Its really shaping up to be Pomona's week. First their Professor, Director, Actor, Expert, Alma Martinez answered life's most pressing question, 'Why do Mexicans drink beer on Sundays?' Oh, the intellectual relief. But is that all the glory we have for Pomona College this week?
No Sir. Turns out, Pomona students discovered the single, largest most-evil threat to face our 5C students ever. By now you must have guessed what I'm talking about -- Dining Hall Trays!!
Run for your lives!!'Trayless Tuesdays' is the brainchild of Grace Vermeer, Joanna Ladd and Allison Rossman, Co-Presidents, The Campus Climate Challenge. The group defended their coercion and determination to impose a certain way of life on everyone else by stating, 'It is about a weekly reminder that each student, with a minimal change to his or her routine, can make a tiny difference in the food production and waste regimes that hurt our environment and society.'
Now we like to keep our posts local and relevant here at The Claremont Conservative, but I must make an exception:
Congressmen John Campbell, from California's 48th District, recently proposed the 'Put Your Money Where Your Mouth is Act of 2008.'
This bill will amend the Tax Code to allow individuals to make voluntary donations to the federal government above and beyond their normal tax liability, and actually put a line on the IRS tax form to make it easier to make donations.
Last week, Presidential Candidate Senator Hillary Clinton stated that "We didn't ask for George Bush's tax cuts. We didn't want them, and we didn't need them."
On Monday, the Wall Street Journal printed an editorial that proclaimed:
“If the former first lady feels so strongly that she should pay more taxes, we suggest she lay off the middle class and instead write a personal check to the U.S. Treasury for the difference between the Clinton and Bush tax rates."It’s time Senator Clinton and other high-profile liberals like Senators Hillary Clinton (NY) and Barack Obama (IL), Warren Buffett, and Barbra Streisand who have publicly stated that Americans should pay more taxes, to put their money where their mouth is.
Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is. If you think sparing a tray is going to save the environment or alter the food chain, don't take one. Just don't force everyone else to follow your lead. By using such administrative coercion, you reveal the weakness of your cause, argument and logic.
Also, the 5C's share many facilities, which include the dining halls. We have a payment scheme that allows us to use our meal cards on the other campuses. So we are indirectly paying for Frank. Pomona students are probably used to radical nuts in the ASPC committees and sub-committees wasting their money, but this involves the other colleges. Without any vote or consent, you have denied us access to a service that we already paid for.
So maybe The Campus Climate Challenge Presidents might take a second to think about their policy and reverse the decision, right?
No, they did the exact opposite. They sent out an email to Pomona students yesterday, condemning the 'resistance that has sprung up.'
Dear Students - (Please DO NOT respond to this email. Inquiries should be directed to: Grace Vermeer, Joanna Ladd or Allison Rossman at [email protected])'Blessed with abundance'? I think what they really mean is a diversified college endowment with alternative invesmtments in Timberlands, Gold and Commercial Real Estate. Seems a lot less renewable than food, eh?
------------------------------
In response to complaints about Trayless Tuesdays:
We are sure you all noticed that trays were gone on Tuesday. We understand how this change may throw off your meal time routine, and expected a certain amount of dissent.
However, we were incredibly shocked and disappointed by the pettiness and immaturity displayed by the resistance that has sprung up.
Counter-campaigns to waste more food on other days and hoard trays are not only counterproductive but appear unnecessarily rude and malicious.
We want to reiterate that our campaign is not about removing trays. It is about a popular culture that tells students that, since we have been blessed with abundance and a set of rights that allows us to waste, we should. It is about the misconception that food produced for us is a renewable, infinite resource. It is about a weekly reminder that each student, with a minimal change to his or her routine, can make a tiny difference in the food production and waste regimes that hurt our environment and society.
We also want to be clear that the dining hall staff is not at fault here and should not be blamed or punished. Though we worked with dining services management in designing and setting up our campaign, this is a student led initiative.
That being said, we as your peers welcome and look forward to your comments, complaints, and criticisms. Please forward them respectfully to [email protected]
Thank you,
The Campus Climate Challenge
Grace Vermeer, Joanna Ladd and Allison Rossman - Co-Presidents
What misconception? What food shortages? Do we really need to debate the Malthusian Catastrophe again?
Maybe its time groups like The Campus Climate Challenge realized that there's a difference between weekly reminders and coercion, that students are cheated out of their pockets when promised services are taken away or compromised for their noble cause.
Subscribe in a reader
9 comments:
Vive la resistance!
You could have criticized this initiative from so many legitimate angles, but of course you could not resist the temptation to bring in an all-out assault on democracy itself. And get in a swipe at Hillary Clinton (where does she connect to Pomona's trays?) while you were at it.
Hillary Clinton has no right to advocate greater social justice because she herself is wealthy, and has not donated all of her money to charity?
Does that mean Al Gore has drop red meat, stop reading books or watching television, give all his worldly possessions away, and row around the world in an organic Fair-Traded hemp canoe before you will consider listening to him on climate change (not to mention that he probably uses ELECTRICITY to power those presentations!!!)?
Do people who advocate the War on Terrorism/Iraq/Afghanistan have to pay for it out of their own wallets? There's lots of people who would rather not pay that share of their income taxes, and don't want to be 'coerced' into paying for the military? Should wealth foreign-policy hawks also "put their money where their mouth is?
How about people who favor tougher crime prevention? They could donate money to finance the police!!!
Do you think slavery in America should have been left alone until each individual slave-owner decided to free his slaves out of the goodness of his heart?
How about speed-limits? Should people who favor lower speeds just drive slower voluntarily and lead by example?
The whole point of government, and by extension of democracy, is to accomplish what individuals acting on their own cannot and will not, and to do so through collective action. Even if every single citizen favored higher taxes, you'd be hard-pressed to find the one who will voluntarily pay more in the hope that the others will follow.
That is why we have the democratic process, and why every one of us--rich or poor, weak or powerful--gets one, and only one, vote.
Voluntary action cannot solve problems like global warming, because each individual person or firm which tries to take responsibility has to make personal sacrifices relative to other people and firms. The individual bears all the costs of shaping up, while society as a whole reaps the benefits; a classic case of market failure. Sure hope your Econ 50 course covered that one.
Furthermore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that democracy is illegitimate in general, because it consists in people voting collectively to tax those who have plenty, and to spend 'their money' on socially desirable programs, usually against their will.
Libertarianism is by definition a totalitarian ideology, because it places nearly anything that a democratic government would naturally attempt to do outside the realm of the legitimate political sphere--defining taxes as 'theft' and enforced collective action as 'slavery'.
Take your own arguments seriously, people like Buckley and Ayn Rand did. Bravely stride forth and smite the ignorant, thieving masses, who dare to 'coerce' the noble rich into sparing them food! Democracy is mob rule!
Don't hide behind stock phrases like "voting with your pocketbook." You have to actually own a pocketbook to vote with it. I would love to see you openly advocate plutocracy.
Do people who advocate the War on Terrorism/Iraq/Afghanistan have to pay for it out of their own wallets? There's lots of people who would rather not pay that share of their income taxes, and don't want to be 'coerced' into paying for the military? Should wealth foreign-policy hawks also "put their money where their mouth is?
The Constitution expressly provides for a common defense of the nation, which is the military.
How about people who favor tougher crime prevention? They could donate money to finance the police!!!
People who favor tougher crime prevention often do donate money to finance the police. We call it property taxes. Although sometimes people even raise money to help their own local police departments’ bill, an override is more common. But again, that’s something where if you feel you are getting too much policing, you can petition the process. A police power is something that has long existed. I know of no anto-tray power that the government has.
Do you think slavery in America should have been left alone until each individual slave-owner decided to free his slaves out of the goodness of his heart?
Slaves are kind of a non-sequitur, but I’ll address it anyways. Slaves are forced into a position from which they have no control. That force is what is anathema to choice, which is anathema to a participatory state. You cannot consent to something that literally destroys your own autonomy in much the same way you cannot consent to cannibalism.
How about speed-limits? Should people who favor lower speeds just drive slower voluntarily and lead by example?
Speed-limits are tricky for me. On the one hand, speed-limits should not exist because there ought to be no state ownership of roads. But given that the state does own the roads, the state has an incentive to decide what the ideal speed should be. But who is the state? The people and so the people retain the right to decide for themselves what that speed limit ought to be. Of course, as you know well, the people are not allowed to make that decision through their state government, but the federal government gets that power. Why is that? Because Jimmy Carter said so.
The whole point of government, and by extension of democracy, is to accomplish what individuals acting on their own cannot and will not, and to do so through collective action. Even if every single citizen favored higher taxes, you'd be hard-pressed to find the one who will voluntarily pay more in the hope that the others will follow.
I vehemently disagree with your definition of government. The proper role of government is to be 1) limited with set powers. 2) and to secure those rights which the limited powers outline. Government isn’t a massive social club that gets together and mobilize to achieve whatever faddish ends an elite deem necessary.
That is why we have the democratic process, and why every one of us--rich or poor, weak or powerful--gets one, and only one, vote.
The reason each of us gets one and only one vote is that we each come before our government as equals.
Voluntary action cannot solve problems like global warming, because each individual person or firm which tries to take responsibility has to make personal sacrifices relative to other people and firms. The individual bears all the costs of shaping up, while society as a whole reaps the benefits; a classic case of market failure. Sure hope your Econ 50 course covered that one.
The evidence for action on global warming is at best flimsy. The notion that we should imperil our economic growth to please a self-righteous, self-appointed elite who presumes to know what climate is ideal is downright ludicrous, but if we did want to solve that problem, the correct way to do it would be through market mechanisms, like a cap and trade program. That worked well for smog, why wouldn’t it work for C02?
Furthermore, the logical conclusion of your argument is that democracy is illegitimate in general, because it consists in people voting collectively to tax those who have plenty, and to spend 'their money' on socially desirable programs, usually against their will.
That isn’t the argument at all! Rather, it is that government when it taxes only ought do it for the express powers to which it has been entrusted. Those socially desirable programs, by the way, almost always fail. Great Society anyone? Read the Moynihan Report.
Libertarianism is by definition a totalitarian ideology, because it places nearly anything that a democratic government would naturally attempt to do outside the realm of the legitimate political sphere--defining taxes as 'theft' and enforced collective action as 'slavery'.
I think you are thinking libertarianism and Objectivism are one in the same. They are not. Libertarianism - the belief that government has limits just as men have limits - is the essence of liberty for only by recognizing limits on power can we offer a safe check against its excesses. Surely you recognize that principle, Peter? Or can there never be enough taxation for you? What is the ideal taxation?
Take your own arguments seriously, people like Buckley and Ayn Rand did. Bravely stride forth and smite the ignorant, thieving masses, who dare to 'coerce' the noble rich into sparing them food! Democracy is mob rule!
Your straw man attack on Buckley and Rand is revealing and it also shows a misreading of both, who advocated private charity as a better means of solving social ills. Of course, the evidence is overwhelming that religious, conservative people give more and more often to charities than the secular, liberals who would coerce us to give to their favorite (and rather ineffective) charity: the government.
Don't hide behind stock phrases like "voting with your pocketbook." You have to actually own a pocketbook to vote with it. I would love to see you openly advocate plutocracy.
What’s wrong with the phrase “voting with your pocketbook”? Surely citizens have a choice over what they spend their money on. What’s wrong with assessing those choices and trying to make the best one that is most in line with your own self-interest?
Who is advocating a plutocracy?
Ok, I have to agree with Peter with the fact that you could easily have taken this in so many angles without trying to liberal-bash. It's rather disappointing, because I highly agree with you that trying to impose "No-tray" Tuesdays is rediculous.
However, by bringing in the Hillary bashing...it slightly detracts from the article. So by your standards, all the Republicans who have been supporting the war should have their children in the military? In that sense, they are putting their money where their mouth is.
But yes, good to note not to go there on Tuesdays.
I know this really doesnt have anything to do with the original topic of the post, but the argument that "Conservatives should send their children off to war if they support it" is utterly ridiculous, and it blows my mind that people like Michael Moore keep making it. The United States has an all volunteer military, and anyone who joins it is choosing to fight for themself. The idea that anyone should "send their kids off to war" runs contrary to the philospophy of liberty that this fine blog espouses. Conservatives don't send liberal's children off to war any more than they do their own. It is a free choice by the adult soldiers involved. This isn't Sierra Leone. By the way, we owe the abolition of the draft to conservatives, not liberals.
Coming from the capital of the global warming empire, I can see where this is going.
Waterless Wednesdays: no showers or fountains.
Threadless Thursdays: no clothes that weren't made in a Fair Trade co-op in a third world country from hemp and morally acceptable natural textiles.
Freonless Fridays: no refrigeration (and thus no beer).
Scatless Saturdays: no toilet usage.
Sunless Sundays--no electric lighting.
Moneyless Mondays: No usage of that nasty material that propagates capitalism, imperialism and the depletion of natural resources throughout the third world.
Yes, Bryce, that is my point that it is rediculous...
Peter, you're missing Campbell's point. The bill is a response to critics of the Bush tax cuts. The Clintons made an argument that they didn't want the tax cut and want to pay more. Campbell never suggested that we replace entitlement, war or any real government programs with donations.
His bill amends the IRS to accept donations over and above the normal tax level.
The whole point of government, and by extension of democracy, is to accomplish what individuals acting on their own cannot and will not
Yes, and that purpose is to secure individual rights to life, liberty and property. Governments are instituted to protect those rights, not trample them for the 'greater good'
Even if every single citizen favored higher taxes, you'd be hard-pressed to find the one who will voluntarily pay more in the hope that the others will follow.
The problem with your argument is that it assumes government will always know what's best for you. That individuals aren't capable of making their own decisions and cannot act in their interest. If government had perfect, or even close to perfect information, communism wouldn't fail. The central planners would have been able to allocate resources efficiently and avoid any surpluses or shortages.
Voluntary action cannot solve problems like global warming, because each individual person or firm which tries to take responsibility has to make personal sacrifices relative to other people and firms. The individual bears all the costs of shaping up, while society as a whole reaps the benefits; a classic case of market failure. Sure hope your Econ 50 course covered that one.
You're assuming that government can solve global warming, which has no scientific, economic or rational backing.
Unless you took Econ 50 at Pitzer, you would have read about the Tragedy of the Commons. Based on your analysis, government should step in and direct those herdsmen by setting quotas or taxes. Economists don't use this example as an argument for that nutty notion of democratic socialism, but to explain the importance of property rights.
And I think you mean Individuals reap the benefits, while society pays the costs.
Peter: Though I agree with you on some points, remember: We didn't vote for this! So really this isn't a democratic decision at all. I do think that the ONE DAY (come on, CC, it was freaking Earth Day, this isn't a slippery slope until the admin does something stupid like with Frank) we don't have trays is enough to make people think about why the dining halls would decide on removing trays for a day and perhaps be more conscientious about using them in the future. I think that after the one day though, we could easily just keep up a sign saying something to the effect of "Do you really need a tray today? Think about it." Honestly, I know a lot of people who just get more food because they're more room on their tray and then just throw it out later, and though I have no idea how much water is wasted washing them, I'm sure it's plenty. This seems like a fair, choice-based system that won't shame those who take trays but will help those on the edge to perhaps let go of a tray for a day, as little an effect as that might have by itself.
Post a Comment