I’m not surprised.

It isn’t controversial to point out that we face serious public health problems: while modern medicine is helping us live longer, more years of our longer lives are spent fatter and sicker. Some of the biggest problems, obviously, are the related illnesses of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

A couple of weeks ago, a report¹ was released predicting that austerity measures being sought by Republicans in the House would “derail the recovery.” This report was created by the venerable investment banking giant Goldman Sachs. This alone should suffice for the legitimacy of the argument.

Except it doesn’t.

First of all, in this time of crisis, our thoughts and prayers should go out to the victims of the earthquake in Japan and their families.  I can only imagine the pain, confusion, and grief they must be suffering at this time of unfolding devastation.

    Food stamp restrictions, new labels, restaurant and movie theater calorie display proposals – all of this, and more is part of what should be called "ChubGate" - the continued crackdown on any and all elements which appear to be contributing to the obesity epidemic.

    Recently, the Grocery Manufacturers Association announced new front-of-package food labels aimed toward simplifying the information for health conscious consumers. Food packaging has changed in recent years- hilariously. Check any cereal aisle today, and you’ll find the most sugar-laden cereal emblazoned with the promising "Made with whole grains!" Yes, Cocoa Puffs may well indeed contain grains, but the claim is largely counterfeit – it’s still a chocolate cereal. But, if individuals want to have a bowl for breakfast (which would actually contain fewer calories than a bowl of organic granola) they should be able to do so. Of course, General Mills can afford to make these changes to their packaging. What about the smaller food companies that can’t?

    Few contemporary political issues are more divisive than airport security. There are primarily two conflicting fears running through travelers’ minds: that of being humiliated publically by a TSA agent and that of being caught up in a terrorist attack. Those for whom the former outweighs the latter are demanding less intrusive security despite the possibility that it will increase the likelihood of a terrorist attack. Those on the opposite side of the issue call for more rigorous security measures even if they will cost more tax dollars and infringe on flyers’ privacy. President Obama, for his part, acknowledged that the TSA’s new security measures can be frustrating, but that they are the only type of procedures effective in countering the kind ofthreat seen in the failed Christmas Day Bombing attempt of 2009.

By Elena Novak

    Think of the word "feminist" for a moment. What connotations does it conjure up in your political brain? Disgust? Tingly feelings? Nancy Pelosi? Sarah Palin? It's most probable that you were thinking of feminists in the liberal sense: women who are pro-choice and push for equality in the home and workplace.

    These things are all well and good, but have you ever considered the word in the conservative sense? Most likely, you haven't, and that's because it sounds like an oxymoron.

    What conservative feminism is, however, is a movement promoting the figurative rights of women to be housewives, to reject abortions, and to respect their husbands. These values isolate conservative feminists from the liberal feminists' "battle of the sexes." However, both promote the intellectual and emotional strength of women and push for women to strive for great achievements.

In this article, I desire to lay out two essential claims: First, that the widespread oppression of women throughout history, as well as the division of labor between the sexes, arose for biological and survival reasons; and second, that it was morally repugnant and is no longer necessary due to the agricultural and industrial revolutions, modern medicine, and increasing respect for private property rights.

By Alan Brooks

    Since the year 2000, there have been 33 shootings on college campuses in the U.S. All of the campuses had something in common: they are gun-free zones. Sixty people were killed in these shootings. All the victims had something in common: they were unarmed.

     The most notorious of these shootings was the Virginia Tech Massacre in which Seung-Hui Cho killed thirty-two people and wounded fifteen others. Police responded to the first incident where Cho shot two students in a dorm, but two hours later Cho barricaded himself in a lecture hall and proceeded to kill 30 more students and faculty and leave 15 wounded before killing himself. Cho also injured ten other people while they were trying to escape.

   The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is a creature of legislation. Unlike a species developed by years of market selection, the TSA can be compared to a laboratory creation that stays alive by intravenously sapping the blood from non-laboratory species. It doesn’t react in a nimble fashion to the changing environment of customer demand and even when it gathers fewer nutrients from its environment than it consumes - it doesn’t die. It’s a zombie--just like all creatures of legislation. We expect frightful behavior from zombies and as such, we should expect frightful policies from bureaucratic institutions such as the TSA.