Opinion

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.

ND vs USC - A call to arms

Dear Students, I am a 1994 graduate of Notre Dame and will be attending the ND v. Southern Cal game on October 17. I will be bringing three residents of South Carolina who are respectively graduates of UNC-Chapel Hill, Davidson and Univ. of South Carolina. Two have never seen a Notre Dame game in South Bend, one has and loved it. I am writing you to make a request. You have now experienced several historic games but not a game that is historic before the first kickoff. My senior year Charlie Ward and the ESPN-dubbed "NFL team" that was FSU came to South Bend ranked number 1 and supposedly "unbeatable by such a slow and less talented ND team." It was the first time that College Game Day had traveled to be on any campus for a game. We beat them, the team and the fans, with heart, desire and noise. As you gear up for the game understand that the tone you set now will be the atmosphere that will permeate the stadium at kickoff. Talk to those attending the game that are not students and get them just as pumped as you are and ready to yell themselves hoarse. Tell them about how special this team is this year. It is moments like this that make ND what it is to so many graduates. It is opportunities like this game that make great ND teams. This game is your chance at history. But before a team can be great, its fans have to be great. The fans must believe that their participation in the game is the difference between winning and losing, from the moment the opposing teams gets off the bus; especially if they are acting like bone heads and rocking the bus as it pulls in. My request is simple: sell out, leave nothing in reserve, start making noise to disrupt the opposing offense on Friday and don't stop until you are comatose sometime late Saturday night. Make this game one for the ages by making the House that Rockne Built reverberate with the ghosts of legends past. It is the fans that cheer loud enough to wake up the echoes while the players march to victory. Make it so that alumni like me walk away from the game saying "Wow." Make my buddies walk away from the game in awe of the University of Notre Dame. Go Irish! Beat the Trojans!! Chris Kelly alumnus class of 1994 Oct. 4  

What about living wages?

The economic crisis is not an uncommon theme of conversation today. Whether it be at family reunions, in class, in the dining hall, anywhere really, we hear of how many people are unemployed, how much we should be worried about our futures, etc, etc, etc. Yet, there is yet another question, another theme that is lacking from most conversations regarding the current economic crisis - does a living wage still apply? Does the Church stop demanding employers pay a living wage in times of economic crisis? Or more generally, is injustice and social sin acceptable in times of crisis? Pope John XXIII said the following: "We consider it our duty to reaffirm that the remuneration of work is not something that can be left to the laws of the marketplace; nor should it be a decision left to the will of the more powerful. It must be determined in accordance with justice and equity; which means that workers must be paid a wage which allows them to live a truly human life" (Mater et Magistra, par. 71). It is our duty, as a Catholic university, as one attempting to continue creating a culture of life through dialogue and practice, that we respect the right to life of the worker too, not only the unborn and the elderly, for if we believe in the seamless garment of life, then that means we must be seamless. We pose the question then, what does this mean for Notre Dame? What does Church teaching tell us about the wages we pay our workers? Can we still use the convenient excuse of "economic hardship?" Are our workers paid a living wage? Do we respect the life at all stages? I think it is a question we must ask the administration: Why do we still not pay a living wage? Why are we not living in accordance with Catholic teaching in this area? Is life not important at all stages? Alicia Quiros senior off campus Oct. 4  

Bring on the noise

This weekend, we had probably the biggest home game of our season thus far, and I was both very impressed and disappointed by the student section. As far as top 10's from ESPN and rivals.com columnists go, Notre Dame Stadium is not one of the top 10 toughest stadiums for opposing teams. But with a program as renowned as the Fighting Irish it definitely should be. On Saturday, I noticed that during the first half the student section seemed relatively quiet compared to how I remembered it last year. The freshman section seemed to drown out the other classes. At some points, I could even hear myself cheering because not that many around me were joining in. However, toward the end of the game, the student section was booming, exclaiming the cheers and rooting on the team with full force. Our support of the defense during the final plays helped us to win the game. It may be easy to criticize the football team for their mistakes, but we should remember our role in cheering the team on, because we also have a significant effect on the outcome. On October 17, we have to remain loud through the whole game and shake up the Trojans, giving the Irish a true home field advantage. GO IRISH! BEAT TROJANS! Brian Conway sophomore St. Edward's Hall Oct. 4  

Wanted

Dear Feminist Vigilante Group, I have captured the wicked, wicked man known as Colin Sullivan. Thanks to your innovative signs placed around O'Shag that read Wanted: Colin Sullivan for the Crime of Sexism (thank God I read past the Wanted part because I first thought the ad was a Craig's List posting for companionship), I was able to track him down and bring him and his evil ways to justice. As of now he is locked in the makeshift jail cell that I created in my room, spewing obscenities about how women cannot drive, how their brains are only a third the size of ours and how they owe us a rib from the Garden of Eden Days. Fear not, for his obscenities will be swiftly crushed by the well-manicured and slightly effeminate hand of the law. It's thanks to your ad that I'm glad there are people on this campus who take themselves so seriously, people who make sure that no such despicable joke goes unpunished. I'm thankful for people like the Feminist Vigilantes who ensure that we watch our every move and make sure that every comment we utter is socially acceptable. Furthermore, they are the ones who force us to look deep within our souls with such questions as "Why do we laugh at the fact that some think it is worse to be a woman?" (I don't think I'm going to get much sleep until I answer that question). Feminist Vigilantes, you have shown us just how truly wicked men are because, in all honesty, a woman would never even think about cracking a joke about the opposite sex. They are above such actions. So, as a fellow brother in arms, I salute you. Please continue your diligence in making sure that every comment in the Question of the Day is taken seriously. Sexism is not a joke … unless it's really funny. P.S. Do you want Colin dead or alive? How much will I be compensated for each? Mike Rooney junior O'Neill Oct. 5  

Will health care reform be another clunker?

This summer, the U.S. economy remained mired in a recession as Americans waited in vain for Congress's $787 billion "stimulus" package to take effect. Faced with the increasingly evident failure of its massively wasteful spending program, the federal government devised a characteristically nonsensical solution: yet another massively wasteful spending program. This time, Congress decided to meddle in the automobile industry with the now-infamous "Cash for Clunkers" program. The government offered car-buyers a $3,500 to $4,500 rebate in exchange for their used vehicles, which car dealers were required to destroy. The Clunkers program was initially lavished with praise by pundits and the news media - after all, car sales got a boost, consumers got cheap cars and the environment was bound to benefit somehow, even if it wasn't entirely clear how demolishing thousands of functioning cars qualified as "sustainable." What could go wrong? Well, as it turns out, plenty. With consumers satiated by this summer's government handouts, car sales declined precipitously last month. Figures released last week show that government-owned General Motors sold a whopping 45 percent fewer cars last month than in September 2008, while the recently bailed-out Chrysler suffered a 42 percent loss. In the words of G.M. executive Mark LaNeve, "It was a real post-clunker hangover." The cause of this precipitous collapse is no mystery. When federal legislators, rather than markets, set prices, inefficiency is the inevitable result. The short-lived frenzy of the Clunker rebates exhausted demand and robbed dealers of months of potential sales. It would be wonderful, of course, if the federal government could arbitrarily lower the prices of goods with no negative repercussions, but that's scarcely possible in the reality in which we live. As the Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman would say, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps the most regrettable part of the Cash for Clunkers debacle is that we're all paying for it. Three billion hard-earned tax dollars were redistributed to those lucky enough to be in the market for a new car in July and August of this summer, while car dealerships were treated to a momentary burst in sales in return for a decline in demand that could last for months. In the end, only two of the top 10 car models purchased under the program were made by an American manufacturer. Worse yet, dealers were forced to scrap the nearly 700,000 perfectly good vehicles traded in through the program. The sheer perversity of this senseless destruction is difficult to comprehend - why would a "stimulus" program mandate the disassembly of hundreds of thousands of functioning automobiles, many of which could have been resold on the used car market? The highly-touted environmental benefits of replacing "clunkers" with new vehicles, meanwhile, have been shown by multiple analyses to be virtually nonexistent. In the end, Cash for Clunkers proved to be little more than a boon for a handful of lucky car-buyers and an opportunity for legislators to claim to be "doing something" while haplessly chipping away at the U.S. economy. Members of Congress, of course, never consciously aim to harm the very citizens who elected them, but years of misbegotten legislation have proven the inevitability of unintended consequences. Programs that look good in the press rarely deliver the predicted benefits. Instead, Washington's efforts to manipulate the U.S. economy consistently create economic uncertainty and waste taxpayers' hard-earned money on ill-considered endeavors. As the health care reform debate heats up in Congress in the coming days, legislators and constituents will be faced with a crucial question: Can we trust the federal government to extend its reach to a fundamentally important facet of Americans' lives and to intervene in the U.S. economy on an unprecedented scale? If past events are any indicator, the answer is no. Congress' attempts to intervene in a limited sector of the economy with the Cash for Clunkers program failed, brining about a variety of unintended negative consequences. Its broader effort to stimulate the economy has done little more than to provide an excuse for hundreds of billions of dollars of wasteful spending. Grand nation-building projects overseas, meanwhile, have been even less successful. The lesson here is clear: No matter how pure its intentions, government is seldom efficient, effective or nearly as wise as it thinks itself to be. Cash for Clunkers was a harmful (but thankfully temporary) setback for our economy. Any action Congress takes to reform healthcare will likely be permanent. Congress has proven that it can't run the automobile industry, and there's no reason to believe it will do any better with the medical industry. America can't afford a healthcare clunker. Ben Linskey is a junior majoring in political science and philosophy. He can be contacted at blinskey@nd.edu The views expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of The Observer.

The trial of Colin Sullivan

In regards to those out for Colin Sullivan's blood, I would just like to go on the record, as a woman, saying that not only am I not offended by his clearly joking remark, but I find it ridiculous that people are using this as yet another soapbox for their amusement. First of all, there are women on the Observer staff and they obviously knew his off hand comment was a joke so they published it. He found being a woman comparable to bad weather? Come on, ladies, he clearly wasn't serious and if you are going to begin censoring statements like that, you need a new hobby. For those of you that made the "WANTED" posters, don't you have exams to study for? Personally, I would find it slightly creepy if Colin had proclaimed he wanted nothing more than to be a woman. Ladies, I am perfectly happy to be a woman so no, Colin's comment does not offend me. I don't want to be a man either. I'll pose for my mug shot later. Hayley Coffing sophomore Pasquerilla East Oct. 5