Threat, thefts point to needed changes

By Jeff Trull

Over the past three weeks, a startling level of violence has swept across the UMD campus. There have been several Public Safety Alerts sent out via e-mail to the entire school due to various crimes and threats. The most attention was drawn to the “Non-specific threat,” which left many students with alarm and questions as to its nature. Other crimes, whether violence or theft, seem to be an alarmingly regular occurrence as of late. Campus crime is simply out of control.

The most peculiar incident in the past few weeks was the “Non-specific threat,” as UMass Dartmouth Public Safety dubbed it. The threat allegedly involved writing in a men’s restroom in the Group II building. Further details have not been released as to the nature of the threat. However, it was stated at one point that the threat was not violent, which led me to wonder what threat could possibly be of significance and nonviolent at the same time? Nonetheless, the threat was taken seriously by both Public Safety and the UMD community.

With the incident widely discussed around campus, many students had questions that were answered in a later e-mail from Public Safety. This e-mail basically stated that students were not notified sooner because Public safety “felt confident that there was no real threat to the campus.” Others expressed concern that the campus was not shut down, but, again, Public Safety did not feel that the threat was significant enough to do so.

While the threat is presumably still under investigation, clearly no event has materialized stemming from the threat. While we must be more cautious in this day and age of violent school shootings, we must not give in to the temptation to over-protect ourselves. It is simply unfeasible to shut down a campus based on any threat. I’m not saying that we should never cancel classes as a precaution in a situation like this, but it appears that such severe action was unwarranted in this case. Actions as dramatic as shutting down a college campus due to a violent threat can sometimes cause more distress. Besides, isn’t this the result that the perpetrator was hoping to achieve in the first place? By using sound judgment as to the severity of such threats, life on campus can go relatively undisturbed while still keeping everyone safe.

As for the other alerts, the crimes are consistent with many we have seen in recent months. Two cases of laptop theft were reported, which, unfortunately, is a common occurrence on this campus. I’m certain that most students know someone who has been a victim of laptop theft. In one theft described in a recent e-mail notification, a student left his room for a few minutes and returned to find the two attempted robbers in his room. Of course nearly all laptop thefts can be traced back to one factor: unlocked doors. Every case I’ve heard of and that Public Safety has reported involves students leaving doors unlocked, allowing thieves to simply walk in. While it’s convenient to leave doors unlocked, it’s clearly a bad idea. Unfortunately this campus has been infiltrated by enough thieves to make laptop theft more and more common. But students can put a stop to a large number of these thefts simply by locking their doors.

The other two alerts we’ve received in recent weeks involved violent crimes. One details a female student who was attacked and robbed by three male students near Chestnut Hall. The other case involves two male victims who were attacked by a third male who may have been armed. Both of these crimes occurred in the early morning hours, with one at 3 a.m. and the other at 4 a.m. With crimes such as these occurring at similar hours with such frequency, students need to take notice. While it is alarming that crimes such as these occur on campus, it has now become a reality. Students need to protect themselves the best they can against such crimes. Public safety does offer safety tips, such as taking the Dart Van, walking with friends, and staying in well-lit areas. These things should help students, but they are not sure-fire either. I wouldn’t doubt that many of these cases involve students consuming alcohol as well, which can make them more vulnerable to attack. Students walking around campus at these times need to realize that they are not always safe. While violent incidents such as these are still limited, the danger is definitely out there. Students should not live in fear, but we should definitely be conscious of the possibilities that we face on our campus.

With the on-going crimes, Public Safety appears to be making the campus safer for students all the time. The long-awaited call boxes are now in place. Cameras in campus parking lots are currently a work in progress and will hopefully be operational sometime this year. An anonymous tip line is available for students, which was utilized in the non-specific threat incident. Public Safety also offers a Campus Emergency Guide, which offers detailed instruction on events from bomb threats to influenza. Public Safety has made many steps to improve security and I’m sure this trend will continue.

With all these safety programs and tools, there isn’t much more that Public Safety can do, within reason, to combat crime on campus. Blanketing the entire campus with police and security cameras simply isn’t possible or affordable. I doubt students would really want this. A large part of safety on the UMass Dartmouth campus comes down to the choices that students make to protect themselves. Until students take these warnings seriously, crime will continue on the UMD campus.

SOUL SIGHTINGS

Blotting out evil on Purim

They “enjoyed light and gladness, happiness and honor....” Esther 8:16

The holiday of Purim is coming on March 21 this year. Purim is a joyous carnival like holiday, based in the biblical book of Esther. People dress up in costumes. Alcohol is served in abundance. We celebrate our victory over the evil guys who tried to kill us.

The Book of Esther is set in Persia. The beautiful (and secretly Jewish) Esther becomes Queen of Persia. Then she learns from her guardian Mordechai that the evil Haman is plotting to kill all the Jews. She saves the Jewish people by putting in a good word with her husband, King Ahashvarus, who decides to hang Haman (the villain) on the gallows that Haman intended for Mordechai (the hero). We celebrate, act out the story, read the book of Esther, deliver gifts to friends and to the poor and eat triangle shaped cookies, called hamentachen (they are meant to resemble Haman’s ears or his hat). The worship service is boisterous because every time Haman’s name is mentioned in the story, the congregation boos, hollers and shakes noisemakers. The point is to blot out the name “Haman” so no one can hear it.

It is too bad we cannot blot out the evil in the modern world like we can blot out the name of Haman. The story of Purim holds out the hope that no matter how bad the circumstances, things will turn out well in the end. We hope it will be so.

Rabbi Jacqueline Romm Satlow,
Center for Jewish Culture

LETTER TO THE EDITOR

Global warming bill is solution

Global Warming has been progressing unchecked for too long.  As a college student, I am concerned for our environment, because, believe it or not, people’s actions can directly affect this planet’s climate.  We are capable of altering our planet to a point where we can no longer survive as a species.  The 10 hottest years on record have all occurred within the past 14 years, and arctic ice, glaciers, and continental ice sheets are disappearing, causing disastrous environmental consequences. Undeniable facts like these have caused approximately 98% scientific consensus that global warming is real.

But it’s not all doom and gloom – there are solutions.  This semester, MASSPIRG is dedicated to passing a very important bill, the “Global Warming Solutions Act.” Its main goal will be to reduce Massachusetts’ carbon dioxide emissions 80% by the year 2050, and 20% by 2020.  Bills like this are critical if our species is to have any hope in mitigating the threat that we are faced with. If the bill is passed, our state will be the leading state against climate change.

I’m proud to say that our local Senators Mark Montigny and Therese Murray are supporting the bill, which will not only help the environment but also our economy. The bill will guarantee new green-collar jobs for our economy. We will need cars to be retrofitted, marketing and development of new technology, public and government advancement committees, green building, and countless other opportunities which all await the Global Warming Solutions Act being passed. With this and other sustainable action, a better future for everyone is within our arms reach.

Nate Damon
MASSPIRG Intern
Class of 2011

Is Housing stealing our money?

By Gary Albert

A few days before break, I was looking on COIN and happened to notice a hold on my account for $9.44. The hold is no longer there, but the balance still is, and will most likely be there until I have to pick up my cap and gown for graduation. The balance has been on my account since January 16, when it was initially charged to me.

Why do I refuse to pay this seemingly insignificant fee? It is purely on principle. This fee was charged to my account for damages. These were damages that everyone in my building was charged for, specifically a broken window and “vomit cleanup.”

I’m not arguing the broken window charge; I’m willing to pay whatever percentage of the fee that was charged for the window. However, I won’t pay the fee charged for the vomit cleanup until it IS cleaned up. That’s right. I was charged for vomit cleanup in January; it is currently the end of March, and yes, the vomit was never cleaned up.

The vomit still plasters the window wall of the fourth floor of Birch, where it has since before winter break. When I went to my RD regarding this charge, he simply told me that, “It must have been a different incident that you were charged for.” It puzzles me that I would be charged for one incident of vomit cleanup, but another, obviously more noticeable incident has been a tourist attraction for the past three months in my hallway. It is clear that the charge was for this incident, and it is clear that my entire building will be charged for it again at the end of the year, whether it is ever cleaned or not.

These double charges and non-existent work orders have been happening since before this school year even started. You may recall an Opinion article from the beginning of the school year outlining numerous issues regarding move-in.

You see, the apartment that I moved into in September was never cleaned over the summer. It had a broken oven until a month after school started, which was only fixed because my roommate caught the repairperson in the hallway.

There were easily cleanable marks all over the walls, holes torn all over the couches and the bedrooms and bathrooms were covered in filth. We were also missing (and still are) one of the kitchen chairs. But I am 99% sure that the former occupants of my apartment were charged for these issues, even if they will never be dealt with.

Over the summer I was charged $39.50 in damages. A portion of this was for various broken windows, doors, and whatever else the drunken students decided to wreck over the course of the year. The largest portion however, $25, was charged for bathroom cleanup.

Not only did our bathroom not need $100 worth of cleaning (divided amongst my roommates), but I know for a fact that my roommate cleaned up both of our bathrooms prior to moving out to the specifications of the HFOS cleaning workers. She, after all, worked for HFOS cleaning apartments the previous summer.

Not only that, but the bathroom that we paid for cleaning up was NOT cleaned any further than my roommate had cleaned it, hearing straight from the source that HFOS did not have enough time to get to clean every apartment.

Regardless of how long I protest, or how much I write, the issue will not be resolved, and arguing a $9.44 fee or a $25 fee that I’ve already paid isn’t going to change anything.

The reason behind this, of course, is the fact that we’re unable to dispute any damage fees, however unfair or undealt with they are, because we’ve signed a contract saying that we must pay them.

Old guard politics are sick and tired

By Lance Gagnon

If you’ve been paying attention to the current president race, you know that the biggest political buzzwords of of the year are “change” and “hope.” Both Hillary Clinton’s and Barack Obama’s campaigns have latched on to these terms as the biggest promises they’re willing to make to the American people. It’s a wonder that John McCain hasn’t picked them up himself, as no conservative is promising any such thing right now. But strangely enough, there is one conservative who’s given me more hope recently than both Clinton and Obama combined: the late William F. Buckley Jr.

Buckley was a conservative commentator and host of the long-running show “Firing Line” who was considered one of the most important thinkers of his ideology. On top of founding the conservative magazine “National Review,” Buckley is also considered the founder of “modern” conservativism. Admittedly, that’s an odd title for a man who defined conservativism in the first issue of the National Review as “stand[ing] athwart history, yelling Stop.”

But it probably suits him well, as Buckley was a rather odd man indeed. Few people could fit the stereotypes of conservativism as well as Buckley could. Born into privilege, the blond haired blue eyed Buckley received the best education money could buy, from French boarding schools to Yale University. At some point along the way, he developed a high-Anglo accent to make himself fit into his role better than the accent of his native New York could. And it fit him well, as he developed a high level of sophistication and traditional European high culture that showed him to be a rather smart individual.

This education, however, didn’t always rub off on his politics. Buckley had a tendency to yell “stop” at some of the worst times possible. He argued during the era of the Civil Rights Movement that white people were “the advanced race” and deserved to continue to hold unequal power in the South. He claimed that the fascist leader General Francisco Franco “is an authentic national hero.” His solution for AIDS was to tattoo victims like Nazi concentration camp inmates. It’s not surprising that Gore Vidal once famously called him a “crypto-Nazi,” to which Buckley famously replied “Now listen, you queer, stop calling me a crypto-Nazi or I will sock you in your goddamn face, and you will stay plastered.” Even Buckley himself had to admit “Some of my instincts are reprehensible.”

So why has this dinosaur given me so much hope? Because, as of late February, he is dead. It’s not that I hold a particular grudge against Buckley and wanted to see him dead. He was at the very least a step above the lunatics on Fox News, allowing serious left-wing intellectuals like Vidal and Noam Chomsky to voice their opinions on his show without turning it into a mere shouting match (the threat of violence against Vidal aside). But his death represents an interesting trend in politics.

Last May, Jerry Falwell, notorious cornerstone of right-wing religious bigotry, got around to what he probably would consider his journey to the afterlife (though likely not the part of it he hoped for). Many a commentator has claimed that they worry that McCain would not be able to live out his time in the White House if he won the election. And now, the founder of modern conservativism is dead. The trend, of course, is that the old guard of politics is getting old.

In a way, they are like the aliens from “War of the Worlds.” Sure, we’ve seen the right running around smashing everything in its path, but eventually they just keel over dead. And they don’t have a very good replacement rate, either, as younger people tend to lean further towards the left than previous generations. Sure, there are some young conservatives here and there, but they often aren’t interested in old forms of conservativism; ideas get abandoned and new, less conservative ideologies replace them. So instead of seeing their ideology continue forth, the old guard ends up taking part of it with them to the grave.

We can even see these changes happening in the two major political parties. Republican politicians, once able to argue in favor of everything from segregation to ignoring the environment, now have to show “compassion” in order to get elected. Even Democrats, so often obsessed with sticking to the center, now have to talk about things such as universal health care at the risk of sounding like they actually are on the left. As the voting population continues to shift further towards the left (and after our current administration, it has every reason to do so), so too will the politicians have no choice but to go along with them.

So I can’t help but thank Buckley for reminding us that change is coming no matter what. The Obama and Clinton campaigns may have a lot of hope in their rhetoric, but it is the change in the political landscape that really makes me hopeful. And even in the unlikely event that McCain does win, it’ll only be a matter of time before we can move on without him.

Bush’s stimulus package will fail to stimulate struggling economy

By Ben Tansey

President George W. Bush and the Democratic Party have rarely seen eye to eye on things. But one thing they have been able to agree on is an inflationary economic “stimulus” package, designed as checks ranging from $600-$1200 to be distributed to any American that filed a tax return in 2007. The reasoning, or lack thereof, goes that this money will be spent by taxpayers, and that the mass influx of consumer spending into the economy will give it just the kick start it needs to get things going. It should not be surprising that the two parties agree on this, as the notion is hopelessly wrong, just as they both so often are.

The recession was not caused by a loss of consumer confidence or any other such notion. These things are symptomatic, not causal. Its responsibility lies entirely on the shoulders of the Federal Reserve, and its 50-odd years of monetary pumping. When the fed inflates the money supply, the result is that interest rates are lowered. Banks lend out more money than before, and businesses are led to believe that consumers are saving more than they really are. Since they believe that consumers are saving (and so not spending) they invest higher up in the capital structure than they normally would. That is to say, they invest in capital goods, which are more remote from the consumer. The “boom” period in the old canard of “boom-bust capitalism” is actually the seemingly beneficial effects of these wasteful malinvestments being made. Unfortunately for us, people have not actually been saving in greater numbers. Long story short, these investments, which firms expected to be profitable, are not. The painful period of their liquidation is the “bust,” and our present recession is a classic case of one.

At best, the stimulus package, combined with Bernanke’s determined policy to inflate as fast and as much as possible, can slightly lessen the effects of this recession– at the cost of an even worse one down the road.

But it appears that even this is not working. Reports have shown employment dropping, holiday spending feeble, oil prices increasing, housing data that is anything but encouraging, and a financial sector in a nosedive.

Is there a solution? Only one real one, but it is far too radical to be considered seriously in Washington; do nothing. Left to their own devices, recessions are painful, but short. Malinvestments liquidate in a relatively short period of time, and the newly freed up resources can be put back into fueling economic growth. Government interference can only make the situation worse, in this case through further inflation. Often, also, by gumming up the works of the market and serving to hinder resources from being allocated to their most efficient uses. Even the Great Depression would not have been nearly as bad as it was if Roosevelt’s New Deal had not made things worse by causing the Recession of 1937.

But this won’t be done. Preening politicians in our nation’s capital are ignorant of basic principles of economics, and more or less unconcerned with learning them. What matters, of course, is getting votes. And the stimulus package, more or less an open bribe to American voters, will surely garner them.

The next time some pompous demagogue gets up on his soapbox to rail about the evils of big corporations, America’s wealthy class, and the price of gas, remember that “boom-bust” capitalism is not a necessary aspect of the free market. It is a creation of our government’s policy of central banking, and Uncle Sam’s “solutions” invariably make the situation worse. President Ronald Reagan spoke wisely when he said that the nine scariest words in the English language are “I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”