Harvard: One of our Lesser Institutions

The Harvard ROTC ban returned to the news last week. University President Drew Gilpin Faust said in an interview that ROTC would be welcomed back to campus, but not until the military repealed its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. Until then, Harvard students interested in becoming reserve offices must continue to travel up Mass Ave to train at MIT ( Harvard links ROTC return to end of ‘don’t ask’, The Boston Globe, September 23, 2010).

Ms. Faust’s remarks kindled a bonfire of controversy; Senator Scott Brown added fuel when he said, “It is incomprehensible to me that Harvard does not allow ROTC to use its facilities, but welcomes students who are in this country illegally.’’ ( Brown criticizes Harvard leader on ROTC policy, The Boston Globe, September 24, 2010)

As a member of the military-industrial complex, I have the honor of working with many soldiers and sailors. I know from personal experience that the military has very high standards for its personnel. So I can’t figure out the reason the Pentagon wants to recruit at Harvard.

I doubt it’s the academic standards, which are appallingly low. A Harvard student once told me, “you can get B’s without trying very hard.”

Nor could it be the classes. A cursory examination of the course catalog turned up VES 172b Contemporary Film Theory (“how the study of film and spectatorship have been influenced by semiotics, psychoanalysis, Marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and gay and lesbian criticism, as well as multiculturalism”), RELI E-1047 Religion, the Arts, and Social Change (“Cross-global cases may also be explored through the lenses of immigration, gay and lesbian rights, global warming, and gender equality.”), and AFRAMER 121 Race, Gender, Class and Ethnicity in the Early Films of Spike Lee (“We will pay special attention to the tension between Lee's passionate oppositional politics and his intensely personal, experimental, and playful approach to film and its expressive idioms, techniques, and styles.”). There’s little here of use to a fledgling soldier.

And the world-renowned professors are poor role models indeed. Dr. Henry Louis Gates made national news last year when he was asked for ID by the Cambridge police and threw a temper tantrum that led to his arrest. While Dr. Gates may be the king of the Cambridge cuckoos, there are many, many others. Mark Richard of the philosophy department, for example, is the author of When Truth Gives Out. According to an Amazon.com review, Dr. Richard “defends the idea that much of everyday thought and talk is only relatively true or false. Truth is inevitably relative, given that we cannot work out in advance how our concepts will apply to the world.” Michael Klarman, of the Law School, ridicules those who revere our nation’s founding documents, accusing them of “constitutional idolatry” (The Perils of Constitution Worship, The Economist, September 23, 2010).

A soldier influenced by any of these professors would not last long. A soldier who flies into a rage when confronted by uniformed authority would find himself in the stockade on the first day of boot camp. A soldier who cannot work out in advance how the concept of a bullet applies to the world would die during his first hour in Afghanistan. And I want every soldier to idolize the Constitution, especially the clauses concerning civilian control of the military.

No, Harvard is clearly one of our lesser institutions of higher learning. I expect the Pentagon will only find a few high caliber individuals there.

Still, those few, those happy few, are worthy of our consideration. Perhaps they did make some bad choices and end up as Harvard students. But they want to volunteer to travel to the worst hellholes on earth, eat lousy food, go without sleep, and enter harm’s way to confront armed men who hate us, all for our benefit. As Kipling said,

“[T]hese rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,

To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,

To preserve for the peaceniks what they won't defend,

So their own unearned freedom won't perish, won't end.”

These rough men (and women) deserve enormous respect from the rest of us, and Harvard University should make every accommodation for them. Including restoring ROTC to campus.

Where are the O’Donnell Democrats?

In the two weeks since Christine O’Donnell won the Delaware Republican nomination for U.S. Senate, the mainstream media has been in full attack mode against the “Tea Party Favorite”. To hear them tell it, Christine is incapable of managing her personal finances and is a flake besides.

So how come more Democrats don’t support her?

We learned from the Delaware News Journal that in 2008, Christine defaulted on the mortgage on her Wilmington home. I expected Democrats to sympathize with her status as a victim of predatory lenders. But so far they have just scorned and ridiculed her.

We also learned that the IRS filed a lien against her this spring, claiming she owes nearly $12,000 from the 2005 tax year. Thus she joins Democrat Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner and Democrat New York Congressman Charlie Rangel in the ranks of politicians with tax trouble. We’ve heard from their party that these gentlemen are indispensable to the nation, so I expected the Democrats to declare that the republic cannot survive without Christine O’Donnell. But so far, they continue to scorn and ridicule her.

Then we learned, courtesy of a video from Bill Maher, that Christine once “dabbled” in witchcraft. According to wicca.org, “Witchcraft (Wicca Craeft), is also called Wicca, or alternatively, The Craft…The Craft is a way of life that investigates every potential that you have. The Craft draws its strength from the diversity of Nature itself; indeed it rejoices in diversity.” Nature. Diversity. Realizing potential. It sounds like the Democrat Party platform. So I expected the Democrats to support Christine for this too. And still, they scorn and ridicule her. At least we learned Bill Maher is still alive.

Mortgage deadbeat, tax cheat, Wiccan. Christine is everything the Democrats say they believe in. I just don’t understand why they have not embraced her. Maybe it’s because she moved out of the home she couldn’t afford and into a rental town house. Maybe it’s because she says that her tax problems are a “mistake” and that “The IRS agent handling my audit was even perplexed by that questionable lien notice”. Maybe it’s because she is now a Christian. Or maybe it’s because, while she did have problems, she overcame them by her own effort, without becoming a dependent of Big Government. And that, from the Democrats’ point of view, is truly deserving of scorn and ridicule.

Why Obama Should Take More Vacation

Barack Hussein Obama is back from vacation, rested, recharged, and bristling with new schemes for spending billions of dollars of other people’s money.

While the President was getting rained on in Martha’s Vineyard this summer, his opponents predictably berated him and his family for their callousness in seeking leisure at a time when so many Americans were suffering economic hardship. The President’s supporters, in contrast, pointed out how hard the Chief Executive worked, how deserving he was of some down time, and how many more vacation days were taken by his predecessor. This back and forth is as old as the Republic. No doubt when Thomas Jefferson slipped out of Washington for a weekend at Monticello, the remnants of the Federalist press worked overtime to churn out editorials complaining of the third President’s insensitivity in tending to his wine cellar at a time when there was so much land in Louisiana that needed purchasing. They probably also made unfavorable comparisons to the sober work habits of his predecessor, Mr. Adams.

The tradition continues with Mr. Obama. The President’s critics have published numerous editorials and blogs complaining of the cost of his various trips to Hawaii, Chicago, Maine, and Martha’s Vineyard – and of Michelle’s trip to Spain with forty of her closest friends and seventy Secret Service Agents. Estimates varied from $24,000 to $75,000 per day, mostly for Secret Service protection and jet fuel.

When conservatives complained of the cost of the 65 or so days the President went on vacation, they overlooked the cost of the 500 or so days the President was at his desk. In that time he signed a health care bill, a stimulus package, and the odd jobs bill, with a combined price tag of 2 trillion dollars. Do the math and you’ll find that every day the President worked cost the taxpayers $4 billion. Clearly, we cannot afford for this President not to be on vacation. If only he continued to vacation at the same rate for the remaining two and half years off his term, he could save the taxpayers $430 billion.

He could increase that savings dramatically by vacationing at an accelerated rate. In fact, if he took off every day for the next two and a half years, he could save a gargantuan $3.6 trillion.

Of course, Martha’s Vineyard might seem a bit dull after a year or so. I thought I’d help the President out by thinking up other places he could spend his time. Here are some suggestions:

Kentucky Truck Plant, Ford Motor Company, Louisville Kentucky – There’s a certain satisfaction in making something. After all the welding, hammering, or baking it is thrilling to see the finished truck, house, or pie in front of you. Unfortunately this is a thrill Mr. Obama has not known since his teenage years when he made ice cream cones at Baskin Robbins. Perhaps that’s why his policies have so little in them for working people. As President, he has briefly used factories as backdrops for photo ops; he could benefit from spending some extended time at one. He would learn not only the pleasure in producing something, but also how taxes and regulation make production so much harder. The Kentucky Truck Plant builds big vehicles: Super Duty pick-ups, Ford Expeditions, Lincoln Navigators. Its workers would be among the hardest hit if Mr. Obama’s cap and tax proposal ever becomes law. Mr. Obama should learn first-hand the potential of his proposals to shatter the dreams of hard-working Americans.

Western Negev, Israel – During last week’s Rosh Hashanah holiday, one of the most sacred days in the Jewish calendar, Gaza-based Palestinians continued their Kassam rocket attacks against Southern Israel. There have been thousands of such attacks since they began in 2001. While running for President, Mr. Obama said, "If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that, and I would expect Israelis to do the same thing." However since moving into the White House, he has been lukewarm in his support for the Jewish state. Mr. Obama should learn first hand the hardships of life in the desert and who America’s real friends are in the Middle East.

The Milton Friedman Institute for Research in Economics, University of Chicago – Mr. Obama spent 12 years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School. But apparently he never ventured across the Midway to the Economics Department; his ignorance of the dismal science is appalling. When Mr. Obama proposed his $800 billion stimulus bill last year, over 200 economists, including five from Chicago, signed a statement saying they “do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance.” Mr. Obama went ahead with more government spending anyway. And what happened? Economic performance did not improve. Mr. Obama concluded from this experience that we need more “stimulus”. At his Labor Day speech in Cleveland he proposed $50 billion in additional government spending. Clearly he could benefit from some remedial education about the ins and outs of markets. The Milton Friedman Institute is just the place for it. An upcoming conference on the “the costs and consequences of providing publicly funded health care” should be of particular interest to the President.

Permanent vacation will given President Obama the opportunity to broaden his education while the taxpayers get to hold on to what’s left of their wallets. Clearly a win-win situation.