, Again

The individual who said, "I don't support the cause" when we asked him if he'd like to donate funds to support Marines wounded in the Iraq War, requested that his comments be amended slightly.

He noted that as he was walking away (none of the four students there heard this, but I am inclined to believe him) that he said that he didn't want to give any money because he didn't see a link between 9/11 and the Iraq War and that he donated money to victims' families.

While certainly giving to the families of the victims is valuable I imagine that given their average compensation is nearly $2 million (yes million), they probably don't need more money. People who do seriously need help are these Marines who were sent to war to make sure that another September 11 never happens again. These brave men and women, have put their lives on the line for America, and have received minimal compensation. As they struggle to overcome serious combat injuries they are also faced with the daunting task of making mortgage payments, raising their children, and buying groceries.

While Iraq may not have orchestrated the terrorist attacks on 9/11, their ties to terror organizations were extensive and well known. Moreover, Iraq (as Osama bin Laden himself has said) is the central battleground in the War on Terror. The marines, sailors, and soldiers who are there now are fighting to make sure we will never again suffer the loss of innocent life like we did on September 11, 2001. They and their families deserve and need our support.

Donations to these brave Americans can be made through the Semper Fi Fund.

The IDEA Initiative Revisited

Some have written expressing confusion regarding the methodology used in the classification of events for the IDEA Initiative. In an effort to clarify we've decided to publish a more thorough explanation of why the events were listed as they were.

In determining the political leanings of the activities we approached each speech from a presumption of neutrality. To deem a speech liberal a significant portion of the speech must have been devoted to the promotion of liberal ideas or attacking conservative ones.

It should also be noted, that in keeping with our presumption of neutrality, speeches like “Perfect Soldiers The Hijackers,” “Bambi: King of the Forest and Cultural Zionism,” and many others were not rated as either conservative or liberal, as we were unable to locate anyone who had attended either talk.

The labels conservative and liberal are admittedly broad. In an effort to clarify our approach somewhat, we have included the following working definitions of each term:

1. A conservative activity must have advanced ideas traditionally associated with the major themes of American conservatism, i.e. capitalism, globalization, traditional values, anti-communism, federalism, strong anti-terror measures, a muscular national defense, et al. Likewise, if an activity attacked the liberal alternative to any of these conservative ideas, it was deemed conservative. Speeches by Tom Wolfe and Rick Santorum both were considered conservative activities.

2. A liberal activity must have advanced ideas traditionally associated with the major themes of American liberalism, i.e. socialism/the welfare state, “fair trade,” moral relativism, increased government regulation, civil libertarianism, skepticism of military intervention, et al. Likewise, if an activity attacked the conservative alternative to any of these liberal ideas, it was deemed liberal. Speeches by Francis Piven and John Shelby Spong both were considered liberal activities.

Reactions to the 9/11 Memorial Project

Yesterday, the BUCC hosted a full day of commemerations for the fifth anniversary of 9/11. We set up our flag memorial with one flag for each person killed or missing from the attacks, raised funds for wounded marines returning from the War on Terror, and cohosted a prayer vigil with the College Democrats and Student Government.

Reaction was almost overwhelmingly positive. Students took time to stop and reflect by the flags, gave generously to the marines, and turned out in large numbers to the prayer vigil. Perhaps most striking was watching a former marine and Korean War vet come to the memorial and stand at attention at the flags. His respect both for the flag and those lost on 9/11 was a true inspiration.

Only two individuals could be said to have reacted negatively to the memorial. One elderly gentleman (presumably a professor), demanded to know where the flags for the "100,000 people George Bush killed in Iraq" were, while another student declared that he "didn't support the cause" and so would not sponsor a flag (100% of the proceeds were going to the Semper Fi Fund which helps wounded marines returning from combat--apparently he didn't get the memo that the left supports the troops but not the war).

That said, this generation is not our parents'. While they burned flags in protest and called soldiers baby killers, students at Bucknell have embraced the troops, honored the flags, and remembered the fallen.

A Letter From the Left

Today I received an email from a blogger (whose identity I'll conceal, because I'm such a nice guy) and self-described "environmentalist," which said (among other things), "you are now a spokesperson for the factions within this dark political process that place profit over human life, and propaganda over truth."

Now, what did I do to earn this concerned citizen's ire? Well, the BUCC decided to host Dr. Richard Lindzen on campus. Dr. Lindzen is one of the leading scientists in America on this issue. He is a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change, has served as a lead author on one of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Reports, has worked as a consultant to NASA, and is currently a professor at MIT.

Unfortunately, Dr. Lindzen, isn't on board with Al Gore's views on climate change, and consequently has been slandered as a shill and a crook. One might ask these people exactly who is doing the propagandizing.

The following is the entire email I received:

To whom it may concern:I read yesterday that Dr. Richard Lindzen was appearing at your university on September 5 in regards to global warming. Now, I have nothing against him appearing at your university to discuss global warming, and even to dispute it. That is his right. However, I take offense to the fact that this appearance seems to be a deliberate political attempt to specifically target and discredit a good man in former Vice President of the United States Al Gore, whose movie An Inconvenient Truth is now the third highest grossing documentary ever, and whose companion book of the same name hit number one on the NY Times bestseller list.

Mr. Lindzen already wasted no time in trashing Mr. Gore in the Wall Street Journal in an attempt to stifle support of his movie, in my view because he is a paid operative for the oil industry. And now your club/university is once again giving him the chance to shill for EXXON and all other oil companies that are willfully killing this planet for profit. Is that really the impression you wish to give to young people in whose hands this Earth will be placed?

It is one thing to have a sincere conviction about an issue one way or the other and express that conviction with the intent of addressing it to the entire scientific community. However, if your club/university thinks for one moment that the purpose behind booking him simply to attack Al Gore specifically for political and economic reasons for his benefactors is not obvious based on the title of his address, you are mistaken.

I personally find it to be beneath any academic standards for any university to condone such a blatant tactic, especially against a man who has done nothing but relay a message that has been corroborated by scientists from the NSA, the IPCC, NASA, and hundreds of scientists from across the world: That climate change is also human induced and that we must join together to reduce our impact upon this world, which is clearly seen if you are an impartial witness to what is occurring on our planet right now. So exactly what is it that Al Gore speaking in tandem with hundreds of climate scientists and organizations from the NSA, IPCC, NASA, and the IPCC specifically not telling us that Mr. Lindzen, a paid shill for oil companies is going to tell us?

I am sure he will not tell anyone this:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...-hol-testimony/
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=17
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=36
http://abyss.davidmlawrence.com

It surely to me is a shame that this issue is so polarized because of Conservatives who even when evidence is brought before them regarding the responsibility we all have to this planet’s future and what we are doing in contributing to this crisis, still feel the need to politicize this crisis and attack people rather than work together to solve it because it is what is buying policy in Washington DC over what is morally and ethically the right course for our planet. Even Evangelical ministers are standing with the science in this movie and in general and breaking away from the political chokehold this issue has had on progress, and working to bring the truth about our moral responsibility to this planet forward.

Therefore, I felt as an environmentalist, as someone who does not believe this issue should be politicized, and as someone who has actually seen the movie, read the book, and can attest to the accuracy of the information in it as many other scientists already have including those whose opinions are located in 928 peer reviewed articles printed in Science magazine, that your club should know that you are now a spokesperson for the factions within this dark political process that place profit over human life, and propaganda over truth. I sincerely hope you understand the gravity and responsibility of this action.


Bayonne, NJ