On Monday night, Kresge Auditorium was filled with good-natured banter, verbal pats on the back, smiles, and even a hug. It was hardly the atmosphere I’d expected from two senior advisors to the presidential campaigns (R. James Woolsey on behalf of Senator McCain and Jason Grumet for Senator Obama) debating energy policy in front of a collegiate audience. Instead of outlining realistic policies and challenging the opposing viewpoint, both speakers steered the debate along a bland, albeit cheerful, tack.

Perhaps, to some, it’s reassuring that there’s little disagreement between the two camps on the “core values” of America’s future energy policy, a key issue as we face the effects of climate change and the end of cheap oil. It seems to me, though, that it’s perfectly possible for candidates to be in agreement — and both be wrong.

The fundamental reason for this is simple: no one wants to talk tough to the American people. While it’s increasingly obvious that American lifestyles (which consume five times more fossil fuel per capita than the global average) are unsustainable — even unethical — most of us would rather bemoan the fate of polar bears than turn off our computers every night. And the last person who wants to upset the real culprits — you and I — is the politician waiting nervously in front of the television screen on November 4.

Let’s pretend that politicians can, for once, speak truthfully and forthrightly without political pandering. Imagine a “voter holiday” analogous to the “gas tax holiday,” when, without fear of electoral repercussion, an honest, intelligent candidate could have his say. What real plan for energy independence and sustainability would he set before us?

He ought to start by promising to stop avoiding and start reducing. That means a firm “no” to more drilling, which is, at worst, at odds with our global warming objectives and, at best, only a temporary fix with a lag of five to ten years and billions of dollars in investment. (Bonus points for a candidate who hypothesizes what might be achieved if we focused those efforts on developing alternative energy instead.) Rather than fighting local fires by fidgeting with surpluses and gas taxes, we have to let the inferno blaze — let fossil fuel prices rise and simultaneously stop subsidizing an oil industry which has long outlived government hand-holding.

In fact, we need to stop subsidizing altogether. That means no freebies for alternative energy, either. Policy shouldn’t be microdirected, shoveling some funds to one industry and bankrolling another. Industry should succeed because the free market says its consumers are willing to foot the bill, not because politics has handed it a competitive edge.

Ending subsidies isn’t just about cutting monetary apron strings, though. Subsidies are as equally present in the “breaks” companies get from the government as they are in the checks sent to their bank accounts or the tax rebates that they receive. If Chemical Plant X releases toxic waste into the water supply, but taxpayers have to pay for the cleanup, then the plant got a subsidy equal to the cost of the remediation.

This is known as the “tragedy of the commons.” A point source — power plant, factory farm, etc. — releases waste into the air or water and isn’t held accountable. Ultimately, everyone pays a price, even those who weren’t involved in the first place. The tragedy of the commons explains why Australians developed increased rates of skin cancer after Europeans and Americans destroyed the ozone layer with CFCs. It explains why human breast milk is too toxic to cross state lines after chemical manufacturers released pollutants into the water supply. It explains why Bangladesh and Vanuatu eye their coastlines with increasing concern after first world countries pumped the atmosphere full of carbon dioxide.

To remove the implicit subsidy of the tragedy of the commons — as related to greenhouse gas emissions, at least — we must implement a carbon tax. This tax — a dollar amount levied for every ton of carbon emitted — would be broad in scope, affecting all industries equally rather than singling out the desired winners. The tax would ensure fairness by demanding that the polluters be held accountable. It would also level the playing field by allowing truly clean alternative energy to compete with fossil fuels: Renewable energy sources wouldn’t have to pass tax penalties on to their customers.

By allowing energy prices to rise and coupling price with carbon emissions, we can create a system where market forces select for fuel efficiency and, ultimately, a renewable energy economy.

The going will be tough. In today’s economic environment, it would be insensitive — and even cruel — to ignore the impact increased fuel costs will have on American families. Certainly, the plan I have sketched would be political suicide. Yet the American people are desperately in need of a leader, someone willing to admit that all is not well and that tough choices have to be made to achieve a lasting solution. We need a leader who will lead the world in adopting carbon tax standards, so that companies cannot flee with their jobs and plants to a land with fewer regulations.

I believe the American people are increasingly aware of this need and increasingly willing to listen to straight talk about our energy solution. I can only hope that we will convert this willingness into a demand for political accountability and honesty, because our politicians won’t be taking the first step.

Holly Moeller is a graduate student in the Joint Program in Biological Oceanography. She welcomes feedback at hollyvm@mit.edu.

Representatives from both presidential campaigns met on campus last Monday and were asked how their candidates would define success in the energy sector at the end of two terms as president. In spite of the night’s rhetoric about oil-free, renewable energy ambitions, their responses were surprisingly subdued.

Jim Woolsey said that McCain would consider a wide expansion of alternative fuels and vehicles like plug-in hybrids and flexible-fuel vehicles to be an accomplishment. Obama’s envoy, Jason Grumet, described a country that used just a little less energy than the year before.

After the events of the last month’s financial meltdown, let me offer a more dire vision of what will actually happen in the next four to eight years based on previous recessions and energy crises.

The economy, in the nation as well as the world, will take such a thrashing that any grand visions on energy, healthcare, or Social Security will be put on hold while the commander-in-chief fights multiple fiscal brush fires. Companies will be unable to obtain credit or investment for the billion-dollar projects that nuclear or coal plants command.

A shriveling world economy will shrink consumer demand, sinking the price of oil and natural gas like it did during the 1980s and 90s and obviate any substantial shift away from non-renewable sources. Energy’s best laid plans — whether from Obama, McCain, Pickens, or Google — will be all for naught.

The next president will serve only one term. The last time the economic klaxons blared in 1987, the shockwaves reverberated for so long that the next President, George Bush the elder, was booted out of office because he presided over a recession. Voters read his lips about new taxes but the circumstances of the early 1990s still dictated an about-face.

And while the savings and loan crisis was confined to banks, it still extended throughout the economy. Our current state of affairs will not be as lucky since the credit crisis will touch on all sectors and circles.

Jimmy Carter showed up on national TV in a cardigan and inspired a career-damaging round of mockery rather than inspiring people to turn down their thermostats. This was during 1977 — during a period of high energy prices and some of the worst economic conditions in modern America. The public was less concerned with the temperature of their houses than with the availability of a paycheck.

Awaiting the next chief executive are similar conditions in the form of a wide-ranging recession and high energy prices.

What policy levers will be left for the next president to pull? Both candidates back a nationwide cap-and-trade market for carbon dioxide. Such a law will be signed, but the resulting program will be riddled with so many handouts to the utilities and oil companies that it will be toothless.

Both candidates support a move toward higher mileage vehicles like plug-in hybrids. These cars will be on the road, like the Prius was at the beginning of the century, but they will make a similarly small dent in overall impact for a decade. Both candidates want to wean ourselves off foreign imports of oil. The country may produce more alternative fuels from sources like biomass but not in sufficient quantities.

In the electricity sector, both candidates support “clean coal” technology like carbon capture and sequestration, but research will simply saunter along and remain decades away from commercial deployment.

Both candidates support more electricity transmission capacity and “smart grid” technologies, and both candidates support renewable sources of energy like solar and wind. The build-out trends will merely continue for these technologies, but only if we’re lucky enough that they don’t fail due to persistently high costs.

In sum, the ambitious proposals of both candidates will remain unfulfilled.

They will both be wrong, that is, unless the next president of the United States puts together a public works project on the scale of the New Deal and manages to combine it with the international dedication of the Marshall Plan. Our bridges and highways are falling apart and transmission lines need to be built to deliver all that proposed renewable energy.

Climate change will only be solved by world consensus. If the next president can assemble a package that connects the economy with a transformative energy policy, such a proposal would truly be a plan with a realistic shot at changing the national landscape.

But good luck getting it through Congress.

Gary Shu is a graduate student in the Engineering Systems Division and the Department of Urban Studies and Planning.

This past Monday, I munched on a chocolate glazed donut and sipped on iced tea (lemon and sugar) from Dunkin’ Donuts. I had a $5 foot-long Spicy Italian sub from Subway after my 5.111 lecture. And after pistol practice, I grabbed a cheeseburger from the Cambridge Grill.

Before coming to MIT, only in my wildest dreams would I have had a donut for breakfast, Subway for lunch, and a cheeseburger for dinner. Today, I’m starting to feel sick of it. Two months ago, I never thought I’d be sick of Subway. For that, I have to thank MIT Dining.

I’m sure that it’s been said before, but there are 1,000 new undergraduates and 1,000 new voices here at MIT this year — so it needs to be said again. Effectively, MIT has no undergraduate dining plan. If you insist on saying MIT does have a dining plan, well then, it sucks. MIT’s food (not dining) policy fails students in a very important part of their lives: basic sustenance. I’ve got enough on my plate to worry about without needing to worry about what’s on my plate.

I don’t want to need to think about what I should buy to eat and where I should buy it. Since, for many MIT students, money doesn’t grow on trees, we really can’t afford to pay high prices at Café Four or LaVerde’s for the sake of convenience. In fact, we need low prices and convenience. This is not a lot to ask for in a place where, by virtue, time is scarce and there are more important things to think about than dinner. I want quick, cheap, and convenient.

Is cheap and convenient food an impossibility at MIT? My twin brother’s experience at Boston University makes me think not. He can hop out of bed, run to the dining hall, swipe his card, and pile as much food as he likes on his plate. Then he can go back for seconds. Breakfast, lunch, and dinner. It’s stunning.

Furthermore, from my own experience, the food across the river is not half bad! And here’s the icing on the cake (the same cake that BU students can pick up for dessert) — my parents aren’t paying any more for that service than they would be paying had they followed MIT’s “suggestion” of $2,200 a semester.

Talk about hidden costs (my parents were initially surprised to find MIT’s tuition and room and board cost was slightly less than my brother’s). So why can’t we have a similar plan here? Why are students enrolled in a “dining plan” effectively forced to purchase their meals at dining halls or risk losing money?

I would even settle for crappier food if it meant I could have as much of it as I wanted whenever I wanted without having to pay for individual items. And in my opinion, Shinkansen’s “Bullet Train Fast Food” isn’t setting the bar for food quality very high.

As a freshman, I don’t care if past dining surveys have found that many students did not take advantage of homegrown MIT dining facilities. If those plans were anything like the vestigial plan some of my friends from Next and Baker have to purchase today, I’m not surprised those students did not take advantage of dining halls.

The solution is not to get rid of dining halls. The solution is to change the dining halls. Make them more accessible and cheaper. Incorporate dining costs into room and board. Streamline the process. I think MIT would find dining halls to be incredibly popular if we modeled them similarly to our colleagues across the river.

Others have said it, I’m saying it, and more disappointed young freshman will say it in the future. However, it should be said again and again until something changes. Until everybody gets sick of tired of reading dining articles in The Tech. Until this issue has been discussed so mind-numbingly much that whoever’s in charge here would rather make these changes than listen to people complain. Whatever it takes to enact change during the transient influx of enthusiasm at the beginning of each school year before we all turn complacent and the issue is shelved until next Fall.

Ethan Solomon is a particularly hungry member of the Class of 2012.

MIT stands among very few institutions in the nation regarding how it prepares its students for their future. A solid, practical education ensures that we can adapt and take care of ourselves after we graduate from college. Personally, I assume that such preparation includes the skills necessary for daily sustenance.

As adults, we will have to make our own choices about what foods to purchase and how to cook them—even a little proficiency in the kitchen goes a long way in today’s world. On top of that, self-prepared food often turns out to be healthier and cheaper than purchased meals. It allows students the choice and flexibility to cater their diets to their unique bodies. Why, then, has the Institute decided to embark on its own vision to expand dining at the undergraduate level and overlooked the obvious benefits of cooking?

Just to be clear, I am someone who expected to be dining out all the time when I arrived at MIT. While I had prepared small items at home, I never cooked three meals a day for myself. I was scared of the stove. More and more, though, I find myself making my meals in my Burton-Conner suite kitchen. Nothing fancy — I might make an omelette one day or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich the next.

However, I count myself among the lucky few undergraduates at MIT that have a stove, fridge, and cupboards just outside my door. Without these, I suspect I would be purchasing the majority of my meals every day.

Buying ingredients, by any logic comes out as cheaper than purchasing meals. A large egg might cost you 75 cents and make a good breakfast, while a banana might run a quarter and serve as a nutritious snack. Even an entire dinner should not run anything more than a few dollars for one person. Preparing a meal should not have to be an arduous task; the time commitment depends upon what you want to make.

Personally, I feel that I pay enough in tuition such that I’ll take a clear opportunity to save money if I don’t have to sacrifice anything significant for it. The caveat, of course, is that our most convenient location for grocery shopping — LaVerde’s — is atrociously overpriced. Apples and oranges will run you a buck a piece or more. We really can’t count on MIT to make it easy for us to buy reasonably-priced groceries.

Moreover, preparing food should not just run you fewer dollars, but fewer calories. The selection at a typical grocery store is typically less fattening, than Lobdell or the dining halls, and often more nutritious. Undeniably, you can purchase healthy prepared meals on campus, but the control you have over how those meals are prepared is limited. Each individual has different dietary needs, and cafeteria dining will inevitably not meet those needs.

Whether you want to gain or lose weight, build muscle mass or lower your carbohydrate intake, the selection at a typical grocery store can far better help you meet your dietary needs than the cafeteria food at Baker, Next, McCormick, or Simmons.

The argument that managing your own food allows you to overeat or only consume junk defies the very purpose and spirit of college life; we have to be entrusted with the same kind of personal responsibility that we will have to face in the real world. In any case, I doubt anyone would classify cafeteria food as healthy. We students no longer live in a world in we should expect to be served and cooked every meal.

As far as I can tell, cooking does not affect you socially. Not only are there people around to eat with me if I cook for myself, but I can actually grow closer to people by cooking with them. In any case, I don’t see the difference if someone can just take food from the cafeteria and head back to a room to eat in solitude. Moreover, I eat out at least two or three times a week. Eating out feels better when you and your friends can make the choice to order a particular kind of food any day of the week from any restaurant you choose.

MIT needs to break away from its trend toward house dining. Forced dining plans — the ones that charge you $300 and require eating five days a week at the same cafeteria — are no way to encourage MIT students to prepare for the real world. These cafeterias are only practical for dinner and, despite efforts to increase their choice and serve vegetarian, don’t offer students the freedom to really make their own dietary decisions like they will when they leave college.

Cafeteria food cannot adequately serve the growing number of vegans, who need kitchens if they wish to maintain their dietary choices. Forcing students into what is typically an economic loss and restricting their options does not seem like the MIT way to me.

Neither, incidentally, does going against the wishes of the Phoenix group and tearing the kitchens out of Ashdown or arbitrarily overturning the choice of a majority of Simmons Hall residents against buffet style dining. Many halls, with the notable exceptions of East Campus and Burton-Conner, have inconvenient or inadequate cooking facilities. LaVerde’s overcharges students for necessities, and is too far from East Campus anyway.

MIT needs to remember its roots and offer its students the healthier, more practical option of cooking. Yes, we can choose not to cook our own food, but I simply would like to see students given more of an option than the current trend suggests they will have.

We are not an Ivy League school nor should we start acting like one — mens et manus implies we should at least offer students the chance to develop a practical, healthy, and cheap skill in cooking.

Karan Sagar is a member of the Class of 2012 that knows how to crack an egg or two.

It is the duty of every institution to take measures to ensure the health and wellbeing of its students. While MIT does make significant efforts to encourage healthy living, it has yet to find a substantial solution to the issue of campus dining.

The matter of campus dining has been under scrutiny for several years now. Programs such as weekly meal plans and all-you-can-eat buffets have been experimented with. However, after many changes, influenced to a great extent by the varied student responses to the different plans, as well as the inability of the programs to be financially self-sustaining, the current system of house dining membership has been adopted.

Under the present system, students can obtain a 50 percent discount on meals in the five dining halls, namely Baker, Simmons, McCormick and Next in West Campus and Ashdown House in the North West side of campus, on a charge of $300 a semester. As a result, a meal originally available for $9-$10 in the hall, can be obtained for half the price. This is almost always a losing deal for students. As per calculations, on the whole, students can only afford to miss about two or three meals in a dining hall per semester to avoid losing money on the membership.

In May 2007, the Baker House dining committee issued a report showing that the average Baker resident loses $125 per semester because of membership in the house dining program. Only about 13 percent of residents break even (The Tech, Volume 127, Issue 66). Though the risk of losing money does ensure some consistency of food habits for the students, the risk adds pressure to dine at one of the residential dining halls every evening, which is not favorable to most students.

The large part of the dining problem lies in the locations of the dining halls; having dining halls in five of the residences is not adequate. The dining facilities are used primarily by the residents of these halls, as these students have been forced to pay for dining membership. However, for many of the non-residents, dining in these halls is not an attractive proposition. Many students do not wish to dine in a place where they do not know people. In addition, the dining hours are usually inconvenient to members of athletic teams and student activities that often meet at the same time.

It is particularly telling that MIT, known for the predominance of our nocturnal culture, has only the Simmons late night café (which is isolated across Briggs field from the bulk of west campus dorms) and the convenience stores (MacGregor and LaVerde’s) open till a substantial hour into the night. As for the food, there is a paucity of variety available in the dining halls. The primary reason for this is perhaps that the contract for all the west-side dining halls rests with the same catering company.

Also, a noticeable fact is that the actual original price of the meals in the halls appears to be significantly inflated. A dish similar to one that is priced at $8 in the halls is available for about $6 in one of the other establishments on campus.

The residence dining halls have no provision for breakfast or lunch. As a freshman, I am yet to experience the Boston/Cambridge winter. However, I shudder to think what I will do if I there is a snow storm one weekend and I need to get breakfast in the morning. There will probably be no other option than to walk down to the Student Center in the biting cold.

In my opinion, while kitchens are important, every house should have a dining hall open for at least some key times, even if it is not operated on as large of a scale as the five major halls. In addition to an assured meal in one’s own residence for students, a dining hall fosters a feeling of community. This approach has already been adopted in the construction of the Ashdown House.

The halls could be open for some time in the morning, preferably for breakfast since students usually don’t come back to their dorms between classes. Another advantage of this plan would be that in the case that students don’t have their first class of the day until the afternoon, they won’t necessarily need to leave their dorms early in the morning to obtain a meal.

Most universities in the United States offer students with a large variety of dining programs. For instance, the University of Florida has two dining halls, where myriad dining preference options are offered to students. These choices include 7 meals a week programs, 21 meals a week plans or even unlimited dining.

True, the cost of these is way more than $300 a semester, but the availability of these options is a big plus for students. There is remarkable consistency in the food habits of their students, as opposed to the erratic food habits of the average MIT student.

Improvements to the system of campus dining should be an imperative — both to ensure better nutrition for students and to reflect the high standards our Institute has established in other elements of campus community and student life.

Radhika Malik is a member of the Class of 2012 who doesn’t want to leave her dorm to get a muffin.

For most politicians, especially those facing an election in less than a month, looking good to the taxpayer is important. Anyone familiar with the Presidential and Vice Presidential debates knows how elected officials love to boast about fighting corruption, saving taxpayer money, and most recently, directing angry diatribes towards unpopular figures — and unfortunately for the market, Wall Street has never been all that popular with “Joe Six-Pack.”

With the markets more or less in Washington’s hands at this point, and with the Treasury’s hands deep within the pockets of the taxpayer, it seems appropriate to consider just how daft those hands are. For a little insight to the political mindset, Senator McCain finds blame in “unbridled greed” on Wall Street. Obama, meanwhile — while saying that he’s “above partisan politics” — blames the GOP and McCain for the problems. Perhaps these claims are true; however, I’m more inclined to believe that Wall Street did not implode without some outside help.

Fundamentally, the subprime mortgage bust of last year and last month’s liquidity crisis do not represent a failing of capitalism. It does not mean that free markets have failed our country, and as such, I am wary of any bailout plan that lays the blame for our current economic troubles solely at the feet of the financial industry.

Some blame greed for our problems. It makes a nice moralistic argument about the corruptions of modern society, but as it relates to Wall Street, it doesn’t explain their failings. However, immorality does explain the actions of the group that is most culpable for our current economic crisis: the government.

Over twenty years of bad government led us to where we are now. So, the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) should be seen not as a bailout of fat cat investors, but instead as the time to pay the Pied Piper.

The underlying cause of the credit crisis stems from last year’s subprime mortgage fiasco, which itself resulted from the bursting of the housing bubble. These events have the government’s fingerprints all over them.

To start with, look at the policies of Washington on housing. Homeownership is the political Holy Grail, and every politician savors the ability to brag to their constituents about voting to help the homeowner. Bonus points if those new homeowners are from minority groups. Consequently, we’ve seen the powerful influence of groups such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now impact the directives and legislation from Capitol Hill.

Chiefly, the government has pushed lenders of all types to make more loans and more credit available to borrowers who would not normally qualify for a loan. When more people had mortgages, there were more prospective homebuyers, which drove up the cost of housing through basic supply and demand. Hence, the government has played a pivotal role in the housing bubble.

Washington’s legislation also had a profound impact on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the mortgage giants recently taken over by the Feds. For the purpose of promoting homeownership among the lower and middle classes, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) set targets for the percentage of loans Fan and Fred had to make to anyone earning less than an arbitrary amount. Strangely, the same groups that hailed this a way to promote equality are the groups that now grouse about the practice of “predatory lending,” or when banks supposedly make loans to people with poor credit at high rates.

The politicians did not stop there, however. During the Clinton administration, the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) was given new teeth to encourage banks to promote the “common good.” Effectively, it did to all of Wall Street what the HUD had done to Fan and Fred. Any bank that didn’t jump through hoops to satisfy these demands ran the risk of being sued for redlining or discrimination.

Of course, the idea of a “common good” here ignores the basic capitalist tenant that what is good for the individual benefits society in the long run. The CRA focused on the shortsighted goal of increasing homeownership, which served to fulfill the even shorter term goal of helping politicians win reelection.

As we’ve seen all too much recently, populism has again returned as a viable political strategy in Washington, with the presidential candidates using the “people vs. Wall Street” rhetoric to great impact. Unfortunately, it’s succeeding, because American’s are constantly inundated with either what Fox News called the journalist technique of “apocalyptic” headline stories (ironically, they were talking about their own website) or attack ads from candidates who love using the Street as their scapegoat. Who said yellow journalism was dead?

Worse than the government’s incompetent handling of housing has been their attempts to fix what they often deem to be the free market’s inadequacies — never mind that their meddling caused the problems in the first place.

For example, The Wall Street Journal reports that last month, Senator Harry Reid casually referred to “A major insurance company — one with a name that everyone knows that’s on the verge of going bankrupt.” While not naming names, Reid’s tremendously irresponsible action encouraged speculation and fear that caused insurance stocks to tank the following day. Similarly, Chuck Schumer suggested earlier this summer that the regional IndyMac Bank “could face collapse.” Predictably, IndyMac collapsed after spooked investors pulled their money out of the bank, a classic run caused by a loss of confidence.

There is a reason the Fed only announces the closure of a bank after they have sufficient evidence to do so. Politicians suggesting that a major financial institution could fail should inspire a similar outrage to Hillary Clinton’s comment that she should stay in the primary because Obama could meet a fate similar to that of Robert Kennedy. While technically correct, statements like these do not inspire confidence.

Before condemning everyone from the Beltway as babbling dolts though, it is important to remember that some light occasionally breaks through the black hole of good ideas. The Federal Housing Regulatory Reform Act of 2005 stands as a good example of what is both right and wrong about Washington. The act itself called for what I called for in a previous article: a stronger regulator for Fannie and Freddie. However, it was killed off in a party line vote.

More applicable to today, though, are the names attached to this bill. John McCain cosponsored it, and Barack Obama fell in line with his party and voted against change for the better. Certainly, Republicans do not advocate reckless deregulation. Instead, they just realize the difference between more regulation and more effective regulation. Many of the banks who failed this year were among the most heavily regulated institutions in finance, and they were paralyzed by potential losses that result from “mark to market” accounting. Bad regulation can sink companies faster than any greedy CEO.

This brings up the idea of “moral hazard.” Whenever this phrase has been used before now, it has typically referred to the danger of rewarding banks or individuals who made poor decisions. However, the phrase is more appropriately applied to the government’s impact on housing. Irresponsibility and opportunism infests our government’s actions regarding the economy and housing. Politicians are not economists, and worse than simply ignoring their advice, they often mock it as out of touch or naïve.

This brings us back to today. TARP has become law, and the political class is crowing about how they needed to rescue Wall Street to protect Main Street. And they’re right. Without the bailout, the liquidity crisis would have gotten worse before it got better. Credit has dried up, and even sound companies like General Electric are feeling the squeeze. There’s no denying that something had to be done, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson’s plan represented a simple, elegant, but effective solution.

The Relief Program will work, because it will restore investor confidence, and restore banks confidence in each other. Last week, banks went to the Fed, the traditional “lender of last resort,” for a record breaking amount of overnight loans. When banks are afraid of lending to each other, they don’t even think about lending to consumers. And without consumer lending, housing prices continue to fall, and the crisis continues until we reach a painful bottom. TARP will help prevent that.

Recovery now depends on the government’s ability to keep its hands off of Wall Street and let banks do what they know is best for themselves, because what’s good for the banks is good for the economy, and what’s good for the economy is good for the American people. From the lowest day laborer to the Fortune 500 CEO, everyone benefits when the economy grows, because unlike income redistribution schemes that simply chop off future growth to make everyone worse off, capitalism brings up the entire boat.

Finally, capitalism is still our best and only option for a viable economy. Anyone who thinks that patently moronic laws like the Community Reinvestment Act represent a free market environment is on the same plane as someone who thinks Barack Obama’s economic plan is socialist: flipping the adjectives there produces a statement that’s much closer to reality.

This country’s economy needs reform, but not the kind currently being proposed by Congress, and not the knee-jerk populist positions of our presidential candidates. We need to acknowledge that not everyone has the capability to be a homeowner, and that income equality is not a measure of how well a country is doing.

We need policies that encourage homeownership among those who can afford it and economic growth plans so that anyone who can’t afford a home can work to achieve that goal. As such, we need to embrace lower taxes, a minimal government presence in the private sector, and as voters, responsibility for our elected officials. We need a return to capitalism.

Joe Maurer is a member of the Class of 2012.

The “You” of YouTube is beautiful (who is immune to a bit of attention?), and the “We” of wikis and the like are everywhere. But make no mistake, at the end of the day, it’s still the “Me” that matters.

By this, I mean that despite operating in a “global digital village” and hearing on every corner that “community” is cool, it’s still very much a self-centered, ego-conscious “me-first” culture that we live in.

Judging by the scarce conversations on the economic crisis and its implications among MIT staff and students over the past month, with only a few echoes of it reaching campus and classrooms, one would think that all is well — for us at MIT and beyond our walls.

It could be argued that the unique, enclosed world of academia and the peace and quiet it engenders, required to produce great research and innovation, is the reason for this problem. But I also see a disconcerting distance and lack of concern among the average person in the “world out there” — that is, most of the people in this so-called connected planet.

As I listened to a girlfriend’s teary account of a failed first date in its most minute details for the third time this week, I could not help but notice that at least she doesn’t seem worried by events out there in the bigger world. A general, simplistic conclusion, I admit. But things add up when a graduate student at the Sloan School of Management tells you at a recent house party that students at MIT and other colleges probably don’t think and talk too much about the mortgage, credit and banking crisis because they are not active participants in the market yet, and therefore are not directly affected by these events. Never mind that they will be in a few years’ time …

Apparently, unless Trouble knocks on your door, it doesn’t exist. And to many on campus, those on whose door it is knocking right now don’t seem to exist either.

On campus, I never feel the disconnection from the souls outside of our cocoon more sharply than when we discuss in our classes and research groups the concepts and values of the latest cool tools or ideas for making our own high-end technologies.

We seem to assume that the 15-year-old disadvantaged teenager has the money to buy and keep the latest super-smart cell phone and that the working mother of three has the time to sit and blog all night about her views, likes, and dislikes.

The term “Digital Divide” pops up now and then in these class discussions and other lectures, as if thrown in for good measure, then disappears.

We seem unable (or unwilling?) to imagine socio-economic conditions different from our own, or our own circle. Shall I dare take it further and suggest that we subconsciously project our own tastes and status onto the people out there and selfishly assume they will readily embrace them?

Maybe that is what it takes to be the intrepid leaders, pioneers, and innovators that MIT is famous for, and it is dictated by the laws of progress and development … but such a self-centered, elitist attitude also jars with the current culture of communal love, care and cooperation that the shared digital spaces of our times, such as social networks and blogging initiatives, claim to foster.

For all the “friend” focus and sociality of Facebook, MySpace, and their kin, the somewhat narcissist self-display and self-promotion they offer is now common knowledge. Call it a “me-centered,” personalized relationship with the community, or what Manuel Castells, professor of communication technology and society at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles (and a visiting professor at MIT), calls “networked individualism.”

Perhaps, when navigating the plethora of opportunities for participation and cooperation that the Internet and new media technologies present us with, it is important that we actually take the time to know and care about whomever we interact with, so that this participation doesn’t end up being an exercise in self-promotion, or serving pure personal leisure purposes while proclaiming otherwise.

To cite just a few cases at the top of my head: Many Americans’ inability to place the nation of Georgia on a map (following the crisis with Russia) and Europeans’ shock at discovering the social inequalities and poverty in Louisiana (following Katrina) speak volumes about how disconnected and ill-informed we still are as members of what is supposed to a community of engaged, knowledgeable global citizens.

We pepper our speech with words like “culture,” “community,” and “multiculturalism” … but a quick walk through Central Square is all it takes to see that in reality cultures don’t mix as much as they do in our imagination.

I could cite plenty of cases where concerted online and offline efforts have yielded tremendous good in local, national, and global communities. Grassroots rescue efforts during Katrina and the London public transport bombings come to mind as some of the most obvious examples.

Computer-moderated social organization has produced a form and level of public mobilization and activism unimaginable only a few years ago, sparking heightened personal responsibility in the civic sphere and new political practices. Barack Obama’s success in mobilizing his country’s youth via the Web and engaging it in participatory democratic discourse is what e-democracy is all about.

Let us hope that such a progressive approach will help cement these young people’s nascent interest and action in political processes. I suspect, though, that such engagement is still sadly minimal. Statistics repeatedly show that the public’s engagement with the Web and mobile technologies is still largely for entertainment purposes, not to better the world.

Busily Twittering and text messaging our friends are not going to turn us into Mother Theresas. Behind the beeps and rings of our tech tools one can hear the subtle message that using (read: buying) these technologies will make us kinder, more philanthropic, better human beings. The big push for sharing is but one proof of this.

But as we Twitter, chat and share, somebody is getting richer …

The commercial motives behind the digital activities on offer are evident. The rules of viral marketing seem to be orchestrating the global outpouring of brotherly online love and communal all-sharing compassion more than our hearts do.

The logic behind what MIT’s Comparative Media Studies Director Henry Jenkins calls in his book Convergence Culture “affective economics” — the close, cooperative relationship between product/service providers and consumers that extends to include friends and family as part of a branding strategy — is being used by a whole range of market players, from soft drink and video games makers to social networks and TV shows producers.

As Convergence Culture’s insightful, eye-opening account of the mechanics behind new media trends shows, some very inventive new media models have emerged as they engage fans and users to contribute to the product/service’s design and development in a wiki-style, open source manner. But it also risks, as it did for me, throwing a bucket of cold water on one’s initial enthusiasm for Facebooking and other forms of online social engagement.

I cannot help but notice that these inventive collective commercial initiatives often intensely focus on individual consumption, such as when friends in a network chat about the latest iPhone apps and gadgets — and thus seem rooted in a material, individualistic culture.

Which brings us back to my initial point that the “Me” still matters and the little self-focused “I” is alive and well.

Perhaps our cut-throat competitive world is partly responsible for all our me-first actions.

But I also think that these “You,” “We,” and “Me” phases come and go in cycles, like trends and fashion styles. Just spread the meme, and watch it grow. Give it another couple of years, and the lone lab rat-researcher may be the coolest person on the planet. Wired magazine founding editor Kevin Kelly’s “Quantified Self Wiki” — “a catalog of resources for self-measurements of all types,” may plant the seeds of a self-tracking spree. Its purpose is “to better understand ourselves, in body and mind.”

So perhaps the “Me” matters more than ever — we might as well acknowledge it. And as Kelly suggests, nurture these selves.

After all, empathy and care for the community, offline and online, start at home.

Florence Gallez is a graduate student in the Department of Comparative Media Studies.

Having attended a boarding school for the last four years, I am altogether too familiar with the term “bubble effect.” This metaphoric phrase describes the coddled isolation common amongst the verdant courtyards of academia.

Students become so caught up with school that they become isolated from the “real world.” The primary symptom is severe ignorance of current events, politics, and global affairs. What I find ironic is that in such a technologically advanced world, the “bubble effect” is still a very real epidemic.

It’s mind-numbingly easy to be so caught up in school that one completely loses touch with the world at large. I think this holds true especially at a place like MIT where one’s weekdays usually are not counted by dates but deadlines for p-sets.

There’s also an unconscious aversion to doing things like watching or reading about the news because of its intellectual stimulation. “What? Nonsense!” One may splutter in disbelief. At higher-education institutions, everything and anything can become a source of intellectual discussion. Every college student is interested in discussing the financial crisis over Dunkin’ Donuts.

Right. The college student may lightly note the financial crisis only in the context of how difficult it is to obtain an internship. Then they would probably plow through and discuss the upcoming frat parties on the weekends.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not condemning the college student for doing what they do. Rushing from lectures to recitations and seminars, it’s a relief at times to get away from the world of academia. Choosing between conversing about the pros and cons of a sustainability bill and sleeping, I’m pretty sure most would pick the latter. I might even be guilty of the same thing depending on what day of the week it is.

The problem is, however, what the college students are not doing. If one views keeping up with current events as a chore, it becomes a burden. The truth is that news and a basic knowledge of current affairs shouldn’t fall under the category of academia but instead be considered part of one’s obligations as a good citizen.

Seeing that you live in the country, you should know about the financial situation at hand. Sure, it may not affect you directly at the moment but does one have to understand and know of something only when it is in the context of the individual? This thought strongly disturbs me.

With the wide range of media and sources of information, it’s not difficult to tap into tidbits of current events. There are even fewer physical and financial limitations than in the past to prevent us from hearing about global happenings. It’s simply a matter of breaking our indifference to reality and the academic bubble. Though one may feel comfortable and satisfied with being shielded from the “real world” when at college, eventually one must come face to face with the outside.

It’s probably not possible to be as attuned to current affairs as those in the work field. Things like tax increases or rising prices of gas are often not tangible worries. We will not feel the same way towards the financial crisis as those who have been laid off from their positions in companies like Lehman Brothers.

We should, however, at least make an effort to know of these things. Checking the New York Times online or the BBC’s headlines once or twice daily would take a total of ten to fifteen minutes from your day. That’s about the same amount of time it would take to Facebook stalk that cute boy who always sits two rows ahead of you in 18.02.

When you fall into the pattern of checking the news every day, it no longer becomes a chore but a part of your lifestyle. It keeps one of your feet in the real world and will prevent you from settling into the seductively comfortable — but ultimately debilitating — academia bubble.

Maggie Liu is a member of the Class of 2012.

In an opinion piece published several weeks ago, Gary Shu speculated on the causes of the gender gap in science and engineering and decried the call for a “Title Nining” of federal science funding.

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity. The law authorizes and directs federal agencies to determine whether universities provide equal educational opportunity regardless of gender.

Compliance with Title IX is a necessary but insufficient condition for creating an environment that encourages and supports all talented individuals wishing to pursue a career in science or engineering.

Last year the MIT Physics Department was reviewed for compliance with Title IX by the NASA Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity. Statistical data were collected along with relevant policies and procedures, and an on-site visit was made to interview physics students and faculty as well as Institute administrators.

The Title IX report concludes: “Based on an evaluation of the data provided by MIT and from on-site interviews and observations, NASA found the MIT Physics Department to be in compliance with the NASA Title IX regulations. NASA notes with approval the extent and variety of promising practices MIT is undertaking in its efforts to increase the participation of women in its Physics Department and to ensure equal educational opportunity regardless of gender.

In particular NASA notes that MIT has very high numbers of women in its undergraduate physics program relative to other universities’ physics programs. Instead of using Title IX as a bureaucratic tool to enforce quotas, NASA performed a thoughtful review and provided useful recommendations to help us meet our goals of reducing the gender gap in physics.

While gender variation in abilities and opportunities or the balance of careers and family are often considered to be major causes of the disproportionate underrepresentation of women in Physics, several universities, including MIT, are implementing serious measures to mitigate the obstacles facing women who pursue a career in science.

The steps we have taken include affirmative action reviews of faculty and graduate student recruitment, paid maternity leave for graduate students and faculty, access to quality childcare, and automatic one-year delays in the faculty tenure clock for childbirth. Equally important are mentoring and support from faculty supervisors, department leaders, and fellow students.

A career in physics is demanding, exciting and satisfying — regardless of one’s gender, race or sexual orientation.

Edmund Bertschinger is the head of the Department of Physics.

I learned that it takes 3000 foot-pounds of energy to stop a brown bear.

This was the reason why the man at the bar, a cargo pilot, carried a .50-caliber rifle whenever he goes out with his two daughters. He also believed that Governor Palin was tough as nails, a force to be reckoned with that could clean up Washington. Our bartender agreed and nearly didn’t want to vote for her because then she wouldn’t be governor anymore. She had been good to the citizens of the state.

I was in Anchorage, Alaska for a mid-week conference on my research. Even though it meant the inconvenience of missing many of my classes, I took the opportunity to talk to as many people as I could and to glean Alaskan perspectives about the vice presidential debate, the Governor, the president campaigns, and the state of Alaska in general.

I had asked a Department of Urban Studies and Planning classmate from Anchorage for recommendations of a good place to watch the debate. She mentioned that I would likely find “wealthy Republicans” at a hotel a few blocks from where the conference was. So I walked over in the 40-degree weather to the Captain Cook hotel where Sarah Palin gave her victory speech for her gubernatorial campaign two years ago.

Plopping down at the bar in an upscale English pub, I noticed that people were excited. The bartender had been asked all day whether the debate would be on but the atypical crowd had a small and vocal Democratic contingent.

The polls going in were not encouraging for Sarah Palin — after the Katie Couric interviews, people were likely not to vote for the GOP ticket simply because of her and a majority believed she was too inexperienced for vice president. According to consensus, the debate was to be Palin’s last stand, a chance to stage a comeback and redeem herself of her gaffs in the most public of arenas. Expectations were low and people were anticipating a train-wreck performance.

Palin and Senator Biden strolled onto the stage with the Governor looking simultaneously funereal and precious in an all-black power dress suit topped with a bow-tie belt. (And while we’re on fashion, what in the world was moderator Gwen Iffil wearing with that sea-green fluffy suit?) Before Palin even made it to her podium, she thanked the audience and the moderator one too many times and looked little like a national politician out to kill.

As the debate started, Palin looked shaky. She spoke confidently and sternly about deregulation and the economy, but not comfortably. However, as the evening wore on, Palin eased into her stride and turned on the high-wattage charm. Her responses were fluid and easy as she proclaimed that she was going to “talk straight to the American people,” that portion of the country that resided on a Main Street consisting of hockey moms and “Joe Six-Pack.”

The evening turned out to be a proxy fight for the presidential candidates’ stances on the middle class. The old grizzled Senator Joe Biden was afraid to directly attack the pretty, winning lady across the stage and he laid into John McCain’s record as often as he could. Palin deflected easily and worked up her smile when quoting Reagan about the “city on the hill” and “government being the problem.” She tried to connect with the audience through her experiences as a busy mom and succeeded.

Palin spent the night straddling the edge between being too folksy and being too cute. During the first half hour, it worked. I couldn’t concentrate when Palin barely contained a smirk during Biden’s response after he flubbed Obama’s name for McCain. Only when the camera finally cut away from both candidates could I stop wondering what was going on in her head.

Afterwards, Palin was sure-footed and in her element when talking about Alaska and energy policy. You could tell by the casual head-toss and near-wink she gave to the camera, letting the nation know that “I’ve got this.”

It was only after her second actual wink and remarking about “Wasilla, Main Street” did the audience in the bar let off a groan. (The line also prompted someone to call out “Bingo” as they won the drinking game “Palin Bingo.”) Palin may have slightly overplayed her informality and congeniality but she flubbed less often than Biden and exceeded the low expectations of her.

Biden ended up looking old and establishment on stage. Credit Palin for forcing Biden to defend everything from his time in Washington to his record on Israel, and even his perspective as a man.

Afterwards, I asked those around me of their opinion on the debate and on Palin. Most people thought she did satisfactorily but not extraordinarily. One man, a shipping executive from the southeastern coast, explained to me that he did not take a liking to her until two months ago. He believed that she had managed the finances of the state quite well but it wasn’t until she reached the national spotlight that he started rooting for her.

In Alaska, you see, Palin is considered too sophisticated by half, a city girl in a frontier state. By being tapped for vice president, though, Palin was now thought of by the nation as the rural huntin’ woman who shoots wolves and fished for salmon. Most of the people I talked to conceded that she was probably in over her head. But to them, it was good that she was there.

The country already viewed Alaskans as destroying their state with oil pipelines and overfishing. In their opinion, calling a public works project “The Bridge to Nowhere” was an insult to a state whose capitol was land-locked and required a flight or a boat ride to get to. As the shipping guy said, “There’s a huge divide between rural America and urban America.” And Alaska was as rural as it got.

It’s no wonder then that Sarah Palin smiled her way through the debate. She succeeded in connecting with that portion of rural Americans that MIT students just don’t see in Cambridge or Boston. And by that measure, Palin had won over the crowd with her charm.

Gary Shu is a graduate student in the Engineering Systems Division.

News coverage leading up to Thursday’s Vice Presidential debate had us all believing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin lacked the skills and knowledge necessary to run for national office.

She proved us right. Palin did an impressive job at not doing much of anything, except being able to repeat talking points. The bar for Sarah Palin was set lower than for any other Vice Presidential candidate, and she barely stumbled over it.

The debate was wide ranging, and focused on domestic and foreign policy issues, putting Governor Palin in a situation she has been all too familiar with over the past few weeks: having to answer a question without knowing the issue. When speaking, Palin sounded desperate as she tried to fill her allotted response time, often reverting back to her connections with Main Street and referring to herself and John McCain as mavericks.

For instance, when the topic of the debate switched to education, Palin retreated into overtly cutesy defense mode, winking repeatedly and using her Fargo, N.D. accent to distract people from the fact that she didn’t really answer the question. Let’s look at one of her responses as evidence.

[The following was actually said in the Vice Presidential debate.]

Moderator: “Governor?”

Palin: “Say it ain’t so, Joe, there you go again pointing backwards again. You preferenced [sic] your whole comment with the Bush administration. Now doggone it, let’s look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.

“You mentioned education and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and God bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right?

“I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more.

“I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he’s a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

“Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards.

“No Child Left Behind was implemented. It’s not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line.

“My kids as public school participants right now, it’s near and dear to my heart. I’m very, very concerned about where we’re going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.”

Moderator: “Everybody gets extra credit tonight. …”

So, what exactly did she say? First, she smarmily told Senator Biden to “say it ain’t so” because he kept using McCain’s track record in the Senate against her. Second, she gave a compliment (?) to Joe Biden’s wife. Third, she said that teachers need to be paid more without saying how. Fourth, she made a shout out and gave extra credit to third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School.

I’m sure they’re happy.

Lastly, she gave an uninformed opinion about No Child Left Behind, making vague references to the need to improve our teaching resources and educational standards without providing any specifics. She deftly managed to dodge her way through questions, smiling and winking her way through the debate as she attempted to prove that she was just like an average American.

Truth be told, I don’t want an average American to be one heartbeat away from the Presidency of the United States. I want a competent leader with depth and breadth of knowledge on the issues. Joe Biden put on a cool, commanding performance, giving reasonable and informative answers to the questions he was asked. Biden gets it.

He understands the role that government plays in America. A main issue with No Child Left Behind is that it’s an unfunded government mandate, requiring states to comply with federal standards without the funding promised to implement changes necessary to bring them into compliance with the law. As a governor, Sarah Palin should be aware of this, but she wasn’t.

Two years ago, Sarah Palin was a mayor of a city of less than 10,000 people — a population smaller than the number of students enrolled at MIT. She’s had less than two years on the job as Governor, with a record devoid of any notable accomplishments.

Joe Biden has been a U.S. Senator for 35 years, and was instrumental in securing the passage of important policy reforms, including anti-crime legislation in 1994, which put 100,000 more police officers on the streets and instituted a comprehensive nation-wide assault weapons ban. His experience showed as he stayed on track, displayed readiness to engage in tough debate, and laid out actual policy proposals.

Elections are about the issues and who is fit to govern. Looking at Joe Biden, I see a confident statesman ready to assume the helm should anything happen to Barack Obama. Sarah Palin, while expressing rudimentary knowledge on some issues, couldn’t seem to get past talking points and sound bites last Thursday night. While Palin was able to avert a total meltdown during the debate by staying coherent, it’s clear that Biden was the general in command, using rhetoric, knowledge, and experience to rack up another win for Obama.

Dan Yelin is a junior in the Department of Political Science.

Chancellor Clay “celebrates community traditions” by chastising hackers. Cognitive dissonance much? — thumbs down

A new sorority touches down on campus. If you didn’t fit one of the others, here’s your chance. — thumbs up

Voter drives on campus register more than 500 students! No more complaining about youth ambivalence. — thumbs up

The shank of the new Grad Rat is no longer dominated by a HUGE letter G. This is a dramatic improvement.— question mark

ATO avoids being expelled from the IFC. Good for them. Enjoy MacG while it lasts. — thumbs up

Congratulations to Sarah Palin for correctly pronouncing “Ahmadinejad” in the debate. Well done. — thumbs up

Teetering economy adds a bit of extra urgency to that senior year job search. At least there’s always grad school, right … ? — thumbs down

The Presidential Debates allow the rest of us to hear the candidates’ stump speeches, sound byte by sound byte. — thumbs down

I chose MIT because of the stories: the great cannon heist, the police car, the student-run live-action role playing club, the simple trust that was placed in the intelligence and competence of the students — in letting them choose their own living groups that kept up their own cultures, often decades old, in letting them have a voice in any decisions affecting them. I guess I was imagining a sort of Utopia — 5000 of the funkiest, most brilliant minds from the entire country and around the world molding a homeland of their own in which to learn and live.

But the stories I hear now do not echo the ones that drew me in. Yes, Amy Smith seems now every bit as fantastic as she did then, the Infinite is respectably long and the people are ridiculously, scarily smart. I was mercifully allowed a decent voice in my housing assignment, and the Assassin’s Guild games run exactly the way all those stories promised. But there is another vibe that I wasn’t anticipating, of fear, maybe, or betrayal, or mistrust.

Many students feel that their preferences and opinions, though “valued,” have little effect; though many lines of communication with the administration are open, few are effective and even fewer have any strong feel for what MIT is, what sets it apart. Yes, the people here are brilliant, the best of the best. But I could have gone to a dozen other schools if I wanted to study with brilliant people. I came here because of the traditions, the culture of openness among everyone in the community, but have found it only in small packets, sparsely spread, while the reality seems to be that students are having to choose between getting into grad school and continuing tradition, that such tradition is often not well understood by the administration and other higher-ups.

Student leaders have expressed a feeling of helplessness, as though they’re playing a game whose rules were never posted, working for goals — from dining preferences to clear consequences for actions — facing dead end after dead end. Transparency in admissions is something MIT takes pride in. Perhaps it is time that we widen the scope of transparency at the Institute. We need to see how students can make it clear what is most important to them, from the ground up, in ways that will yield results, not “consideration”; in how traditions are to be maintained so that what is now a gallery does not become a sealed museum remembered only by visiting storytelling cruft and tour guides reading off their printed pamphlets; how to make it so that MIT’s particular brands of students can continue to maintain their place in the world.

Last summer, I saw the Dark Mark rise above the student center in the dark of predawn, and I declared I’d found my people. But this isn’t the MIT I’d heard about.

Elaina K. Present is a member of the Class of 2012.