Alex Knepper

Not content with angering senior citizens, President Barack Obama has turned his guns on the nation’s kids, proposing that American schools should add time to the school day to “stay competitive” with other countries.

Our school system’s calendar, Education Secretary Arne Duncan explains, is “based upon the agrarian economy, and not too many of our kids are working the fields today.”

Okay, great. Except that what the calendar was based upon is irrelevant if it isn’t the cause of our present educational discontents. It’s rather as if our labor secretary were to argue that professional cashiers are poor because there aren’t enough hours in the work day. Making the school year longer will only mean our kids are getting sub-par education for a longer time.

The problem, simply put, isn’t the calendar, but what the calendar is being filled with.

It’s true that American students are lagging badly behind other countries, both Western and Eastern, on standardized tests on a range of topics from mathematics to literacy. And it is indisputably correct that our education system direly needs reform.

While nothing can replace the foundational effect of a stable household and nurturing parents, there are certain actions schools can take in order to better prepare students to meet life’s challenges, both modern and ones that have existed since time immemorial.

Foremost among these is to finally banish the notion that all children are equipped with roughly equal mental prowess. The gifted and talented should be nurtured and allowed to thrive in an environment where they are surrounded by their peers. They will ultimately be our country’s future scientists, journalists, authors, politicians, and businessmen. It is to no one’s benefit — not the average intellect, not the gifted, and certainly not the nation’s — if excellence goes unchallenged and unrewarded.

Those among us who are not lucky enough to have been blessed with the sort of intellect which allows one to advance into higher education should not be burdened with impractical courses. Classes such as Algebra II and Chemistry are utterly useless to a person who will go on to work as a waitress. Such students know who they are, and should instead be allowed to take courses on topics such as consumer math, lifestyle stabilization (how to acquire a home, job, etc.), and information access in the digital era.

Surely we are honest enough as a nation to stop pretending that chemistry is more important than consumer math to everyday life of the lower middle class.

Selections from the Great Books must be introduced to all members of each generation. One need not be an up-and-coming intellectual powerhouse to grasp the fundamentals of Aristotle’s ethics or Epictetus’ emphasis on the primacy of virtuous action. Books by renowned classical writers such as these will plant the seed in the next generation to reject trendy relativism and misguided multiculturalism. The importance of the West’s cultural survival is reaching a critical point, and little innovation is required: the answers to our problems are thousands of years old.

Current events should be discussed in the classroom. To engage students in the democratic process and to instill a love of world affairs in them, they must understand that their education will ultimately be related to actual, real-world concerns. Knowledge for knowledge’s sake is a beautiful, romantic concept, but can only be reached after knowledge for the sake of practicality is set as a baseline. An integrated worldview is an imperative for a meaningful life. We should not allow our students to slip into solipsism and unwarranted self-importance.

To revive the innovative, optimistic spirit of America, mere words are ultimately empty. Each generation must be newly equipped with tools to think critically, reason logically, and integrate their knowledge into a personal, national, and global context. Only with the kinds of tools outlined above will any generation prosper, and only our nation’s schools can provide them for all citizens. That’s the reform we need.

Alex Knepper is a sophomore at American University.

Two years ago I had an accident – I fell down a flight of stairs, landed on my head and as a result, am now legally blind. Why is this relevant? As a medical student, I had access to world-class care unlike most others.

That wasn’t the case for Paul, a young man with diabetes I met shortly after my accident. He too lost his vision because — like at least 46.3 million other Americans and 14,000 more each day — he was uninsured and couldn’t afford the insulin he so desperately needed.

And yet, as sad as this is to say, Paul may be relative fortunate. A recent study in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 Americans die each year simply because they lack health insurance.

We need reform. Desperately.

But in the two years since my accident, despite denying claims left and right, the insurance industry spent $16 million drawn from premiums on Congressional campaign contributions to fight health care reform legislation. This summer, they’ve spent $1.4 million daily on opposing reform through insidious and deceptive advertising and lobbying campaigns.

Insurance companies, and the politicians who do their bidding, must be curtailed.

The potential loss of this monumental opportunity for meaningful health care reform poses a great threat to our generation.

But the purported goals of reform — realizing universal access, bending the cost curve and improving quality — have been obfuscated in Congress. And while these goals permeate President Barack Obama’s rhetoric, his proposed plan lacks a robust public option open to all and the unapologetic regulatory framework necessary to eliminate malignant industry practices, but instead contains individual mandates that will drive Americans into the arms of insurance companies – and that’s what they want!

Without real reform, premiums are projected to nearly double by 2020. I do not want to witness the 100th millionth uninsured person but fear that current legislation is inexorably wedded to maintaining the status quo and would rest the future of health care on the free market that has already failed us.

As a national policy leader of the American Medical Student Association, I believe the best solution to our health care crisis is a unified, publicly financed, privately delivered system of guaranteed high quality health care for all and, for this reason, support Representative Anthony Weiner’s (D-NY) single payer amendment.

At a minimum, a robust public option that is open to all and publicly financed must be incorporated into any health care reform legislation. Such a public-private hybrid is supported by 62.9 percent of physicians, and 72 percent of Americans. The Commonwealth Fund estimates that this plan would save $3 trillion over 11 years. The public option currently in play in the House and the Senate will likely enroll less than five percent of Americans, and as such, will lack the power to be a major market force. ‘Reform’ cannot perpetuate the status quo. Care must be more efficient and less costly. Outcomes must be improved and special interests made disinterested.

Every day, we see countless underinsured patients denied medically necessary care and suffer preventable harm. Treatment decisions are too often driven by what’s covered rather than what’s necessary. The current system forces doctors to choose medications based on compensation not indication, to anticipate a fight for each test or procedure, and, most disturbingly, to deny, or “ration,” care based on ability to pay. We learn to game the system – but in the process, feed its inefficiencies and drive the “cost curve” in the wrong direction.

We did not go to medical school to spend hours pleading with claims specialists for an ultrasound of a young mother with suspicious breast lumps, or for coverage of an essential, non-formulary drug for a hardworking father with multiple sclerosis.

We are trained in evidence-based medicine, not insurance-based medicine.  We are not driven to don our white coats to tell a college student struggling with addiction that, “we’re sorry, but your insurance only covers three days of in-patient substance abuse treatment, you have to go home now,” knowing well that she will likely go back to using. We see patients discharged from the hospital just days after open-heart surgery, with nowhere to go, and nobody to care for them. It should not be a surprise to anyone that many such patients end up right back in the hospital.

And we certainly did not sign up to stand idly by, handcuffed by fragmentation, to watch people like Paul suffer unnecessary complications from preventable illnesses. Or to see people with costly conditions like Jerome, 17, have their coverage dumped for no apparent reason just when they need it most; Jerome has HIV.

Now is the time to push back. The time for ourp resident to uphold his promises to those who elected him, not those with deeper pockets or shriller voices. If Mr. Obama wants to ‘be the last president to take on health care,’ we cannot let him compromise this opportunity away.

The current proposals would undoubtedly have some marginal effect but would not suffice. We need a fundamental shift away from this failed structure.

All too often we hear our hopes for progress dismissed with “can’t happen.” But as students and young professionals, we can, have, and will effect profound change. Let’s ensure that the first steps to comprehensive reform, a strong public option, are not sacrificed. Our voices have the power to speak louder than the industries that have failed us, but we must act together and we must act now.

Iyah Romm is a medical student at Boston University. He sits on the Health Care for All Steering Campaign for the American Medical Student Association, and is also the Regional Director for New England (Region 1)

As a medical student, following the health care reform bill wind its way through Congress feels like watching the future of my career teeter between two substantially different paths: one of freedom and the other of government-mandated security.

As a Christian, I desire for my life to be a testimony to the glory of God. I hope my convictions about the bill honor God, but, I want to be careful not to present these judgments as biblical. The bible does not talk about H.R. 3200 and so spiritual discernment in this case is difficult.

However, as I ponder how best to serve my God, my neighbors and my country, I find myself in opposition to this bill. I am concerned that it will inevitably worsen the current health care dilemma facing America.

The root of the concern is the incredible amount of control this bill will eventually give the government in making health care choices. In fact, sections of the bill seem to explicitly prepare for the eventual movement towards a single payer system.

So what does this mean for patients?  A single payer system will remove my patients from being my boss and allow the government to take their place.

As I write this, my class is learning of the difficult decisions government health care committees will face when deciding who to provide care, and what care to provide. Questions such as “when has cancer progressed so far that funds are more appropriately allocated to palliative care rather than aggressive treatment,” will be answered by a committee seeking to streamline cost-effectiveness, rather than a patient and a physician. Additionally, the bill contains measures to place limits on readmitting patients and obtaining second opinions on a diagnosis.

Also at stake is doctor autonomy. For instance, I look forward to regularly participating in medical missions and offering my services for free. But, I find it interesting that if I render free services to one patient, and charge another who is covered by Medicare, the federal government can sue me.

I understand that this defect was intended to prevent physicians from discriminating against Medicare patients.  Still, I shouldn’t have to worry about government consequences when trying to be charitable. And on that matter, physicians often face higher rates of malpractice lawsuits when serving in a free clinic, than they do when working for pay in their own clinic. Yet, this bill doesn’t even address tort reform!

There are endless examples like this, but like much of what the government sticks its nose in, this is a case of when good intentions result in stinking policy. Rarely do we see federal programs shrink, and allowing this bill to pass will open the door for increasing federal encroachment on your health care freedom as well as your spiritual or moral values.

Yes, I am concerned about the ethical issues of abortion, euthanasia, and eugenics.  And while this bill is neutral on those topics, it would allow them to be under the control of lobbyists and special interest groups have the muscle to sway politicians.

Historically, churches provided much for the health care needs of Americans.  It seems that the Government has been continuously supplanting the role of the church. I would love to see a return to this type of Church charity, and to see an America that naturally cares for each other instead of being forced to by law.  What an amazing way for Her to regain influence in this country, and to testify to the love of Christ.  Until then, Christians need to first ask what options glorify God before we vote.

H.R. 3200 is evidence that the U.S. needs health care reform.  People are crying out for it, but while its intentions are good, its effects will be negative, and very hard to reverse. There are other options that don’t sacrifice liberty for security. We need to focus on proposals that approach the issue by reforming our private health insurance industry, which give all patients access to health care, encourage patient centered care, and provide the opportunity for choice.

Either way, my motivation to be a physician lies outside this debate.  Ultimately the Lord transcends politics.  His love and plan will continue, nationalized health care or not.  My plan is to serve Him.

Will Ramsey is a medical student at Virginia College of Osteopathic Medicine. He is a member of the Christian Medical and Dental Association.

Anarchists and the student groups affiliated with them vocally promised to take “direct action” against local businesses in countless online and print publications over the last few weeks. Thursday night, Pittsburgh witnessed what “direct action” meant when hundreds of protesters and students smashed shop windows, lit dumpsters on fire and rioted in the streets.

Their behavior was predictable and, while the police took their threats seriously, other individuals in positions of power did not. The University of Pittsburgh allowed student groups to organize on campus with what I see as the goal of causing mayhem in the streets of Pittsburgh.

If the school doesn’t immediately take action against two specific student groups who took an active role in planning and promoting the G-20 protests, which turned violent, Americans should be outraged — tax money shouldn’t go to institutions that seemingly support and protect perpetrators of violence and civil unrest.

The first group, Students for Justice in Palestine, endorsed the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project’s “Radical Student Call,” which incited students to “take to the streets of Pittsburgh to disrupt the summit” and “disrupt schools and financial institutions.” When the university was informed that this student group was calling on people to disrupt schools, the University Office of Student Life initiated an investigation into the matter and found that Students for Justice in Palestine were simply engaging in their right to freedom of expression and association.

But last night, we witnessed the results of the proclamation issued by the Resistance Project and endorsed by Students for Justice in Palestine. Life in Oakland was disrupted as protesters took to the streets in Pittsburgh destroying private property.

A second group at Pitt, Students for Radical Change and Liberation, was permitted by the university to hold a meeting on campus called “Mass Action 101,” in which a representative from the anarchist Pittsburgh Organizing Group prepared students for the G-20 protests and taught them how to manage their “arrest-risk.”

This group was brought to the attention of University of Pittsburgh administrators after they, upset over my columns of G-20 protesters in the student newspaper, circulated an e-mail that read: “[Giles Howard] deserves a nice shovel to the face.” The administration was aware of the group and of its threat against a journalist and still allowed it to hold a planning meeting with a local anarchist group on campus where students learned how to participate in a “mass action.”

This “mass action” has been revealed as an orgy of violence targeting the police, local businesses and personal property throughout Oakland. The fact that these violent protests were partially planned and incited on Pitt’s campus is shameful.

The Thursday night events demonstrated that anarchists and their student sympathizers are determined to bring violence to every community they touch. These groups should never hold another meeting on campus nor receive another dollar in funding from the school.

Chris Burks

America took a small step away from big government last week, but you wouldn’t know it judging from the comments of the rabble rousers now looked to as the leaders of the conservative rump that remains in Washington.

The House of Representatives voted to remove banks as middle men in the student loan business and to make direct loans to students, saving $87 billion for the U.S. according to the initial CBO estimation.

Some conservatives claim that the government was taking over part of the economy and crowding out private business by, get this, eliminating subsidies for the banks that were used for these loans.

Instead of the government takeover that some conservatives warned of, the reality is that government is the economically efficient actor in the student loan marketplace both because of the scale of investment and the sound administration of the direct loan program that is already in place.

Under the current system, a student can get Stafford Loan or PLUS Loan through either the Direct Loan program, where a student receives the loan directly from the government, or through the Federal Family Education Loan Program, where a student goes through a bank to secure a loan, which is guaranteed and subsidized by the government. Overall, the FFEL costs the government billions of dollars a year in subsidies.

At best, risk-free hand outs to profit-seeking third parties is politics as usual; at worst, a big money scheme that fleeces those who we should be investing in the most — students in need.

The Obama Administration and the Congressional majority have now done their part to end this classic case of Washington waste.  Moreover, they’re helping students by reinvesting $40 billion of the money saved from eliminating the subsidies into the Pell Grant program, grants for low-income students that don’t have to be repaid.

As for the conservative opposition, it’s hard to conclude anything other than these folks are upset that some private businesses wouldn’t make as much of a profit or exist without a handout.

Inconsistency of ideology is no unusual feat for lifetime Washingtonians, but the pure relativism of the free-market ideology employed by these conservatives is a sight to see.  Most conservatives claim adherence to a strict Adam Smith approach of efficiency at all times and want to cut wasteful middle men employed by the government.

The inconsistency here starts with the fact that subsidies, just like tariffs, represent clear economic inefficiencies. Whether to corporate farms, small domestic businesses or individuals, incentivizing efficient action in a marketplace makes economic sense.  Propping up those entities without requiring anything in return simply doesn’t add up.

Conservatives serious about government efficiency would have applauded an end to such subsidies for education, yet Washington partisan politics gets in the way and free market ideology is cast aside on a whim.

Exploring how these Washington conservative partisans are, as described above, the head of a rump and are rabble rousers is worthy an in-depth report for another time, but it will suffice for now to say that increasing polarity and progressive dominance in recent elections has lead to fewer moderates and more conservative voices from the right side of the spectrum.

Further, the populist rage that is surging over the airwaves and into the townhalls has shown these Washington conservatives that they can push the limits of inflammatory rhetoric and that there is some marginal political benefit to be found in opposing anything brought forward by Obama and the congressional majority.

There were times when moderate New England Republicans with firm free market convictions were a fixture in the D.C. establishment, but, as Dylan would say, their old road is rapidly aging.

But shifting back to the real issue at hand, cutting out the third party lenders in the student loan business could be a sign of the hallmark of the Obama Administration.

Relying on statistics and using the most efficient deliverer in the marketplace is a main tenet of the so-called post-partisan non-ideology the Obama campaign sought to wrap itself in last fall.

Lastly, for icing on the efficient public policy cake, the bill passed by the House also contains a few extra smart education policies that only further highlight the keen economics employed by the current administration.

The bill contains $4 billion for school facility financing and a competitive grant program with $1 billion in pre-kindergarten program funding.  This funding resembles a handout almost the same as current conservative leaders in D.C s look like free market adherents, which is to say not very much at all.

First lady Michelle Obama pledged that if George Washington University students completed 100,000 hours of community service she would speak at the school’s commencement. Not that we’re against community service, but Mrs. Obama’s offer should be declined.

Mrs. Obama’s “service for speech” pledge earlier this month works counter to the notion of community service. By encouraging students to volunteer for the stated purpose of booking a high-profile commencement speaker, the meaning of service is reduced to a measure of hours spent working for a political objective, and volunteering no longer is an act carried out for its own sake.

Volunteering should be conducted as a selfless act whose only motive is a desire to see beneficial change in the community, lest doubt is cast on intentions of those serving.  Shifting the focus of community service away from the community and towards some other goal, as Mrs. Obama has done with her pledge, has created an atmosphere of false volunteerism.

What makes Mrs. Obama’s pledge different from President Reagan’s call to service or the initiatives of Barbara and Laura Bush is its connection directly to politics. “Organizing for America”, which emerged from the remnants of President Obama’s presidential campaign, has been used as a vehicle by the First Lady calling for community service in support of his health care initiatives. Now, community service is linked to a goal bringing yet another liberal commencement speaker to campus. 

Moreover, if Mrs. Obama were allowed to give the commencement address, she would serve only to further the lack of intellectual diversity among recent speakers.

At GW, one has to go back to 2006, when First Lady Barbara Bush spoke, and then into the mid-1990s to find commencement speakers outside of the liberal consensus.

Marginalization of conservatives is standard operating procedure at most colleges. Why should conservatives inadvertently work toward a goal that further marginalizes us when we’re selflessly helping those less fortunate?

But when our conservative organization called upon the administration offer students the ability to opt their hours out of serving a political cause, the school’s administration stated that “all students would have their hours counted,” assuming that the University is some sort of command economy where administrators can bend the unselfish actions of students to their will. 

It lies completely outside of administrators’ collective liberal mindset that opposition to the initiative is valid. 

Our struggle against the school in raising concern about the pledge is a symptom of a pervasive crisis in academia, the belief that students the liberal establishment cannot be challenged.  Bias has overtaken the right to freely associate and choose who benefits from the fruits of one’s service.

Whether it’s the right to volunteer without political considerations, the right to develop one’s own opinions in the course of study—bias on campuses is overtaking even the act of thinking independently. 

In opposing the pledge, our organization sought to uphold the conservative idea that the role of politics in education and in our daily lives should be minimal.  Official bias can only be altered if it is confronted.

Matt Cavedon

This summer, Fatah, Palestine’s largest and oldest political party, had its first conference in several decades in order to try to chart its future. With President Barack Obama’s recent trips to Africa and, in particular, Egypt now completed, America also has some thinking to do about the future of our involvement in the Islamic regions of the world.

Since the September 11th attacks, America has been embroiled in what President Bush declared to be a “Global War on Terror,” now known as an “Overseas Contingency Operation.” In particular, the Bush Administration took a strong stance against the “Axis of Evil”: Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. These three states were perceived to be state sponsors of terrorism against the United States.

Although North Korea tends to act alone, Iran and other militant Islamist movements have been seen as presenting a united front against America. Palestine’s Hamas, Lebanon’s Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia’s al-Qaeda, Somalia’s al-Shabaab, Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, Iraq’s Mahdi Army and Iran’s government have all been seen as different incarnations of a global Islamo-fascist world movement by a number of prominent neoconservatives and other foreign policy pundits.

This approach is problematic for a number of reasons.

Much like during the Cold War, it is much easier for the voting public to boil down very different movements into a single body united against us than it is to understand the motivations that our various enemies have.

Just as communists in China, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea all had their own motives, so do the political radicals within Islamic countries. Yes, each of these groups is critical of American engagement in the Middle East. But they do not have monolithic goals and tactics.

One of the reasons that America triumphed in the Cold War is that we acknowledged and exploited divisions within the communist movements around the world. By opening diplomatic relations with China, the Nixon Administration cut off Soviet prospects for a grand anti-American alliance in Asia. When we chose to indiscriminately isolate communist regimes, as we did with North Korea and Cuba, we paid a dear price. Indeed, the authoritarian regimes in those countries have long outlived the Soviets by terrorizing their people with propaganda claiming that American dominance is their eternal enemy and cause of their suffering.

By engaging with the reasonable elements within Islamist movements, America can avoid making the same mistake.

Lumping movements from Indonesia and Thailand to Nigeria and Somalia into a single, monolithic enemy will only confuse the truth and weaken our ability to break up alliances among dangerous opponents.

If we can move forward with negotiating with the moderate elements of the Taliban, welcoming some Islamists into the Iraqi government, and looking for common ground on terrorism with Iran, we may yet prevent another Cold War and let the more violent forms of Islamic government fall because of their own flaws, rather than letting them remain in power by constantly kicking at a straw man of America’s global power.

Ashleigh Kenny created a booming business out of putting “RIP The U.S. Constitution” on a T-shirt — including speaking on various news outlets and handing her product to Rep. Jack Kingston. This is her story in her own words.

Ashleigh Kenny and Rep. Kingston

By Ashleigh Kenny, guest columnist from Valdosta State University.

I am fed up. Anyone can look around and realize that other Americans feel similarly as me. A TEA party was just around the corner, and I wanted express my frustration. I thought a T-shirt would be the perfect way to stand out.

As I went through ideas for the design, so many quotes from notable leaders stood out to me. However, the words of President Ronald Reagan just seemed so applicable to today’s situation: “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Despite delivering those words in 1964, they have never been more true.

Today, our government smothers us. Our Tenth Amendment spells out how powers are to be distributed: Those not granted to the federal or state governments are reserved to be the right of the people. That doesn’t happen today.

And a system of checks and balances? Balance is one thing our government lacks. The executive and legislative branches are under the control of liberals, who seek to impose health care and environmental reforms on us without input from conservatives or independents. They seemingly don’t care about any negative impact these bills will have on jobs or our back-breaking deficit.

Despite all of this, the uppity attitude our representatives showed to concerned citizens during town hall events this August proves our leaders are completely out-of-touch. The people are now accountable to the government — that’s not the way it should be.

“R.I.P. the U.S. Constitution.”

That phrase summed up my frustration with government. The document that made this nation great has seemingly been discarded into a trash can behind Nancy Pelosi’s desk. I decided to use this phrase for a T-shirt and wear it to my local TEA party.

As soon as I arrived at the party, people wanted to know where I got the shirt and how they could get one. So, I had more printed to fill the local orders.

At the event, I presented one to Congressman Jack Kingston, who took it with a huge smile. He was encouraged by my youth and activism. I couldn’t have asked him to be more grateful or to hold a better attitude about it.

I wanted him to have it because many of his constituents wanted them. Obviously, the message was in the heart of so many so many others. A picture was taken and posted on his blog.

Some progressive bloggers saw the picture and personally attacked me for my own beliefs. Ironically, they want to fight the notion the constitution is dead, yet disregard the First Amendment when someone makes a claim they don’t support.

However, for every personal attack, there has been twice the amount of support. Congressman Kingston and his staff were there to help me through it all.

After Erick Erickson, from Red State, wrote on my behalf, support began flooding in. Like wildfire, the story started appearing everywhere I looked. Arianna Huffington brought it up on Bill Maher, local radio talk shows began asking for interviews, and our regional news program did a story. “Fox and Friends” also had me on their show, and life has changed drastically ever since.

I didn’t think people from all over the country would want this T-shirt, so I didn’t prepare for a booming business. I was hit with so many orders that I literally couldn’t handle them all. Thousands of T-shirts have been ordered, and I’ve had to make some big changes in my life to keep up.

My goal throughout all of this? I wanted to create an organization that would unify America and encourage activism in my generation.

I wanted something that would encourage young conservatives to stand up without cutting off those who oppose us since I don’t think we can really form a well rounded opinion, until we know where another stands and why.

Ultimately, I just wanted to make a difference and I know it requires reaching out, in all directions, to do that.

To do this, I founded Matter Now, an organization that will encourage young people to stand and make a difference. I hope to encourage activism, even in those who don’t believe the same way I do, because I truly believe my generation has to be on board if America is to move forward. I strive to find ways to meet in the middle, without sacrificing the values of our founding fathers.

From the support I received during the last few months, I know many would-be allies are out there. The battle is to get young people engaged and to provide CPR, if you will, to our Constitution. My T-shirt business is a start, and it gives me hope.

Pres. Barack Obama speaks at the University of Maryland on Sept. 17.

By Joel Cohen, guest columnist from University of Maryland.

College Park, Md. — If a law had the potential to directly affect your life while costing the nation a smidge less than a trillion dollars, would you pay attention? Of course.

Then why are college kids oblivious to the details of President Obama’s push to reform health care?

After attending today’s health care rally at the University of Maryland, the student attendees generally were enthralled with being in the presence of the president — and could have seemingly cared less about what he was talking about.

Sure, the president gave his pitch to the friendly crowd on the liberal campus. He stressed the notion that under his plan, young adults would be able to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan until age 26 (maybe because, as my friend joked, there won’t be any jobs available for graduates in the near future…). And he dismissed opponents’ arguments that his plan would add to the debt, saying “most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system.”

But as I walked around soliciting students’ opinions of Obama’s health plan, few could explain in detail specific reasons why they liked it or why it was a necessary reform even though they’re at the heart of 18 to 29 demographic, which polls show is the most supportive group of the legislation.

Even fewer students could describe details of the public option proposal – despite the fact that they had vehemently cheered for just that minutes before.

“The bill seems so complicated, I don’t even want to try to figure it out,” said Mike Moore. The University of Maryland junior government and politics major added that his statistics class is more than enough decoding for one day.

Now don’t get me wrong: there were some students who understood the plan, such as Michelle McGrain. “My mom’s in the health care field, so she’s seen the problems firsthand,” said the junior University of Maryland student. “While Obama’s plan isn’t perfect, from what I’ve see, it’s a start.”

But students like Michelle were few and far between.

And experts say our generation is effectively getting screwed by the bill, as we’re being forced to buy insurance even though we’re relatively healthy to subsidize older Americans’ plans.

“Young people are probably one of the groups that’s going to come out the worst on this,” Michael Tanner, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told the Los Angeles Times. “They’re going to pay more in the short term because they’re going to have to go out and buy health insurance. And they’re going to pay more in the long term.”

Despite our naiveté, I was impressed by the steps Obama is taking to include college students in the discussion.

According to the Department of Health and Human Services, 17 percent of college students do not have insurance. Some universities, currently 22 percent, including the University of Maryland, have enacted rules requiring mandatory health insurance for all incoming freshman – a fact Obama discussed in his speech. And by including the provision that college students’ coverage will extended beyond graduation, he has shown that he is committed to improving our situation.

But it was obvious that students and other guests at today’s rally weren’t interested in seeing a health care speech, rather, they were more interested in positioning themselves for that elusive presidential handshake.

Joel Cohen is a senior at the University of Maryland.

An organization at the University of Pittsburgh, receiving thousands of dollars in funding from the school, supports a fringe anarchist group with the goal of disrupting educational activities at next week’s G-20 Summit.

Students for Justice in Palestine endorsed a proclamation issued by the Pittsburgh G-20 Resistance Project calling on people to “take to the streets of Pittsburgh to disrupt the summit” and on students to “disrupt schools” in protest against the G-20’s policies. The Resistance Project is planning an unpermitted march in Pittsburgh on Sept. 24 that, according to plans detailed on its Web site, involve unspecified “direct actions” — a term that has, at past international conferences in Seattle and London, served as code for violently disruptive protests and vandalism.

The Resistance Project has even posted a list of targets for protests, including Trader Joe’s, the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute and the Oakland Planning and Development Corporation. The Resistance Project’s plans constitute a clear threat against educational institutions and their ability to function free from the interference of extremists.

It’s unconscionable that a university-certified organization, which received thousands of dollars in funding last year, would promote and endorse such plans.

Students for Justice in Palestine President Jonas Moffat said that his group voted unanimously to endorse the proclamation. The group received $5,000 from the university last year, and Moffat said it’s expecting to receive even more money this year.

Students for Justice in Palestine’s actions represent a profound lack of respect for the educational process and have no place at an educational institution.

Moreover, calling on students to “disrupt schools” could be a violation of Pitt’s “Guidelines for Student Organization Certification” that says students must “refrain from advocating, inciting or participating in any material interference or physical disruption of the university.”

The guidelines also say that student organizations must “conduct all activities in a manner consistent with the educational mission of the University.” It is clear that calling for the disruption of schools is not in keeping with this mission.

Students for Justice in Palestine have revealed that their values and goals are not in keeping with the educational mission of this university or the interests of its student body.

Such a group shouldn’t be affiliated with or supported by the publicly funded university, its administration or student body. The university should sever all ties immediately.