the brown spectator volume ix issue ii

THE BROWN

SPECTATORA JOURNAL OF LIBERTARIAN AND CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT • VOLUME IX, ISSUE II • 2/2012

theoccupy

movementare activists’ e� orts

misdirected?

featured

6

10

16

libertarianism & BrownAn unlikely marriage?

causes of � nancial crisisA college student’s guide

4 occupy captol hill

the overcharged iPhoneAn illustration of tax code absurdity

Spectator Feb 2012.indd 1 2/10/12 6:45 PM

T H E B R O W N

SPECTATOR

editor-in-chiefRyan Fleming

senior managing editorManas Gautam

managing editorsKelly FennessyOlivia ConettaOliver Hudson

design editorPhilip Trammell

photographerTasha Nagamine

business managersGabriela Suarez

copy editorsOlivia ConettaStephanie Hennings

contributorsMacLain Christie (UR ’13)Daniel PradaBenjamin Wo� ordDr. Charles H. WadePhilip ShepherdTom March

For questions, comments, subscriptions and responses, email [email protected].

If you are interested in contributing to � e Brown Spectator (or in doing some web design!), contactryan_� [email protected].

As another semester and another year begins, I hope � e Spectator gives you a respite from the stress of adjusting to your new courses. If you are a � rst-time reader, let me thank you for ignoring your friends who likely told you that a conservative or libertarian magazine might infect you with cooties. In the pages that follow, you will discover that � e Spectator does not aim to produce ideological tripe or engage in partisan promotion. If we come across in either manner, send us a letter charging us with false advertising. Be advised, however, that as this magazine is free, there is no money-back guarantee for displeased readers. Our aim is to bring conservative and libertarian ideas to campus in a fair-minded manner. Sadly, such ideas are too o� en overlooked, if not suppressed, at universities that claim to value the free exchange of ideas. Antagonism toward right-wing ideas at today’s uni-versities gives Brown students ever more reason to become involved in the selection process of Brown’s next president. Regardless of political persuasion, every Brown student should value a president who fosters debate between con-troversial opinions and be wary of one who mu� es opinions he or she may not hold. Even though the members of the Campus Advisory Committee have already been determined, there is ample opportunity to lobby the committees, engage the deans and stir up conversation around campus. In the spirit of Brown, I encourage you to take charge of your own education and exert in� uence on the presidential search. Only student involvement in the future of their uni-versity can protect the values of a university from the whim of a few unaccountable administrators.

Kind Regards,Oliver Hudson

Managing Editor

editorial board

LETTER FROM THE EDITOR


1

letter to the editorin response to Philip Shepherd’s article,“A Fix for the Housing Foreclosure Problem” (Vol. IX, Issue I)

occupy capitol hillIf government agencies cannot keepthemselves functioning properly, throwingmore tax revenue at them will be a merelytemporary fix. Our real problems are not the wealthy but the politicians.

libertarian values and BrownDespite its liberal reputation, Brown’s strong emphasis on individual decision-making and culture of personalresponsibility define its values moreaccurately as libertarian.

the occupy movementThough Occupiers are right to decry the poverty that afflicts our country, itssolution lies in constructive enterprise, not in pointing fingers at the fortunate.

the overcharged iPhoneA misguided provision of the Rhode Island sales tax code arbitrarily and unfairly overtaxes certain goods, such as iPhones, hurting consumers, businesses, and state revenues alike.

high fences and open doorsThe Republican Party needs to lose the stigma of being the anti-immigration party and embrace this motto: America can be a nation with high fences and wide open doors.

the conscience of a conservativeClassical libertarianism, mocked by the Republican establishment just four years ago, has since come to define its agendas and frame its debates.

the feds and the � nancial crisisA guide to the 2008 financial crisis that even a college student should understand: who bought the booze, who got wasted, and who’s cleaning up afterwards.

music reviewIn The Goat Rodeo Sessions, Yo-Yo Ma and three other incredible artists havecreated a unique combination of bluegrass and classical music that should please and expand a variety of tastes.

laugh now, cry laterA collection of political cartoons for yourenjoyment.

2

4

S

6

8

12

16

19

20

COVER

CONTENTS visit us online at brown-spectator.com

10

14


Abandoned and foreclosed houses bring down prop-

erty values in the neighborhoods where they are lo-

cated, and since the lack of maintenance and upkeep makes

them ever harder to sell, the properties remain perpetually

uninhabited. Most people understand how this cycle began:

in the early years of the last decade, lending institutions en-

gaged in such poor practices as 100 percent mortgages, lax

underwriting procedures and interest-only loans out of a

misguided belief that housing prices would inevitably con-

tinue to appreciate. � eir policies fueled a continuous cycle

of mortgage � nancing, re� nancing, second mortgages and

equity lines of credit on in� ated home values until, in 2008,

the “bottom fell out” and owners began to walk away.

O� en, the end result is a homeowner who is “upside

down” on his mortgage — that is, whose loan payo� amount

is higher than the current value of his house. Additionally,

even when the homeowner pays on the loan, he does not see

a signi� cant reduction in the loan principal for many years

and so cannot “get ahead” of this loss of value. In the “interest

� rst” structuring of the common 30-year mortgage loan, the

principal portion of the monthly payment does not exceed

the interest (where it becomes greater than 50 percent of the

entious and � scally responsible people will begin to wonder

why they are trying to make a mortgage payment. Especially

when faced with the added stress of loss of employment, the

possible loss of employment or underemployment, they be-

gin to perceive — accurately or not — that “the game” is sim-

ply rigged against them.

So where is the solution? Do not look to mortgage

lenders and banks, who simply o� er the homeowner a new

loan at a “lower” interest rate. � eir o� er may lower monthly

payments slightly, but it also restarts the entire 30-year mort-

gage process, with the borrower beginning once again by

paying the full amount of the interest before any signi� cant

principal is paid. Trapped in this cycle, the homeowner will

hese are the abandoned and foreclosed homes.

















tinue to appreciate. � eir policies fueled a continuous cycle



the “bottom fell out” and owners began to walk away.











Abandoned homes can ruin nei



















letter tothe editor

2 S responses










































These are the abandoned and foreclosed homes.























in the early years of the last decade, lending institutions en- Tin the early years of the last decade, lending institutions en- Tgaged in such poor practices as 100 percent mortgages, lax Tgaged in such poor practices as 100 percent mortgages, lax Tunderwriting procedures and interest-only loans out of a Tunderwriting procedures and interest-only loans out of a T

misguided belief that housing prices would inevitably con-cated, and since the lack of maintenance and upkeep makes


lenders and banks, who simply o� er the homeowner a new entious and � scally responsible people will begin to wonder

lenders and banks, who simply o� er the homeowner a new entious and � scally responsible people will begin to wonder


lenders and banks, who simply o� er the homeowner a new why they are trying to make a mortgage payment. Especially

loan at a “lower” interest rate. � eir o� er may lower monthly why they are trying to make a mortgage payment. Especially

loan at a “lower” interest rate. � eir o� er may lower monthly why they are trying to make a mortgage payment. Especially


loan at a “lower” interest rate. � eir o� er may lower monthly when faced with the added stress of loss of employment, the

payments slightly, but it also restarts the entire 30-year mort-when faced with the added stress of loss of employment, the

payments slightly, but it also restarts the entire 30-year mort-when faced with the added stress of loss of employment, the


payments slightly, but it also restarts the entire 30-year mort-possible loss of employment or underemployment, they be-

gage process, with the borrower beginning once again by possible loss of employment or underemployment, they be-

gage process, with the borrower beginning once again by possible loss of employment or underemployment, they be-


gage process, with the borrower beginning once again by gin to perceive — accurately or not — that “the game” is sim-

paying the full amount of the interest before any signi� cant gin to perceive — accurately or not — that “the game” is sim-

paying the full amount of the interest before any signi� cant gin to perceive — accurately or not — that “the game” is sim-


paying the full amount of the interest before any signi� cant ply rigged against them.

principal is paid. Trapped in this cycle, the homeowner will ply rigged against them.

principal is paid. Trapped in this cycle, the homeowner will ply rigged against them.


principal is paid. Trapped in this cycle, the homeowner will So where is the solution? Do not look to mortgage





Abandoned homes can ruin neigggghborhoods. Would

hborhoods. Would

hborhoods. Would yyyyyyyou want to live next to this?

ou want to live next to this?

ou want to live next to this?

Dear Editor,

Mr. Shepherd’s solution to our housing problem (“A Fix for the Housing Problem,” Vol. IX, Issue I) is based on an invented � nancial arrangement which I doubt could survive the scrutiny of any � nancial analyst. Before any problem can be solved we must � rst determine its source. Prior to 1970, if one wanted a mortgage, one would have to put 20 percent down, and one’s monthly payment could not exceed 28 percent of one’s monthly take-home pay. In addition to those two requirements, banks would not mortgage homes in certain neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. Under these conditions, foreclosures were extremely rare. Under the Carter administration, the party in power saw a chance to garner votes. � ey passed the Com-munity Reinvestment Act, which outlawed redlining and provided the pressure mechanism which was used to force the banks to lower their standards and provide mortgages to people who most likely couldn’t a� ord them. Guess who all those happy new homeowners voted for? Next, the law of unintended consequences came into play when the banks tried to sell those mortgages. � e usual buyers did not want them which caused the banks to turn to the government for help. � e politicians, of course, are always ready to cover their tracks, so the invented an entity that would buy the junk. � ey called it Freddie Mac and stu� ed it with taxpayer cash. Fannie Mae came along later, and the rest is history.

Ed Cozzette

A fl at-rate interest program would

incentivize potential buyers to purchase

abandoned and foreclosed homes and

homeowners to remain in their otherwise

“upside-down” houses.

PHILIP SHEPHERD












into the loan.

Under these circumstances, even the most consci-














into the loan.



Dear Editor,

Mr. Shepherd’s solution to our housing problem (“A Fix for the Housing Problem,” Vol. IX, Issue I) is based on an invented � nancial arrangement which I doubt could survive the scrutiny of any � nancial analyst. Before any problem can be solved we must � rst determine its source. Prior to 1970, if one wanted a mortgage, one would have to put 20 percent down, and one’s monthly payment could not exceed 28 percent of one’s monthly take-home pay. In addition to those two requirements, banks would not mortgage homes in certain neighborhoods, a practice known as redlining. Under these conditions, foreclosures were extremely rare. Under the Carter administration, the party in power saw a chance to garner votes. � ey passed the Com-munity Reinvestment Act, which outlawed redlining and provided the pressure mechanism which was used to force the banks to lower their standards and provide mortgages to people who most likely couldn’t a� ord them. Guess who all those happy new homeowners voted for? Next, the law of unintended consequences came into play when the banks tried to sell those mortgages. � e usual buyers did not want them which caused the banks to turn to the government for help. � e politicians, of course, are always ready to cover their tracks, so the invented an entity that would buy the junk. � ey called it Freddie Mac and stu� ed it with taxpayer cash. Fannie Mae came along later, and the rest is history.

Ed Cozzette

These are the abandoned and foreclosed homes.

















































PHILIP SHEPHERD









3Sadver tisement


















4 S opinion

is not in competition with any other companies or organi-zations. Take the budget woes of Medicare, Social Security and the United States Postal Service as prime examples of governmental ine� ciency. A Bloomberg Businessweek ar-ticle from May alerts us to the crushing reality that Med-icare will run out of su� cient funding to pay full bene� ts in 2024, while Social Security will have to stop paying full bene� ts in 2036. � e Postal Service is also in deep � nancial trouble — according to another Businessweek article from May, the Postal Service is about $15 billion in debt, but the organization is legally prohibited from closing its post of-� ces for economic reasons. If government agencies cannot keep themselves functioning properly, throwing more tax

revenue at the problem will be a merely temporary � x. To � x these problems and help out those in the 99 percent who are struggling to get by, we must accept that increased gov-ernment spending is not the answer and turn our attention

to the real problem: politicians. Political scientist James Q. Wilson has written about a time in politics when reason ruled in congressio-nal debates: “� e debate over almost any new proposal was about whether it was legitimate for the government to do this at all.” Now, he added, the debate is about how the pol-icy can be made cost-e� ective. Politicians no longer ques-tion the legitimacy of government programs. A quote from Max Baucus, a Democratic senator from Montana and chairman of the Senate Finance Com-mittee, illustrates Wilson’s point: “Social Security needs a long-term answer, and we should develop a long-term solu-tion, but the current situation does not necessitate rushed or severe action. We must continue to protect the Social Security bene� ts our seniors count on.” Baucus is pushing back the important decisions of funding to a time when he is not in o� ce and does not have to worry about his re-election. He is solely concerned with obtaining the vote of the seniors who have helped keep him in o� ce since 1978,

A battle has been raging across America: the 99 per-cent versus the 1 percent. A smaller percentage of that 99 percent has organized itself into Occupy

Wall Street, a movement that, according to its website, has been “� ghting back against the corrosive power of major banks and multinational corporations over the democratic process … and aims to expose how the richest 1 percent of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future.” Is there anything legiti-mate about their demands? � ough the sentiment of the movement is clear, its exact aims are nebulous. It seems that the protesters want government to work for the ordinary American, the mem-ber of the 99 percent, not the 1 percent on Wall Street and in government who have con-trolled the country in their fa-vor. Occupy Wall Street is right about one thing: � ere certainly is income inequality. A recent Congressional Bud-get O� ce study found that between 1979 and 2007, the 1 percent of Americans with the highest household income — the movement’s hated 1 percent — watched their average real a� er-tax household income increase by 275 percent. On the other hand, the av-erage real a� er-tax household incomes of the middle class (the twenty-� rst through eightieth percentiles) increased by under 40 percent. Income inequality is actually getting worse. I sympathize with the protesters’ demand to make government work for the 99 percent, but the remedy for this income inequality should not be a call to tax the living daylights out of the 1 percent. Heavy taxation is unfair to those who have earned their money legitimately. As Robert Nozick would argue, anyone who has justly acquired his or her holdings is rightfully entitled to keep them. Additionally, the extra services for those in the 99 percent who need help would not be the most e� cient way of providing aid. � e government has no incentive to be as e� cient as possible and provide the best services because it

OLIVIA CONETTA

occupy Capitol Hill...not Wall Street

If government agencies cannot keepthemselves functioning properly, throwingmore tax revenue at the problem will be

a merely temporary fi x. Our real problemsare not the rich, but the politicians.


5Sopinion

Instead of calling for increased funding for gov-ernment programs, our job as citizens is to vote the rotten eggs out of Congress and call for politicians who answer to their voters, not to the lobbyists and corporations who fund their campaigns. Before anyone tries to reform Wall Street, we first have to restore virtue and reason to the world of politics, and our votes and voices can make our politicians hear our demands. Our time would be better spent occupying Capitol Hill to make sure politicians know that they have to think about how their policies will affect the ordinary American, the member of the 99 percent, the hard worker still struggling to get by — not their funding prospects for the next election. Until that happens, I urge you to fight a different battle: 300 million versus 545.

rather than with the question of whether Social Security is a legitimate government function. But in the meantime, the 300 million of us who live in the United States have to bear the consequences of ine� cient, bloated, soon-to-be-insolvent government programs. Problems begin and end with our politicians, who are ultimately responsible for the mess the country is in. “Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them,” wrote Charley Reese, a former syndicated reporter for the Orlando Sen-tinel, in his � nal column. “One hundred senators, 435 in the House, one president and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are di-rectly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.”

{empty}


our right. And not only do we believe in individualism morally, we believe that individuality produces the best results and is the best way to enhance our community and society. We have con� dence in the ability of the individual to make the right choices. � at is the cornerstone to the New Curriculum: that the best decisions are those made by the student. � is belief in the power of the individual is also the cornerstone of libertarian values. Libertarians stress that the most ethical and most e� ective political system is one that empowers the individual to follow his or her own intuitions and desires. 2. Limited governance. Although associated with our spirit of individuality, my next argument concerns the implications of that philosophy. We as students ex-

pect the governing structure at Brown to take a fundamen-tally hands-o� approach. We fear encroachment of the ad-ministration into our choices as a Brown student and on our daily life in general. We do not see the University as a dictator of the best plan for us, vis-à-vis

core requirements or other restrictive demands. Instead, we see the administration as a protector of the freedom we have as students and as a creator of avenues to success. Although this is of course a signi� cant role, it is the upper limit to the in� uence of the University, as far as we stu-dents are concerned. We do not want the administration to make the decisions for us concerning our academic plans — even if that means we may make the wrong de-cisions. � is is our personal responsibility and burden as Brown students. It is something that is uniquely Brown, de� nes our daily academic lives and is fundamental to the Brown culture. For all intents and purposes, we may look at Brown as a microcosm of our nation in general and at our academic lives as akin to the career life we will one day assume. In that way, the administration acts as our gov-ernment, we as their electorate and their citizens and the aggregate of our academic careers as the economy. With

As Tevya’s daughters cry in the classic play Fiddler on the Roof, “matchmaker, matchmaker, make me a match!” Although the notion of a matchmaker

may seem rather arcane, for now I will assume that role. And therefore, in such a capacity, I propose that Brown students and libertarian values exchange rings in holy matrimony. Why? Brown has always held closely — and quite stubbornly — to its liberal self-identi� cation. In fact, Brown’s liberal reputation far exceeds even its students’ claims. No matter where you go, Brown is equated with liberalism. Tell someone you go to Brown, and they as-sume that on every issue you think ultra-liberally. Even worse, if you tell someone that you are a conservative who goes to Brown, they will likely stare in disbelief (as I know from experience). Why has Brown clung so dearly to this perception, to this identi-� cation? I do not argue against the intrinsic values that Brown holds, but instead against the far to quick labeling of them in every single situation as “liberal.” In fact, I believe that the values that Brown stu-dents hold so dear are more in line with those enumerated by libertarian philosophy. And thus, should students con-sider only their personal values and not the stereotyped labels commonly placed on them, they may very well � nd a more appropriate relationship is instead with libertar-ianism. I present three fundamental reasons why Brown students should consider libertarian values more closely: 1. Our con� dence in the individual. Nothing de-� nes Brown’s philosophy more strongly than our sense of individualism. We believe wholeheartedly in the value of each and every person. We relish in the creativity, skills and natural intelligence of our peers. And most importantly, we place a high value on hard work and dedication. As such, we empower the University to provide each student with the liberty to follow his or her own self-prescribed pathway. We believe, ethically, that individual choice is

ALEX DRESCHLER

libertarian values and Brownan unlikely marriage?

S opinion

We do not want the administration to make decisions for us concerning our

academic plans — even if that means we may make the wrong decisions. This is our

personal responsibility and burdenas Brown students.

6


7Sopinion

ity of opportunity is important to the Brown community. Yet equality of opportunity is something that libertarian values stress as well. In addition, on a number of social issues, libertarians and Brown students should see eye to eye. Libertarians, as their name implies, promote liberty, freedom and individual rights in not just the economic sphere, but the social as well. A Brown student should be comforted to know that calling himself a libertarian would not preclude him from � ghting for his social causes. It is important in our consideration to avoid the political identi� cations of Republican or Democrat and instead consider only our genuine beliefs. Disaggregating the two can be di� cult, especially given our current polit-ical culture. But take some time to look genuinely at lib-ertarian values and consider your own in comparison. Do you not � nd that they agree? If students open their eyes, they may � nd themselves saying, “I do.”

this perspective, we would clearly prescribe our govern-ment to have a limited role in the decisions we make as citizens and as actors in the economy. We would value the individual’s ability to make his or her own decisions free from government restrictions. Of course, we would never prescribe anarchy — the government is needed to secure ladders to success. Yet in the decisions we make as individuals, we would limit the government’s in� uence. Widespread safety nets that interfere with individual deci-sion-making, perhaps similar to core requirements, would be discouraged. We, as Brown students, would encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own actions. 3. Inclusion of other Brown values. Of course, there are other values that are important to Brown stu-dents outside of individualism. Brown students would see a valuable role for government in, as described earlier, se-curing our ability to realize our utmost potential. Equal-

Brown students have tended to support drug legalization, a traditional libertarian policy.


what did he do to get there? How is he still making money through this economy while I do not have a job and struggle to feed my family every day? Resentment rings in people’s ears. � is is when things get dangerous. Angry sentiment and lack of communication can only lead to divide. Yes, people are di� erent; they have di� erent experiences and life struggles. But ultimately, we are all Americans. We all have similar dreams and goals. And we all want to make this country better, or else we might as well move to another one. I am incredibly fortunate to have occupied both sides of the 99 percent coin. Yes, I am an Ivy League student, but I am attending Brown only because a donor (who, coin-cidentally, works on Wall Street) is paying my way through

school. I spent a summer in a trading � oor and the � oor of my small town home, and I can tell you this: we all want everyone to get a job. Full employment is a win-win situation. We want the country to grow, to prosper;

we all want to provide our children with the best standard of living possible. � e people of Wall Street are not going out of their way to make sure that their life is better than everyone else’s, and they are certainly not making sure you, protester in the street, do not get a job. � is should not be an “us versus them” argument but a discussion of “how can we” � x this broken economy. Many people have commented on how the Occupy Wall Street movement has turned into a sort of circus. As I saw on the news, the protesters’ demands were watered down by their antics. As a result, the Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten mixed reviews from everyday Amer-icans. Major polls show a signi� cant ri� in sentiment. In other words, people do not know how to feel about it. Many people feel this movement has turned into something else entirely a� er many controversial moves by the people in-volved in the protests. With that in mind, I would like to say that we cannot turn the wish of a stronger, better American economy into the wish of pure anarchy. Destroying public property and harming o� cers who are only doing their job

Friday, Aug. 12, 2011 was a particularly sunny day in New York. � e day would have been perfect if it were not for the sad, devastating feeling passing through

everyone’s minds. A crew of investment banking interns was walking to the closing ceremony of their summer program. It was the end, but they were not celebrating. � ey had just experienced one of the most volatile weeks of the market’s recent history and certainly the most volatile week of the year. I was there, talking to my friends about their future prospects. � ey were all worried about just one thing: a job. A� er that volatile week, the simple goal of a job seemed far away. People who should not have worried about their future prospects were crushed a� er that crazy summer. We walked through Zuccotti Park, which would fatefully become the epicenter of Occupy Wall Street. � e protesters’ number one ob-jective (or at least I hope) is the pretense of jobs. How ironic is it that the protesters’ number one objective is also Wall Street’s number one objective? � ere is a collective divide of how each part of the equation is voic-ing their frustration: protesters through destruction and ex-ecutives through market escape. Argument, destruction and escape are not going to get us anywhere — only a collective assembly and discussion will get us to our � nal goals. Occupy Wall Street: a movement that started small but quickly spread throughout the world. Even though I have some reserves about the movement, something is crystal clear to me: people’s frustrations have reached a breaking point. � e unemployment rate has not signi� -cantly improved in years, and the gears of the economy that seemed to be slowly moving back into shape have gotten stuck somewhere along the way. Not only that, but our mid-dle class is slowly shrinking, and as each day passes, more people need to get federal aid in the form of food stamps or unemployment bene� ts. � e average American feels com-pletely powerless in the midst of this social and economic pandemonium. It has to be someone’s fault, right? Times like these lead to blatant � nger-pointing. � at executive seems to be living a plush, comfortable life;

the occupy movementAmerica’s goals and frustrations

8 S opinion

Full employment is a win-win situation;this should not be an “us versus them”argument but a discussion of “how can

we” fi x this broken economy.


9Sopinion

that will not prevent anyone from working in our country. With all the energy they have put on the movement, they could have started new businesses or helped rebuild broken communities. � ere are many organizations out there that need volunteers, and what better way of � xing our country is there than from the bottom up? Plus, I have learned from personal experience that one of the best ways to get a job is to volunteer for a nonpro� t. � e country needs to stop � nger-pointing, arguing and destroying — it needs to start working and � xing. Going back to that gorgeous August day, I remem-ber the conversation that I had with a friend while walk-ing to our � nal destination, close to Zuccotti Park. Even though he was slightly depressed by recent events, he was still excited about what was yet to come. He mentioned that even if he did not get the job he was working for, he knew there was still a future and open opportunities. He could not wait to start working and ful� lling his destiny. His insight helped brighten up my week because it made me notice that this is what America is made of: hard work and hope for a brighter tomorrow. It does not matter how bad the going gets — Americans always manage to make it through with hard work and enthusiasm.

is not getting us anywhere — if anything, it is bringing us backwards. Work and solutions are needed. It has been over four months since the beginning of the Occupy Wall Street movement. � ings may change in the following weeks, but throughout them, we cannot stop � ghting for a better America. � is � ght does not consist of protesting outside an investment bank and asking its em-ployees to � x whatever it is that they need to � x. Let us stop being a country of askers and let us start being a country of doers. As far as I know, we still live in a democracy, and this is the time we need to ask our leaders to stop their petty arguments and start working. Yes, I am looking at you, ex-ecutive and legislative branches. � e country needs a lot of � xing, but this is not the time to talk about anything other than the economy. Even though we must take our eyes o� other issues, our major issue here is the fact that there are millions of people out there looking for a future. Fixing the economy may take time and working nice with people we would rather not deal with, but this is not the time to think about our egos and political careers. � is is about running a country and oiling our economic machine. Furthermore, the protesters should try to get to work. I understand that many of them will not � nd a job, but

If Occupiers “denounced their politics” and got productive, the economy might actually recover.


good is the de� nition of its “real value,” and no one would pay more for it as long as the discounter has it in stock. A discount is just a temporary � uctuation in the value of the good; if the sales tax would follow naturally falling market prices, it just as well ought to acknowledge price changes that last only a few days. It takes no profound economics to understand that whatever discounts or surcharges com-pose the � nal transaction, a sold good is “actually worth” no more than the most that its buyer was willing to pay for it and no less than the least than that its seller was willing to accept. As terrible as it is that Rhode Islanders are per-petually overtaxed on their mattresses and kitchen appli-ances, though, the policy’s silliness is magni� ed in the case

of contract-subsidized items such as iPhones. A contract-free iPhone sells for between $649 and $849, depending on the model, since (when one includes research and develop-ment per unit and so on) they cost a lot to make. Signing a

two-year contract with a carrier at the point of purchase lowers the price to $199, but Apple can pro� t by selling units this cheaply only because carriers pay Apple a certain sum for the iPhone contracts that people sign with them, and one’s $199 plus a fraction of the money from the car-rier exceeds Apple’s various costs. � ough it is not speci-� ed on one’s monthly bill, Apple will receive about $400 of the $2,000 or so that one will pay the carrier over the next 24 months. � e Rhode Island law nonetheless taxes one on the really-$600 value of the phone and on the monthly fee, which amounts to double taxation on the $400 one pays Apple through the carrier. Contract subsidies magnify the e� ects of the law’s error, but it is the same error as that induced by an ordinary sale: In some way or another, the buyer always compensates the seller the “real value” of the product, or else the seller would not be selling it to him. � e state inevitably overtaxes when it tries to rede� ne the terms of the transaction. When my hours of waiting through the night had

Goodness,” my residential counselor asked through a toothpaste-� lled mouth as we stood next to each other in the bathroom, sleepily brushing our

teeth, “why are you still up this late?” “� is early,” I replied, and I rinsed my mouth, gave him my reason, grabbed my wallet, took my well-thumbed copy of � e Name of the Rose and ran out the door into the rain. It was 4:15 a.m. on Friday, October 14th, and I was in a hurry. My phone, until six days before, had been a three-year-old iPhone 3G, which I had kept despite the tempta-tion of model a� er new model. Attribute this as you wish to random carelessness or subconscious desire, but the weekend preceding Apple’s Friday launch of the iPhone 4S, I le� the old phone in a movie theater, and it was never found. With no way to know how many iPhones the Provi-dence Place Apple Store would have in stock on launch day or how many people would be in line for them, I decided to play it safe. � e hassle of getting a free � ip phone, transferring my number, waiting a few weeks until the iPhone 4S was back in stock, buying it and transferring my number again was more than I was willing to risk. And so it was that, a� er a rather cold and creepy walk, I found myself sitting in a line outside the shopping center behind a Rhode Island School of Design professor and a handful of Providence College students and a copy of � e Name of the Rose that I read by the glow of the mall’s security light and the stars of the morning. I write all this only to give you a better appreci-ation for what I remember most vividly about the whole ordeal: something I learned about the Rhode Island sales tax code. According to Rhode Island state law, a good sold must be taxed at a proportion (usually 7 percent) of its “true value” — not, that is, of the price at which it truly hap-pens to be sold. With few exceptions, for example, goods on sale are taxed at pre-discount prices. Intuitively, this should strike anyone as absurd, since the market price of a

PHILIP TRAMMELL

S opinion

iPhone sales in our state are arbitrarily taxed at 23 percent; and as the smallest in the union, Rhode Island stands to lose a lot of business with a law as unfair, illogical,

and counterproductive as this one.

10

the overcharged iPhonean illustration of the absurdity of inconsistent taxation

“


11Sopinion

border to dodge the massive sales tax that this law arbi-trarily creates. As the smallest state in the union, Rhode Island stands to lose a lot of business with a law as unfair, illogical and counterproductive as this one. I wish I could say I put my foot down that morning and took my business elsewhere, but in the end, I feared a shortage and I had no phone. I will not make that mistake again. � e shortage never came, and the store remained stocked, and Rhode Island ran out not of iPhones but of college freshmen ignorant and desperate enough to leap out of bed, brush their teeth and shiver for hours awaiting a phone with the sunrise.

come at last to an end and I had dutifully picked out the least expensive iPhone 4S available and switched my plan to the least expensive option from Sprint, the least expen-sive carrier, I found that the sale would e� ectively be taxed at 23 percent. � e duty on my “$649 purchase” came to $45.43 — more than the cost of a round-trip bus ticket to my home in New York City, which I might well have taken that morning had I known about the law before-hand. While it is true that Massachusetts has a similar “real value” sales tax policy, Connecticut, New York and every other state except California do not, and I would imagine that more than a few consumers have driven across the

But this genuine Rhode Island iPhone is three times as intrinsically valuable — can’t you tell?


12 S opinion

it in America, they can simply return home. One doesn’t need to listen to Fox News for too long before hearing conservatives complain about immi-grants taking their jobs, but this fear seems to be blown out of proportion. Apart from the classic response that immigrants take jobs Americans do not want, which is a partial truth, there are other factors to consider. First, there is a black market for labor, and many employers exploit undocumented workers who will o� en be hired below minimum wage. By making the path to legal immi-gration easier, the amount of illegal immigrants will drop drastically, causing the supply of cheap labor to disappear, and therefore potentially raising the overall wages for ev-eryone in many � elds such as construction. Furthermore,

immigrants can help combat outsourcing — a much bigger cause of job loss — by creat-ing a supply of non- unionized workers that will make certain manufacturing jobs once again pro� table on American soil. Increased immigration would

likely increase our gross domestic product and grow our economy as a whole, allowing everyone has a brighter eco-nomic future.

High Fences. Having open doors, even with all of their bene� ts, is only half of the equation. We cannot forget the serious issue of drug tra� cking and its accompanying vio-lence from the southern border. For our national defense, it is necessary to protect this border. � e solution can be as simple as building more fences and increasing the amount of troops guarding the border. Unfortunately, building fences has a negative con-notation — many liberals portray them as a symbol of heartlessly keeping immigrants out of the country. If these fences are solely used for the purpose of keeping out drugs and violent cartels, since immigrants no longer need to sneak into the country, the fences become a lot less con-troversial, and expanding them enough so that they are e� ective becomes much easier.

Herman Cain’s most memorable quote on immi-gration, to his misfortune, is “It will be a twenty foot wall, barbed wire, electri� ed on the top, and

on this side of the fence, I’ll have that moat that President Obama talked about.” It is sad to see a candidate’s views on immigration pigeonholed into one seemingly bigoted statement when he has perhaps one of the most poignant aphorisms I’ve heard from a political candidate in some time: “It turns out that America can be a nation with high fences and wide open doors. � at’s what built this nation. So we can have high fences and wide open doors all at the same time.” � e Republican Party needs to lose the stigma of being the anti-immigration party and embrace this motto.

Open Doors. � e � rst step for the GOP should be to push for an open door immigration policy — preferably a policy that resembles the old immi-gration standards of Ellis Is-land: All healthy and reputable people are allowed to enter into the country. Essentially, if a person can pass a basic physical and has absolutely no criminal record, they should be granted legal passage across the border. � e clean criminal record needs no ex-planation, and passing a physical ensures that people do not immediately check into hospitals upon arrival into this country. Not everyone can be granted immediate citizen-ship, since that would place an unsustainable burden on our current welfare system. Instead, allow for a � ve-year work visa that allows the immigrant and their family to legally work and attend school (at in-state tuition rates). During that � ve-year period, the family would not be granted any access to welfare or voting rights, but certain safety nets like Medicaid, disability bene� ts and perhaps limited access to food stamps would be available during this time. � e family would be self-sustaining for that time. � is ensures that all immigrant families would be contributing members of society, and if they cannot make

RYAN FLEMING

The Republican Party needs to lose thestigma of being the anti-immigration

party and embrace this motto: America can be a nation with high fences and

wide open doors.

high fencesand open doors


13Sopinion

o� en hate socialism and do not necessarily value a large welfare state, but instead seem to embrace the individual-ist work ethic. � e only thing that turns them o� from the GOP is its stance on immigration — a� er all, it is hard to vote for the politicians who want to arrest and deport your relatives. If conservative candidates embrace a lenient im-migration policy, they could capture a majority of the Hispanic vote and turn deep blue states such as California and border states like Florida into Republican strongholds. With those two states � rmly in the hands of the Republi-can Party, it would take a Herculean e� ort the part of any liberal candidate to win the White House. But the Republican Party seems content on per-petuating its image as gun-slinging, fear-mongering bigots who are more concerned with making sure everything is written in English than with letting America return to its roots as a nation that is willing to accept those tired, poor, huddled masses.

� e GOP. Unfortunately, the GOP has been one of the biggest antagonists to any potential immigration reform. It has repeatedly shot down even tame reform bills such as the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Mi-nors Act, which does nothing to help its image with the Hispanic community. Unfortunately, this is the worst voter group for the Republican Party to disparage. Apart from being the fastest-growing voter demo-graphic in the US, the Hispanic community is in� uential in many border states (such as Florida and New Mexico) and represents a large part of the most populous state, Cal-ifornia. If the GOP embraced immigration reform, it could conceivably win all of these states in any given election. � e Hispanic population naturally � ts in bet-ter with Republican ideals than it does Democratic ones to begin with. Most Hispanics are religious (particularly Catholic), and their religious values are in accordance with core conservative values. Furthermore, Hispanics are more likely to favor the economic views of the GOP since they

We must strive not only to keep dangerous foreigners out but to bring — and keep — productive foreigers in.


14 S opinion

you running for the nomination of the wrong party?” and “Do you have any electability in the Republican primary?” Four years later, Republicans have shi� ed in Paul’s direction, though without attribution. Mitt Romney has expressed concern over our troop presence overseas. Asked about our military involvement in Afghanistan, Romney responded, “It’s time for us to bring our troops home as soon as we possibly can, consistent with the word that comes to our generals.’’ Rick Perry has called the Federal Reserve a harmful institution and Ben Bernanke’s quanti-tative easing “treasonous.” Herman Cain has voiced sup-port for the gold standard, saying “We should have never gotten o� the gold standard because when we got o� the gold standard, that then allowed Congress to in� ate our

currency whenever they over-spent.” � e debate questions have included topics on the Constitution (the candidates were asked their views on the Tenth Amendment) and the role of government (candidates

were asked what spending cuts to tax increases ratio they would support). In the span of some four years, Paul’s ideas, once considered quirky in the most favorable light, if not outright nuts, have framed the focus of the debates and the causes of interest to his party. While he is unlikely to ever be president (and may go down in history as the Adlai Stevenson of the right), his in� uence has been a catalyst for and a re� ection of the libertarian surge in the GOP. If the media were right in labeling the Republi-can Party circa November 2008 “lost in the wilderness,” they have been wrong to call the libertarian faction of the Republican Party a recent phenomenon. Libertarianism has much deeper historical roots in our country and the GOP than the socially conservative brand of recent years. It starts with the o� en invoked, but rarely understood, founding fathers. � omas Je� erson and James Madison were staunch libertarians. Je� erson’s Declaration of In-dependence � rmly asserts the basic libertarian principles

The election of Barack Obama gave media pun-dits a new repertoire of talking points. Among these points was one claim that the Republican

Party was philosophically lost in the wilderness. Surpris-ingly, the media’s analysis had merit. � e GOP emerged from the presidential election without a clear ideological platform. Republicans no longer had a � rm sense of what conservatism meant. On the one hand, right-wingers lost enthusiasm for George W. Bush’s brand of “compassionate conservatism,” seeing him out of o� ce with an approval rating about 30 percent lower than what they ushered him in with. Yet, on the other hand, John McCain’s moderate stance was no antidote to the right’s dissatisfaction. His campaign stumbled along with reluctant support from the Conservative wing of the party and lost handily in the general election. But now, three years later, the GOP’s soul-searching may be drawing to a close. � e political winds suggest a Re-publican Party consolidating on a once-forgotten libertarian message. Since Obama’s election, libertarian views have en-tered the spotlight. � e Tea Party’s theme of constitution-alism, limited government and free markets is no longer sco� ed at as a fringe constituency of the right. To the con-trary, the 2010 midterm elections brought to Washington an in� ux of new representatives and senators calling them-selves Tea Party candidates, and the Tea Party Caucus in the House of Representatives now numbers 62 members. In the current presidential election cycle, the up-tick in libertarian interest in the GOP is no clearer than in the party’s reception to libertarian idol Ron Paul. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Paul looked completely out of place on the debate stages. While Republicans talked about increasing our troop presence in the Middle East and upping funding for the Department of Homeland Se-curity, Paul’s aim to bring all U.S. forces home and lower spending across the board fell on deaf ears. Some of the questions asked of him during the debates included “Are

OLIVER HUDSON

In the span of some four years, Ron Paul’s ideas, once considered quirky in the mostfavorable light, if not outright nuts, have

framed the focus of the debates and the causes of interest to his party.

the conscience of a conservative:no longer unconscious


15Sopinion

New Deal programs an intrusion on individual rights. Ta� was once the gold standard of the Republican Party. Former Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater, who was the de facto head of the Republican Party in 1964 as its candidate for President, was a bona � de libertarian. He was a strict constitutionalist. He opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on the grounds that the public accommodation provision was unconstitutional. Underlying most of his political views was a commitment to restraining the federal gov-ernment’s power over the states. Goldwater’s prominence is an indication of the once dominant libertarian ideology in the GOP. So what are the roots of the term conservatism in American politics? � e ideology of the right wing, starting with Je� erson and Madison and continuing with Ta� and Goldwater, has historically been much more in the classi-cal liberal mold. In the context of our country, conserva-tism quite literally wishes to “conserve” the principles of the founders. In this sense, the GOP’s turn toward libertar-ianism is not a new phenomenon but a return to its tradi-tional principles. And, some of us might add, a turn for the better.

of individual freedom in the phrase declaring man’s right to “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.” � e list of grievances against King George III in the Declaration read as complaints against his oppressive taxes, violation of civil liberties in the quartering of troops and lack of free trade in navigation — all hallmarks of libertarian objections. Madison, considered the “father of the Constitution,” was also a tried and true libertarian. If the Constitution had a theme, it is clearly one of three kinds. First, representa-tive government, established in Article I’s creation of two legislative houses. Second, individual rights, enshrined in the Bill of Rights. � ird, limited government, spelled out in Article I, Section 8’s narrow powers granted to the federal government. � e spirit of Je� erson and Madison once lived comfortably in the Republican Party. Former Ohio Senator Robert Ta� , known as “Mr. Republican,” championed Jef-ferson’s adage of “peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations — entangling alliances with none” in op-posing U.S. membership in NATO. He echoed the Consti-tution’s aim for a limited government in opposing the New Deal on the grounds that government was ine� cient and

Finally, Ron Paul has take the stage as a top-tier presidential candidate of the Republican Party.


nancial institutions. If you were a bank, you had to pay these agencies to get your loans or company approved for the gov-ernment capital requirements. “Why is this troubling?” the college student may ask. Imagine being told by the govern-ment that you, yes you, are now exclusively able to measure and certify how incredible someone is at sex. Under this law, your standard would be the only real globally-accepted stan-dard of sex-measuring — causing every other single human to base their “strategies” on your ratings. For your assess-ment services, you may charge and make money. No con� ict of interest, right? � e con� icts of interest were so severe that the ratings agencies believed Enron was perfect up until it

failed and that subprime mort-gages (actually incredibly risky investments) were perfectly safe investments for pension funds, investors and newborn puppies. Fed permits CDS as a substitute to capital: In 1996, the Federal Reserve agreed that banks could use insur-

ance funds to replace their required disaster fund of actual money. Hmm … college student, this is oddly familiar to zombie movies. Allow me to explain. Imagine that, since the beginning of time, all the parents in the world forced their children to have an emergency fund in case a zombie apocalypse arrives. It cannot be touched, ever, because it is a safeguard against this risk. Well, these kids, being smart and knowing that is never going to happen, asked their mutual friend the American International Group (he is weird, but everyone trusts him) to front the money should the apoca-lypse happen. Everyone pays him a premium for him being there when the shit hits the fan. � e children then tell this plan their parents (the Fed), and they concede to their clever kids. � e parents then announce that it is perfectly okay for any kid to use this Credit Default Swap (or zombie apoca-lypse insurance) as a substitute for the emergency disaster fund. Well, now that the children have the rest of the emer-gency funds insured, they can go have fun with the extra cash. Because of this new law, kids are all continuously in-centivized to give AIG a lot of money. Since he has so much

To most people, � nancial markets are as obscure and as hard to comprehend as one’s dating options. Be-cause people have more important things in life to

think about (family, education, work, relationships, secret love a� airs, etc.), they have to work with whatever knowl-edge they have to understand this � nancial crisis. Many be-lieve the symptoms, diagnosis and medication of the � nan-cial crisis to be something like this: In 1980, Ronald Reagan became president and started two decades of deregulating � nancial markets and lowering taxes. Banks took advantage and pushed this legis-lation for their own use, gambling with a ton of our money in housing with complex securi-ties and, as a result, are now ob-scenely rich while there are peo-ple starving here. What needs to happen is that the government has to regulate them, because the free market was a myth to get the rich richer and the poor poorer. How do you, a college student, make sense of this explanation? � is narrative is appealing and simple, and it gives a clear, faceless enemy out in the distance to curse at. But is it true? To � gure this out, you would probably have to abandon all your dreams, friends and dubstep parties. So you probably realize that you have better things to do in col-lege and leave the story as is. Let us talk like college students, then. Wall Street went drunk, I agree. � ere was some deregulation, I agree. But this story ignores other government actions that dras-tically increased the likelihood of irresponsible investing. A� er reading these � ve government interventions, you’ll understand why Wall Street got EMSed and exactly who brought the keg. Foolish credit rating agencies: To start, we need to understand the role of credit rating agencies in this crisis. In 1975, the Securities and Exchange Commission established Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations. � is body made Standard & Poor’s, Moody’s and a few smaller credit rating agencies the required auditing agencies for � -

DANIEL PRADA

the feds and the � nancial crisisa college student’s guide

16 S opinion

Since 1975, certain credit rating agencies have been granted the exclusive right to audit fi nancial institutions. Imagine being told that you are are exclusively able to certify how incredible someone is at sex.

No confl ict of interest, right?


17Sopinion

acts on what it says. � e consensus is that six months from now, the prediction for the general party population is “you will not remember but be remembered at this party.” Every-one is going to do everything to prepare for that epic night — saving alcohol, studying ahead of time and not eating too much the night of. What Greenspan did was to rewrite this horoscope a� er the biggest party fail in 2001. With people totally hungover, drowned in un� nished work, and without much time, Greenspan chose to rewrite this horoscope and yell, “Everyday we be shu� in’!” instead of letting people re-cover from binge drinking DotcomICE. By changing this time horoscope (called the interest rate), people perceived that further partying must be a good idea because this horo-scope is naturally supposed to tell the true opinions of other partygoers. As a result, they went overboard in alcohol and

money, people feel safe that the money will be there when AIG needs to produce it. But what happens if AIG goes broke? Fed lowers long-term interest rates in 2001 for too long: � e Fed has the power to print money and, with that money, buy government bonds (and recently all kinds of assets) to change interest rates. A� er the dot-com crisis in 2001, Alan Greenspan, the supposed champion of free markets, arti� cially lowered interest rates to historic levels. � e argument was that under lowered interest rates, invest-ment would increase, and that this would restart the econ-omy with real consequences. Seems like a good idea, but it is not. Imagine everyone writes, contributes to and reads the six-month party horoscope, and because they believe it is a good indicator of the future party landscape, everyone truly

Jack, sex, pong, zombie, and central banking: one of these things is not like the others. (It’s probably the zombie.)


tees huge amounts of commercial deposits by the federal government — causing people to not monitor their bank’s portfolio and therefore increase banking systemic risk. We place incredibly high legal requirements under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, encouraging the creation of huge � rms. To amplify this further, we bailed out in the past (Mexican peso crisis, Long-Term Capital Manage-ment, savings and loans crisis) and bail out in the present (too long to list) companies that have absolutely insol-vent business models. By changing people’s expectations of the quality of investments (through mandating credit

rating agencies), by permitting insurances to substitute capi-tal requirements, by lowering interest rates beyond what the market anticipated and by pushing seven trillion dollars of debt into this crisis, govern-

ment policy provided the alcohol to drive the banks into the most epic housing bubble of all time. All the time here at Brown I hear the words “mar-ket failure.” My friend, there’s also government failure.

indebted themselves to incredibly unreasonable amounts, for they thought that is what everyone else wanted (not ac-tually needed). People who were choosing to save for better parties lost incredibly. When they actually had a good rea-son to party, everyone else had been destroyed. With this 2001 interest rate manipulation, Greenspan disincentivized saving and promoted an unnecessary boom of unsustain-able loans. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae: To most people, these institutions sound like some decrepit pets that should have died in the ‘90s with Boyz II Men. � ese government sponsored enterprises were meant to help make housing more a� ordable by buying so many mortgages that it would become incredibly inexpensive to buy a new house. Govern-ment-sponsored enterprises and the Community Reinvestment Act were part of a larger, bipartisan e� ort to reduce discrimination and predatory lending. Like fruitcake, this sounds like a great idea, but a� er you try it, you will learn two words very well: never again. Seven trillion dollars’ worth of mortgages were bought and are right now under Congress’ pro-tection. Now if you imagine the three previous metaphors and then combine those processes with almost four times Califor-nia’s annual gross state product invested in homeownership, how is it not possible that the current housing bust was the direct result of a housing boom perpetuated by these policies? How is it possible that the gov-ernment did not have a major role in exacerbating this crisis? On top of this, we have the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which guaran-

18 S adver tisement

By pushing seven trillion dollars of debtinto this crisis, government policy provided

the alcohol to drive the banks into themost epic housing bubble of all time.

opinion

continued | the feds and the finanical crisis: a college student’s guide


19Sar ts & style

MACLAIN CHRISTIE

I might have something to say about what these tradi-tional genres, bluegrass and classical, might turn into as musical leaders such as Yo-Yo Ma and Chris Thile begin to co-create and cross-pollinate. For now, pick up a copy of “The Goat Rodeo Sessions” and just listen to it for the music that it is, no judgements or opinions added.

RATING (of 4)

ALBUM TITLE

ARTISTS

LABEL

GENRE

The Goat Rodeo Sessions

Yo-Yo Ma, Stuart Duncan, Edgar Meyer, Chris Thile

Sony Masterworks

Bluegrass, Classical

Music Review:� e Goat Rodeo Sessions

Much of the new music I’ve reviewed recently takes our ears on a trip. It dazzles us with elec-tronically synthesized timbres and comput-

er-generated atmospheres; it tries to be something we’ve never heard before or could never imagine hearing. This is exciting for those of us who keep up with the products of a constantly progressing musical world. Yet amazing musical projects are constantly being produced that don’t rely on new sounds or computer programs. For this is-sue, I’ve chosen an album of music that drives deep into America’s roots — with a twist. This is an all-star col-laboration of some of the best bluegrass players plus the world-renowned cellist Yo-Yo Ma. “The Goat Rodeo Sessions” is a collection of beautifully played bluegrass tunes that have an air of clas-sical style. The term “goat rodeo” is synonymous with “a chaotic situation,” as is made relevant in this atypical blend of the bluegrass and classical genres. Musical style aside, the first thing any audiophile would notice when listening to “The Goat Rodeo Sessions” is the incredibly well-captured richness of this choir of stringed instru-ments. The casual listener might want to save a dance for another occasion. These pieces are meant to be listened to hard. Who am I kidding — I danced a little when I listened for the first time. However, you can’t ignore the sheer virtuosity present in every melody and rhythm. Each player is a master of his instrument. It’s important to appreciate that these players can come together and create something in real time that is just as good or better than something that one guy with the power of a computer can create. There is something about acoustic instruments, when played well in har-mony, that emit frequencies and flavors, if you will, that is more pleasing than any synthesizer. There is a beauty in the act of individuals joining melodies in human-gener-ated unison. No wild effects or artificial elements added, the music is full on its own. In another post, I could comment in depth about what this collaboration says about the direction of music.


LAU

GH

N

OW

cry

late

rca

rtoo

ns p

rovi

ded

by u

sbic

ef

20 S ar ts & style


21Sar ts & style


FOUR RHODES SCHOLARSFOUR RHODES SCHOLARS THE ROTC DECISIONTHE ROTC DECISION

winners & losers

This year four Brown students were awarded the prestigious Rhodes Schol-

arship given an-nually to only 32 undergraduates in the world for “out-standing intellect, character, lead-ership, and com-mitment to ser-vice.” We heartily congratulate Bri-anna Doherty ’12, Nabeel Gillani ’12,

David Poritz ’12 and Emma LeBlanc ’11 for their exceptional accomplishments. We hope each of them will pursue ad-vanced studies at Oxford University in Brown’s spirit of “usefulness and rep-utation.” While each of the recipients has brought Brown positive publicity, the increased prestige handed to Brown should not be regarded as the signifi-cant message of the news. Instead, the recipients have demonstrated the po-tential of the individual to achieve. Their accomplishments give a good name to talent and hard work.

vice.” We heartily

� is fall Brown managed to take minority politics to the next level. � e Corpora-tion excluded ROTC from our university (a program that allows many students to pursue lifelong dreams, learn valuable life skills and cover the high costs of their education) because the military does not accept transgendered people. For purely symbolic reasons, in other words, they denied highly quali� ed students the pos-sibility of attending Brown. � e decision is not really about transgender rights; even if the military were to expand member-ship to the transgendered, Brown would object to its rejections of the morbidly obese, the schizophrenic, and so on. At the same time, Brown allows the NCAA to exclude women from participating in certain sports: instead of kicking football o� College Hill because it dis-criminates, Brown has a large stadium dedicated to it. Why don’t we stand in solidarity with our #1-ranked women’s rugby team and give them the chance to sack the daylights out of Harvard’s quar-terback? It is time to stop the hypocrisy and bring back ROTC.

obese, the schizophrenic, and so on. At the obese, the schizophrenic, and so on. At the

from participating

instead of kicking


the brown spectator volume ix issue ii

Documents

libertarian ideas

e spectator

e brown spectator

libertarian values

brown students

libertarian magazine

rightwing ideas

spirit of brown