Opinion

Participation in respectful dialogue

What would you fight for?

There comes a time in everyone's life where they are witness to something that violates everything they believe in. Whether it is racism, fascism, abortion, etc., we face a challenge to which we are summoned, summoned by some higher power to speak out, to rise against tyranny and oppression. This University pushes us to become leaders and stand up for our beliefs. They ask us every week, "What would you fight for?" For the first time in my four years at Notre Dame, I have been challenged and refuse to go gentle into that good night. On October 11, Saint Edward's Hall will attempt to defend its honor and title as Interhall Dodgeball Champion, but a major rule change has set the dodgeball world ablaze. Kerry Kemp, in his first year as Assistant Director of Intramurals, has decided to change one of the core rules of dodgeball. This season, when a player catches a ball, one of his teammates is not allowed to enter the playing field. This not only defiles the sport, but robs it of the emotion that goes into a catch. If a team is outnumbered, a catch provides a momentum swing which can fuel an epic comeback. The risk of attempting a catch is too great if there is no comparable reward. The rule change is comparable to an interception in football being ruled an incomplete pass. As a student of the game I am outraged by the rule change and livid from Mr. Kemp's indignant demeanor. Kemp is ending a tradition. He claimed he was making changes in response to feedback from previous years and, in his words, preventing teams from cheating by allowing their best players to skip the line and come back in. However, the order of the line is the responsibility of the team, not RecSports. Never in my three years has this been a problem. This is not first grade PE, this is collegiate dodgeball, a six-on-six test of pride and valor, and I will not stand by and watch it be debased by Kerry Kemp. I will fight for dodgeball. Adam Fonseca senior St. Edward's Hall Oct. 7  

Students stand up to discrimination

When I first read the letter "Don't ask, don't tell" (Oct. 7) I felt sick and frustrated with this university where somehow archaic beliefs proven inconsistent with the Church can continue. However, reading today's Observer gave me hope when all the letters to the editor were united in exclaiming how incredibly misinformed and misguided Sean Mullen must be. The Notre Dame Spirit of Inclusion states: "We welcome all people, regardless of color, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social or economic class, and nationality, for example, precisely because of Christ's calling to treat others as we desire to be treated. We value gay and lesbian members of this community as we value all members of this community." I am glad that people are willing to speak out for these students who should not be treated like a minority or fringe group on this campus. However one has to question whether or not gay and lesbian students really are included if they are not given the same rights of other students I specifically refer to SAO's continued denial to give permission for the formation of groups and organizations for support and community. Why is including homosexual students in the Notre Dame community openly considered acceptable by the University and yet acknowledging the existence of a club for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and allied students considered not? Sometimes it feels as though Notre Dame's desire to maintain a specific image to the outward world is more important than the needs and desires of the students who are here.

Understanding the Obama haters

We routinely complain that we hate this or that in our everyday conversations. Sports fans of rival teams famously disdain each other, so much so that in Europe, for example, their "football" fans regularly riot in the stands. I personally hate that song the University of Southern California band quickly plays during their football games constantly at each pause of action on the field. For me, it's repetitive and monotonous tone is like Chinese water torture: Da, da, da-da, da-da, da, da, da-dum, da-da da, da-dum. That said, I do not truly hate Coach Pete Carroll or the USC fans. I just don't like them. I have little in common with them. I live a different lifestyle on the east coast, and I never tan for as long or as golden brown as they appear to be upon arrival at Notre Dame in late October. However, I must admit that I admire the way Carroll transitioned from the pro football ranks to the college game as a multiyear national champion and contender, infinitely much better than Notre Dame's head coach, Charlie Weis. Not too long ago - around the year of birth for today's high school sophomores - national politics deteriorated to a level of incivility. In 1994, Republican house leader Newt Gingrich strategized a way for his party to gain a majority status in Congress. He correctly reasoned that the only way to convince the American public to vote for Republicans was for him to tear down the political status quo on Capitol Hill through a national political campaign. However, he carried his war-like campaign outlook into his style of governance as the new Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was an action that polarized the political process from one of dislike to hate. His rule of governance simply rejected compromise, the operational status quo for decades, to a principal that he was always correct, and his opposition was always nefarious. Gingrich poisoned the well of political discourse by refusing to compromise in an institution founded on serving the public through consensus. In the process, he began to cleanse his own party of the "Rockefeller Republicans," moderates named after former New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. Gingrich ignored a tradition that for half a century, ever since World War II, treated the minority political party as the "loyal opposition." Thus, under Gingrich's rule, Republican Party policies evolved into a more homogeneous and less tolerant political vision. To them, Democrats had become their enemies. That change in Gingrich's outlook, combined with a dwindling of moderate Republicans, also ended the traditionally civil level of disagreement a party voiced against their opposition party's president. Instead, Republicans displayed an absolute rancor against President Clinton. Since the days of Franklin Roosevelt, presidents had enjoyed a modicum of respect from the "loyal opposition." Even Richard Nixon, who became ensnarled in a congressional impeachment, could work with the Democratic majority to create new environmental initiatives and change foreign policy to include opening diplomatic relations with Communist China. But under Gingrich, feelings of hatred for Clinton and Democrats replaced civil expressions of disagreement. Today President Obama reaches time and again to the Republicans in an effort to solve problems in a bipartisan manner. Reminiscent of the Democrat's 40 years of majority status prior to Gingrich, Republican leaders like Gerald Ford and Bob Michel or Everett Dirksen and Bob Dole shared a slice of the legislative pie through compromise. Some argue that they perpetuated their minority status by not drawing dramatic distinctions between themselves and the Democratic majority like Gingrich had done. Polls show that the American public as a whole seems to prefer action in Washington, but when further polled, individually reject specific solutions from the opposing political party. Obama's opposition also stems partly from a 24-hour news cycle reduced to hourly segments on cable channels that feature more partisan perspectives. The media stage has become an entertainment theater catering to like-minded audiences. Those audiences cling to certain beliefs which in turn encourages others to find supporting facts regardless of the truth. It is now possible for some to say absolute falsehoods in hopes that it becomes accepted as truth if repeated enough times. Perhaps critics of the president, like Ann Coulter, really believe the mean-spirited accusations spurting from their mouths. Or do they posture on the political stage to create television drama? In days past, no media personality dare espouse vile comments like Rush Limbaugh blurts with regularity in an effort to discredit Obama and wish the president's failure. But we are living in the post-Gingrich world of politics where Obama's opposition can be as bad as getting that damn USC song stuck in my head. Gary Caruso, Notre Dame '73, serves in the Department of Homeland Security and was a legislative and public affairs director in President Clinton's administration. His column appears every other Friday. He can be contacted at GaryJCaruso@alumni.nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Drunken homophobia

Sean Mullen, I am interested to know more about your state of mind when you wrote this. Your bigoted tirade can only be the result of A) a complete misunderstanding of Catholicism, education and logic or B) black-out drunkenness. You repeatedly used the term "openly practicing" in your letter. As far as I know, the only means by which someone could "openly practice" homosexuality is by having sex out on the quad and, in four years, I have yet to see that (homosexual or otherwise). You claimed Obama is the "biggest pro-choice advocate in the world." I appreciate this comment in that it discredits most of what you say. Your use of hyperbole is exactly what Father Jenkins criticized in his own address. As a "hard-hitting Roman Catholic" (or so Facebook says), you probably know, but misunderstand, that the name of the nation that God created, Israel, translates to "he struggles with God." Varying perspectives facilitate that struggle. I also assume that you've heard, and misconstrued, the Great Commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself. Asking someone to hide a legitimate aspect of themselves is not loving. Your last misconception lies in the Catechism, which condemns the sexual acts and not any public admission of homosexuality nor homosexuality itself. Finally, I object to your reference to "gays." Gay is an adjective, not a noun; it describes one facet of an individual. Please show minimal respect to people who are different than you are. At the very least, I would expect an Arts and Letters major to understand the difference between a noun and an adjective. You are a modern day Pharisee. People like you distance Notre Dame from its Catholic identity with narrow-minded beliefs that starkly contrast the open-mindedness that marked Jesus' life. Prostitutes, tax-collectors and lepers; these are the people with whom Jesus spent his time; in other words, the marginalized. I am embarrassed that you speak your hateful words under the name of the faith that I love. I am embarrassed to be affiliated with you. Your understanding of Catholicism is objectively wrong and I can only hope that it was the result of many shots of tequila. Beth Daley and Tati Estrada seniors off campus Oct. 7  

Weather: Why we endure it

The last thing I want to write about is the weather, but in light of today's wonderful temperate climate and the fact I stood outside in it for two hours without any jacket, I feel it must be addressed. Being from Texas, my idea of cold weather came once a year when my family would go to Colorado for two weeks each Christmas. One year it got into the teens. It was awful. Another year I can remember playing an agonizing lacrosse game where the temperature was in the 30s and it was sleeting. I never thought it would get any worse than that. When I started looking at colleges, I wanted big sports and a large body of water nearby, preferably a warm body of water. Then I wound up at Notre Dame. Don't get me wrong though, I love Notre Dame. At first, I even loved the weather. I liked South Bend's version of summer. It was a pleasant change from the heat of Texas. I loved when the leaves changed. I was the first one outside for the first snowfall. And the second. But that was when it was still relatively warm and the snow was still new enough to be seen as beautiful. At Christmas, I raved to my friends about the seasons, how winter was not at bad as we'd been warned. It was 80 degrees at home the day I left for spring semester, at the time I couldn't wait to get back to the beautiful winter wonderland of Notre Dame. That's when the real winter came. Where the 20s, the 30s, even the teens really were an oasis of warmth. There were mornings I'd wake up and the temperatures were lower than I imagined was possible outside of Antarctica. One night as I walked home I wore both my guy friend's and my parka. It was negative 40 with windchill that night. Lovely. It was a little after midnight and campus was dead. It was the fastest I've ever made it from North Quad to South. I might have even set a record. Too bad everyone else was smarter than to venture out or else they might have witnessed my amazing dash. This year as the weather steadily descends on its downhill slope towards the worst weather and each day grows a little colder, I fill with dread. I still love Notre Dame. I hate the weather, but I love thee Notre Dame. Why do we do endure the cold though? My answer came last week. After the Washington game, a game ringing true to South Bend's charming weather, I saw a little boy crying as his mom attempted to usher him out of the stadium. She begged him to stop crying so they could get to the car, saying, "You just got over pneumonia. I let you stay the whole game but I am your mother and now I say its time to go. You don't want to be sick do you?" He replied, "I'll never make it to Notre Dame if you make me leave, I have to be the last one here. I don't care if I'm sick." Notre Dame students are very much like this little boy. We endure the weather. Not just for the games, but also for the school. To many, Notre Dame was a dream and now its finally come true. To others, they came and fell in love despite the weather. Still even if you aren't on the bandwagon, you aren't sure you love Notre Dame or can endure the weather, you take it. You take it because it's Notre Dame. And really, deep inside, you know its worth it. Notre Dame is infectious. You can't help but love it.

Don't ask me not to tell

Shouldn't ask, shouldn't matter

Take a stand

As a Viewpoint columnist I often find myself compelled to address serious issues that other people shy away from, it's like my job. Do I get paid to do this job? I am not even sure, I think I just do it because I like for people to hear my opinions on things. But this isn't necessarily important. Issues are important. So without further ado I plan to talk about an issue. Read on and think for yourself about this issue. Often in the busy 24-hour news cycle stories of real importance to real people go unreported. I am writing to call attention to a crusade that has not received its fair share of media attention in The Observer, this crusade, of course, is the fight for five dollar footlongs at the Lafortune Subway. As nobody seems to be willing to speak up about this I have taken it upon myself to write a public protest. Of course in the world today there are many great struggles going on. The ongoing genocide in Darfur is one. Our continuing involvement in Iraq is another. Another one might be that we elected a president who is running our country into the ground (I'm talking to you Hussein). Also there are social issues like the high rates of sexual assault. But amidst all these issues it is easy to overlook something of real importance, namely that we are paying slightly more for a certain type of sandwich than other people do who buy the same sandwich in different places. This is a serious problem. It's natural that on this campus which is full of activism for various good causes something humble like sandwich prices would go overlooked. But I think it's more than just sandwich prices, this is a question of our rights and thus something that even our Constitution talks about. Now I'm going to throw out a few interesting points to consider about the footlongs. You know how women get paid 76 cents for every dollar men get paid for the same work? I did the math calculation and people at other Subways pay 71 cents for every dollar that we pay for footlongs, and since 76 is bigger than 71 that means that we're worse off than women. Maybe that is fine for another university but this is Notre Dame, the finest Catholic school in the country. We're not paying $50,000 a year in tuition to be inferior to women! Not even women would be dumb enough to do that. Here's something else to consider, that I thought of when I was paying for laundry with coins. Does anyone else here have a coin bank? Well I do. You know how much money we would save if footlongs were five dollars? $1.99. That's almost eight quarters, or 19 dimes, or 39 nickels, or even a 199 pennies. That's a lot of coins to put in the coin bank! I bet I could wash my clothes with the money I saved, though I probably wouldn't have enough to dry them afterwards if I paid with coins. Here's another aspect of this issue to think about: food. To live, everybody needs to eat food. But if food is too expensive, how can people afford to eat it? The answer is that they can't afford to eat it, and so they won't eat it. So they'll starve. I guess the strongest point in favor of making footlongs at the Lafortune Subway cost five dollars is that it's a question of equal rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees everyone in America the same rights, so if we're paying slightly more for a specific type of sandwich than other people do, that's discrimination. It's like apartheid, only it's not in some faraway Third World country, it's right here in America's Heartland. And yet this grave and important issue has gone overlooked by our Observer. So next time you're out volunteering for an organization that fights sexual assault, or manning the suicide center crisis hotline, or participating in environmental activism, or working at a homeless shelter, keep in mind that there are bigger things out there than the little causes you work for. Jesus said "the poor you will always have with you," and that goes for all the other causes, but this cause is something that affects everyone who purchases a footlong sandwich at the Lafortune Subway. I implore you: Fight for footlongs! Brooks Smith is a junior math and english major at Notre Dame. He can be contacted at bsmith26@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

Appalled

I'll start by saying that I have nothing against Sean Mullen (Don't ask, don't tell," Oct. 7). If that's the way God made you, then that's the way you are. Let me ask you, Mr. Mullen: Have you ever masturbated? Have you or any of your friends engaged in any sort of premarital sexual activity? If so, then the University, by your standards, has just as much of a right to discriminate against you as it does against a sexually active homosexual. It has more of a right to discriminate against you than it does against an abstinent but open homosexual. If we delve into the personal and sexual lives of every member of the University's staff, faculty and student body and proclaim that it's acceptable to discriminate against sinners, then who is left? But getting to the more important point, Mr. Mullen, do you have any sort of idea what it's like to live in the closet that God and society have so lovingly fashioned for homosexuals? Do you have any idea of the amount of unnecessary pain and suffering undertaken by vast numbers of homosexuals because of you and others like you who think they should "keep to themselves?" You don't, and it shows. One of the many missions of this University is to foster growth and development not only within the realm of the Catholic Church, but within society as a whole. Notre Dame is not a seminary, and the United States is not a theocracy. You'd do well to come to terms with those facts. Your attitude is repulsive and flies in the face of common human decency. Your disgusting and narrow worldview has no place in a discussion about a non-discrimination clause. Another thing, Mr. Mullen, do not give a transparent disclaimer about how you "have nothing against" homosexuals before launching into a nonsensical diatribe about how homosexuals here should remain in one of the most psychologically damaging places that exists in our society. It insults everyone's intelligence and is the oldest trick in the playbook of the bigot. Chris Doyen senior off campus Oct. 7  

Unacceptable policy

In response to Sean Mullen's letter, "Don't ask, don't tell," (Oct. 7) I would like to begin by questioning how he can possibly say he has nothing against gay people. As students at Notre Dame, I would hope that we know enough about the policy of "don't ask, don't tell" that we would never want to widen the group of people to which that policy applies. To suggest that we subject gay students at Notre Dame to the shameful, condescending and homophobic policy that our military unfortunately still employs is something a person who has nothing against gay people would never consider. Mullen's letter suggests that we use a "don't ask, don't tell" policy to avoid including gay students, staff and faculty in Notre Dame's non-discrimination clause. I sincerely hope Mullen is not implying that it is acceptable to tolerate discrimination against members of the Notre Dame community who are openly gay. How does that fit in with the Catholic nature of our University? As a Catholic, you should respect the inherent dignity of every human being, and that means rejecting all forms of discrimination. Furthermore, being openly gay does not necessarily mean practicing homosexuality any more than being straight means that you are actively engaging in sexual activities. Does Mullen believe that the University should exclude unmarried sexually active heterosexuals from the non-discrimination clause as well? While I'm in no way an expert on Catholic social teachings, I believe it is your responsibility as a Catholic to strive to love everyone, regardless of sexuality. It is detestable to try to hide behind Catholic social teachings to justify a tolerance of discrimination when in fact I believe it calls on you to do the opposite. Mr. Mullen, I'm horrified that you would like to force our gay friends, neighbors and classmates into the closet just because homosexuality makes you uncomfortable. Andrea Green junior Ryan Hall Oct. 7  

Not Swift enough

It makes me laugh that when Tim Brown or Rocket Ismail come back to Notre Dame no one bats an eye, but bring one 19-year-old singer on campus and the place shuts down. But I can't judge. Once I got the text I went out to look for her too. Because who's not a Taylor Swift fan? For a long time, I wasn't. I didn't see the hype. "Love Story?" Comparing Shakespeare to 17th-century Puritan literature? Juliet and Hester Prynne don't belong in the same song and the marriage at the end has a 50-50 chance of lasting until her next album comes out. If he's trying to be quiet because his mama don't know, why are they slamming screen doors? And "Take me back to the time we had our very first fight?" I love fighting. Let's relive that. Sign me up. But then I drove across the country with my friend Danny, a T-Swift fanatic, and once we got to Nebraska we had listened to every song on our iPods. So back came Taylor. Around Iowa I could tolerate it. By Grand Junction, Colo., I was hooked. Then I saw "Thug Story," her rap video with T-Pain. That hammered it home. A beautiful blonde gangster who makes caramel delight cookies? Isn't that every guy's dream? She's so appealing because she walks the line between fantasyland and real life. Of course people's lives don't play out like "Love Story," but wouldn't it be nice if they did? Hasn't everyone believed someone else belonged with them, not with the good-for-nothing jerk he/she was with? And think about "Fifteen." I'm a history major, meaning I won't get a job, and a journalism minor, meaning I double won't get a job, so I'd love to go back to freshman year of high school when nothing really mattered. She's also inspiration to accomplish something. She's two years younger than me and had two albums go platinum. She wrote a novel (unpublished) and is an NHL spokeswoman. What have I done? Most importantly, she has ties to Notre Dame. Remember the music video for "You Belong With Me?" That football field was at Pope John Paul II High School in Hendersonville, Tenn., where her brother Austin, who was looking at Notre Dame as a potential college, goes. It's also the alma mater of none other than Golden Tate. So I'm walking across campus looking for a tall blonde and having no luck. I'm on the phone with Danny, who's having a conniption - "Do you have a picture of me?! Write my number on the back." - and I see hundreds of people converging on a golf cart. I walk over, realizing now that my camera, currently sitting on my bookshelf at home, does me no good. She starts driving towards me and I freeze. How do I reduce everything I just wrote into half a second as she drives by? Should I jump on the golf cart? Propose? Smile sheepishly? I went with option smile sheepishly, which was quickly overshadowed by the horde of students screaming and chasing after her. My chance was lost forever. Sorry, Taylor. Next time you're on campus, I'll have my game face on.  

Living with integrity

Where is tea?

I was excited to read Melanie Fritz's letter ("Clause needs updating," Oct. 6) regarding Notre Dame's non-discrimination clause and its failure to address the issue of sexual orientation. She is certainly not the only one to have taken notice of this problem, and that is encouraging in itself. However, Notre Dame's failure to include sexual orientation in its non-discrimination clause is only the tip of the iceberg. Although the Core Council honorably attempts to support GLBQ students, it fails to even acknowledge transgender students as needing support. Further, the University has failed time and time again to officially support a gay-straight alliance on campus. Meanwhile, Core Council's closed membership and lack of true club status (they're a "special interest group") fails to truly meet the needs of those students struggling with their sexuality or gender identity. This heterosexism also exists in more implicit settings: The University's practice of only offering single-sex housing assumes heterosexuality and encourages the view that heterosexuality is the "default setting" instead of just the more statistically-common orientation. This is not to say that the University isn't trying to move towards global acceptance. Certainly, the vast majority of students and faculty that I've interacted with are accepting of all people, regardless of sexual orientation. It's telling, though, that the University feels that sensitivity training sessions like CommUnity are necessary. In their current format, they presuppose homophobia among the student body by assuming that students need to be taught how to accept a minority group. Quite frankly, today's modern generation of students is far more accepting and progressive than the administration might like to admit. Despite generally progressive attitudes on campus, the total acceptance of GLBTQ students will never occur until the administration offers its full, sincere and complete support. Failing that, they could at least allow Core Council to replace that silly GLBQ acronym with something a little more open-minded and a little less ridiculous. Charles O'Leary freshman Knott Hall Oct. 6  

Solidarity through chastity

While I agree with Mr. Mullen's Viewpoint letter ("Don't ask, don't tell," Oct. 7) I propose that we take his argument a step further. "DuLac" states that, "Because a genuine and complete expression of love through sex requires a commitment to a total living and sharing together of two persons in marriage, the University believes that sexual union should occur only in marriage. Students found in violation of this policy shall be subject to disciplinary suspension or permanent dismissal." This policy applies to all students - heterosexual and homosexual. It should therefore be a given that homosexual activity, like heterosexual activity, is not permitted at Notre Dame. However, I find it unfair to condemn homosexual activity without addressing the presence of heterosexual activity, most prevalent in the likewise sinful "hook-up culture." As Christ warns, "How dare you say to your brother, 'Please let me take that speck out of your eye,' when you have a log in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will be able to see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7:4-5). Before we judge the actions of our homosexual brothers and sisters, let's take another look at our own. If we are to truly live our Catholic heritage, then we must stand not only against homosexual activity, but also against unchaste heterosexual activity. Let's live the CORE Council's "Spirit of Inclusion" by upholding the dignity of every member of the Notre Dame family - gay or straight - by accepting our universal call to holiness through chastity. Only then can we truly stand in solidarity. Lindsay Williams senior Lyons Hall Oct. 7  

Proud to be a woman

"What's your favorite 80's movie?" "If you could jump into a pool of anything, what would it be?" "If you could be any Pokemon, which one would you be?" These examples of previous Observer "Questions of the Day" somehow lead me to believe that these daily inquiries are not exactly meant to be deep, pressing, intellectually-stimulating questions. Let's be honest. How many of us look to the "Question of the Day" thinking "Ooh! What riveting organic chemistry synthesis will they have for me today?" or "What will be the latest philosophical debate today?" Of course not. The "Question of the Day" is meant to be a frivolous question that makes us laugh and lets us (for a brief moment) not be serious. Therefore, Colin Sullivan's comments must be taken in light of their context: in jest. No one would voice such inflammatory remarks on a light-hearted platform, and I urge all those up in arms to take the comment for what it was - a joke. If we start taking offense towards remarks with humorous intent, we are setting ourselves on a slippery slope towards censorship. I, as a proud member of the female gender, am not offended by his answer because I read it for the joke that it was. Kelly Jones sophomore Welsh Family Hall Oct. 5  

Wanted: Colin Sullivan

To those who printed the Wanted posters: as someone who considers myself lucky to be Colin's girlfriend of almost a year, I was pretty surprised to wake up yesterday morning and find out that all this time I've actually been dating one of Notre Dame's most sexist men. Apparently what I considered a humorous comment was actually a direct attack on myself and all other female students on campus. I thought the fact that he supports me in everything I do, is best friends with my roommate and adores his two sisters was a sign of a guy who had an inherent respect for women. It took your letter for me to see the error of my ways. Thank you so much for enlightening me: you obviously know him better than I do. Michelle Lee sophomore Howard Hall Oct. 5  

Miley Cyrus: a bard for today's youth

Thank you, Martha Karam ("Leave Miley alone;" Sept.30), for defending Miley Cyrus. She is, as Ms. Karam notes, only 16 years old. To all the haters: grow up. I don't know what kind of fancy high school you went to, but I didn't know any adverbs when I was 16. Get off your high horse and remember what it was like to just do things like "yeah!" As Ms. Karam notes, Miley's lyrics are comparable to those of other pop and hip hop artists. Let's all admit that the only reason Jay-Z's Blueprint 3 is relevant is because Miley mentioned him in "Party." And displaying her usual lyrical flair, I might add: "And the Jay-Z song was on / and the Jay-Z song was on / and the Jay-Z song was oooonnn." I'm sure Jay won't be tempted to shoot her next time he sees her in the club. Even if he were, he won't get the opportunity for two years because California's clubs don't allow minors. This definitely isn't a Nashville party! Yet if Miley were to go to the club underage - and I am by no means suggesting she's the type - she would not dress like that coked-out wench Lady Gaga. So Miley was all naked and whatnot for Rolling Stone. How tasteful were your photo shoots when you were 16? Only moderately tasteful - at best. You find her digitally enhanced voice "nasally?" You wouldn't know Bob Dylan if he rolled a huge blunt with the American flag and smoked it in your nay-saying face. Frankly, I question the patriotism of Miley's critics. I won't speak for you, Mr. Mohammed al-Qaeda Hamas, but I believe that "Party in the USA" is the best song to feature the phrase "in the USA" in its title since the Boss extolled the virtues of killing the yellow man in 1984. Lastly, I have deduced through a thorough Facebook recon that the writers of the original piece - Szymon Ryzner and Nick Anderson - were much, much worse looking as 16-year-olds than Miley is. fact. I, for one - and Ms. Karam, too, no doubt - enjoyed partying in the USA last weekend. Like "yeah!" Tom Dybicz senior off-campus Oct. 4  

Don't ask, don't tell

I'll start by saying that I have nothing against gay people. If that's the way that God made you, then that's the way you are. The Catholic Church states that there is nothing immoral about being homosexual: only immoral to practice homosexuality. In other words, being gay is acceptable, but openly practicing it is not. However some believe that Notre Dame needs to adjust its non-discrimination clause to include homosexuals ("Clause needs updating;" Oct.6). I offer the following thoughts. I think that Notre Dame should endorse the same policy as the United States military when it comes to admitting gay students: Don't ask, don't tell. This policy prohibits anyone who "demonstrates a propensity to engage in homosexual acts" from serving in the armed forces. If people don't openly practice homosexuality, then we shouldn't hold their sexual orientation against them in admissions. But allowing gay students to openly practice homosexuality on the campus of Notre Dame only makes us more secular. I thought that Notre Dame had peaked in secularism with our choice of Commencement speaker last spring. Having the biggest pro-choice advocate in the world justifying abortion on the platform of the University of Notre Dame was a disgrace. It's about time for Notre Dame to honor the teachings of the Catholic Church, not contradict them. The University of Notre Dame ought to be the gold standard of Catholicism in higher education. We should not adjust our policies to fit societal norms so that people can feel better about their sin. One thing will be certain, if Notre Dame adjusts the clause to include openly practicing homosexuals, then we will have no right to consider ourselves a Catholic university anymore. How could we when we don't honor even the most basic of Catholic social teachings in abortion and homosexuality? So no, I don't agree that the clause needs updating to include gays. If you're a homosexual student applying to Notre Dame, you should keep your sexual orientation to yourself. We are, or at least were, a Catholic university. Sean Mullen sophomore Keough Hall Oct. 6

The path to Federal takeover

The health care debate makes sense only in the context of the transformation of our constitutional system. So let's do a quick review of Constitution 101. The Constitution of the United States was the first creation in history of a national government with only limited, delegated powers. Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights and other documents involved only limitations on the otherwise unlimited power of government. The Articles of Confederation, under which the United States functioned from 1781 until the Constitution took effect in 1789, created essentially a confederation of semi-autonomous states. The Constitution created a real government of the nation, but a government limited to specified powers. Under the Constitution, neither Congress, nor the Executive nor the Judiciary, had unlimited jurisdiction. Article I, Sec. 8, specified that "The Congress shall have Power" to legislate only on specified subjects. Incidentally, no power was granted to Congress to regulate health care as such. Nor was Congress granted a power over education, apart from special situations such as land-grant schools. The states retained all powers not delegated by the Constitution. That constitutional system has gone the way of the bronze axe and the spinning wheel. One transformative event was the Supreme Court's definition in U.S. v. Butler (1936), that Congress' power to tax and spend for the "general welfare of the United States" was not limited to spending on the subjects on which Article I, Section 8, authorized Congress to legislate. But Congress' spending had to be for the "general welfare." Congress, however, has wide latitude to determine what is the "general welfare." While the Court said that the spending power was not a general power to regulate for public purposes, the Court has held that Congress can impose conditions on the subsidies it grants. South Dakota v. Dole (1987). That power to regulate recipients of federal money is, to put it mildly, very broad, as General Motors, banks and other recipients of bailout money have learned. And as all of us will learn when the likely terms of Obamacare go into effect in 2013 (after Obama's reelection), there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you take the money, you take the controls. Many factors contributed over the years to the centralization of power in Washington. But in the past eight months, Congress' use of its spending power, and President Obama's unprecedented executive edicts, have so expanded federal power that it amounts to an extraconstitutional coup. The federal takeover of health care, one-sixth of the economy, is essential to the success of that coup. It would open the door to federal controls not only on what medical care you can receive but potentially also on what you eat, how much you weigh, your exercise regime, the level of heat and noise in your home and whatever else might affect your health and therefore the cost of your health care to the taxpayers. The framers of the Constitution would be surprised, to say the least. Health care, however, is not the only centralizing initiative in Congress. Another example is H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2009 (SAFRA). It advanced under the radar while everyone was talking about health care. SAFRA reduces the financial options of students seeking higher education. It passed the House and now is in the Senate Health and Education Committee. The federal government now subsidizes student loans through the Federal Family Education Loan program (FFEL), which offers subsidized loans to students from private lenders at low interest rates, and through the Direct Loan program (DL), in which the Department of Education is the lender and the funds come from the U.S. Treasury. The Higher Education Act sets the terms and conditions on FFEL and DL loans. FFEL was created in 1966. More than 2,000 lenders participate in FFEL, serving 4,400 institutions, with $70 billion in loans this year. The DL program, established in 1993, serves 1,700 institutions, with $22 billion in loans this year. SAFRA would terminate FFEL and shift all federal student loans, including Federal Direct Perkins Loans, to the DL program. SAFRA would also create nine new programs and otherwise increase federal involvement in early education, school construction, etc. On September 10, 40 current and former presidents of state, regional and national financial aid associations alerted House and Senate committees to problems involved in implementing SAFRA as early as the 2010-11 school year. Beyond those implementation issues, SAFRA would be a huge expansion of the DL program. It would dismantle a system that has worked fairly well for four decades. It would eliminate private sector jobs as well as consumer choice, competition among lenders, and existing programs to reduce defaults. For non-wealthy high school seniors, SAFRA would make their potential for federal student loans depend entirely on approval by government bureaucrats or contractors retained by government. One concern is that the predictably voluminous SAFRA regulations could provide openings for covert political or other illicit discrimination against borrowers or recipient schools. A more obvious concern is that "Congress," in the words of Representative Paul C. Broun (R-GA), "has no business putting taxpayers on the hook for defaulted student loans when the private sector would gladly bear this risk." The objections to federal takeovers of the private sector do not arise from constitutional archeologism. Those takeovers violate the social principle of subsidiarity: "Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accomplish, so too, it is an injustice, a grave evil, and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. This is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable, and it retains its full truth today … The true aim of all social activity should be to help individual members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them." Pius XI, "Quadragesimo Anno" no. 79. "Subsidiarity," said Benedict XVI, "is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state." "Love in Truth," no. 57. When they elected Notre Dame's most obsequiously honored alumnus, the American people voted for both hope and change. They are, indeed, getting one of those. Congressman Broun asked the question about the change that, so far, has no answer: "When will the massive spending and Federal takeover end?" Professor Emeritus Rice is on the law school faculty. He may be reached at rice.1@nd.edu or 633-4415. The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.