Category: Opinions

Evacuate. This is a command I never pictured myself to be a part of. And yet on July 22nd of this summer this command became reality for many around me.

This summer I worked in the heart of the West: Glacier National Park (GNP). It was an incredible summer filled with hiking, stargazing, and- at the beginning- bonfires, but as July started to wind down bonfires were no longer an option: my park, our park, was on fire.

I worked at the East entrance to GNP right off the famous Going to the Sun Road, which takes you directly through some of the park’s most famous scenery. On July 21st at 4:30pm my manager informed us that, at the time, a small fire, the Reynolds Creek Fire, had started near the major park attraction, Logan Pass. We, the employees, should know in case customers started asking about the smoke filtering into our site. Thankfully the fire was not a threat- yet.

By the next day the fire had more than doubled and out location was drenched in smoke. With a raging fire just six miles away, we could no longer see our beautiful mountain ridgeline. The sun was red and the sky was from then on ash.

My life this summer was fully submerged into the impacts of climate change. It is important to realize that forest fires are often a natural occurrence with lightning strikes being the most common cause. However, as Discover Magazine reported in late July, “more than 60% of the [West] is in severe drought.” This is not a natural cycle: rising temperatures, caused by human activity, are creating conditions that are drier, harsher.

According to the National Wildlife Federation longer fire seasons exist now because snow is melting, on average, 1 to 4 weeks earlier than it did 50 years beforehand. Furthermore, it is projected that by mid-century western North America’s temperature rates are expected to rise 3.6 to 9 degrees more by mid-century and it is projected that 11 western states (including Montana) will double in amount of forest fires per year.

Our nation has reached a schism between those who believe climate change is both real

and caused by human activity and those who do not – the latter is unfortunately where much of the evangelical community falls.

It is here that I ask: How can so many still stay in the dark? As reported last year by one of Time Magazine’s 100 Most Influential People, Houghton’s guest speaker climate scientist Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, 97 % of climate scientists believe that climate change is both real and anthropogenic (caused by humans).  

According to the National Interagency Fire Center, as of today, September 3rd, the U.S.A. has a reported 59 large fires with 14 of them located in this state I have come to love. So far in 2015 over 8.4 million acres in the USA have burned, a number shockingly greater than the 5.6 million acres burned in the past ten years – combined.

I recognize that statistics can only do so much for a reader. But this article is not just a statistic. It was a reality for me this summer and is still a reality for all.

Daily, tourists of GNP innocently ask why no glaciers are visible driving down Highway 89. My gut reaction each time is to laugh- as if, glaciers were simply plastered to the side of each mountain for tourists to casually view out of a car window. However, truth be told, the glaciers once were much more visible. Before coming here, countless friends and family asked if I was going to GNP to see the glaciers before they melted since as the National Park Service reports GNP houses 25 glaciers presently compared to the over 150 glaciers once here in 1850.

Furthermore, this year GNP has had far less snowfall and rain than ever before. The rafting water I went down this year barely reached Class 2 rapids instead of the normal Class 4 rapids. A favorite hiking destination, Iceberg Lake, was home to only two icebergs instead of tens. I only slid down snow shoots during June when usually the snow is far more abundant.

My summer here will be remembered as one clouded in smoke. This summer five fires have burned in GNP and neighboring areas. Most mornings I wake up in a haze.

As I reflect on my Montana experience, I also look back on my summer I am reminded of summer’s beginning. Before I came to GNP I attended my family reunion in Ohio. My family is composed of evangelical believers who, unfortunately, accurately portray the evangelical demographic when it comes to views on global warming.

We sat in the humid early June evening gathered around a campfire.  As people finished their food family member repeatedly threw Styrofoam plates into the fire. My sister and I exchanged appalled looks: did our family members not realize what they were doing?

After the fifth plate was thrown, we mentioned that burning Styrofoam was extremely bad for the environment. At this comment my uncle, who loves boy scouts to bird watching, stated, “Global Warming doesn’t exist.” I was shocked. This man who grew up taking his sons to Yellowstone and Yosemite, this man whose own son was an Environmental Studies major, pointedly refused to believe the facts.

Why are so many unwilling to face the facts? Why do so many refuse to act? Our faith calls us to steward the earth. Our chance is quickly fading though to make a difference. Yet, it is not too late. As this academic year at Houghton begins I encourage all to look at the impacts we each take part in and see how you can make a difference. Personally, I recommend looking into the group Eco Reps led by Sustainability Coordinator Brian Webb here on campus.

We must all recognize the truth: climate change exists. Whether it is a forest fire in Montana or a harsh winter in New York there is clear evidence of new and detrimental shift.

Last summer, I was scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed, and I noticed that a large group of high schoolers who I am friends with went on a short term, or one week long, missions trip to Guatemala. I noticed that these young men and women put photos online to display their servant-like-attitudes and their parents, mostly mothers, shared these photos commending their children for all of the good that they are doing in the world.

In particular, one mother captioned a photo of her daughter holding a Guatemalan child on her lap by saying, “My daughter is amazing. She is changing the world.”

This is a pretty bold claim to make. The fact that her mother, and many others, see short-term missions as an opportunity to bring the “hero” in to “save” people in countries such as Guatemala is extremely troubling.

In his book, Toxic Charity, Robert Lupton wrote, “Contrary to popular belief, most missions trips and service projects do not: empower those being served, engender healthy cross-cultural relationships, improve quality of life, relieve poverty, change the lives of participants [or] increase support for long-term missions work.”

True servants are not seeking praise or recognition for their good deeds and Michelle Acker Perez, long-term missionary, suggested in Relevant Magazine that if you are planning on being a “hero” for a week while on a missions trip, then you might as well not even get on the airplane.

I hear too often about people who want to go on mission’s trips because they want to travel around the world. I mean, let’s be real, who wouldn’t want to go to these awesome places for a week’s vacation? Long term missionaries Hannah Nielsen and Jenny Collins said in their article on Shorttermmissions.com, “the ease of travel and the number of agencies eager to accept short-termers has made it possible for ‘experience junkies’ seeking an adventure to participate, even though they may not be truly interested in selfless cross-cultural service.” This can leave the local communities or long-term missionaries embittered, feeling as if they have been used to host a glorified vacation that used up valuable time, energy, and finances.

Additionally, there is an issue in missions with people doing services for others who could easily do the project themselves. “Last time I checked, people in developing countries can paint a wall, so why are you doing it for them?” asked Perez. Missions trips should be about doing things with people, not for people.

Perez’s question resembles this story that I have heard many times throughout my international development courses: if you give a man a fish, you have fed him for one meal. If you give him a fishing pole and teach him how to fish, you have fed him for a lifetime. “We need to be the ones to paint the church, build the ditch, and put on vacation Bible school. We can’t just send money. We have to send people. These are what causes me to question motives,” said Darren Carlson, founder and president of Training Leaders International.

It is estimated that close to two billion dollars is spent a year on short-term missions trips alone in the United States according to Thegospelcoalition.org. Before you’re willing to spend anywhere from $1,000 to $3,000 for a week long “vacation” and “helping” those in the country you are traveling to, I encourage people to turn around in their own backyards and serve those in your local community. Ask yourself, if Jesus was in my neighborhood, who would He be talking to? Would he be talking to the homeless man that lives in your park? The kid with disabilities who never has anyone to partner with for school projects?

If you do decide to take a short-term missions trip, I encourage you to research the activities and the organization you will be serving with. Will the work you are participating in be working with the communities or for the communities? Will you be putting people out of jobs by conducting construction based missions work such as building a church? Is this work even relevant or sustainable for the community?

When you enter a different country, you are an ambassador for your own country. Be willing to ask questions and share about yourself and American culture, as well. Even then if you decide to go on a short-term missions trip, I encourage you to come back with stories and names of people that you served with, not just an entire album of cute nameless kids.

One time when I was home for break, my mom told me this: “you’ll never get a husband if you don’t shave your legs.” She wasn’t trying to be mean. My mom is a great mother and only wants the best for me, however; this sentence encapsulates what is wrong with Western Christians and their ideas about female purity in the context of sexuality and marriage.

In Christian communities, I’ve been called “sasquatch” and have physically repulsed people because I am a woman with leg hair. I’ve been told that it’s gross that I wear spandex shorts for volleyball but don’t shave my legs. My female friends with tattoos have been asked “what if you can see your tattoo in your wedding dress?” and “what will your future husband think?” Growing up, I wasn’t even allowed to wear fake tattoos since my body is a temple and all. The idea of female body image is deeper than just leg hair and tattoos. It surrounds our culture and influences how we raise our children.

These microaggressions (see Luke Lauer’s thesis art project in the Ortlip gallery about this very topic) against us ladies are based on the premise that our main priority as women is marriage. Nigerian Author Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie as quoted in Beyoncé’s song Flawless discusses gender roles and feminism:

“Because I am female … I am expected to make my life choices always keeping in mind that marriage is the most important. Now marriage can be a source of joy and love and mutual support but why do we teach girls to aspire to marriage and we don’t teach boys the same?”

I don’t know how many of you use Spotify, but there is one ad that has popped up while I’m listening to music that has some unknown singer say she feels most confident on stage with smooth legs. Really? Not because you have a great voice or have been working really hard on your vocal range or are a good person? I understand that this is a marketing ploy, but it’s perpetuating the lie that women have to maintain physical beauty in order to be accepted and feel worthy. Men don’t have to look good in order to step outside their house or feel confident.

The end tagline for this ad is “start taking care of your legs.” This implies that shaving is a sign of hygiene; something my mom has said to me as well. Granted, college has changed my hygiene standards, but I’m not a total slob. The fact that I don’t shave has nothing to do with my cleanliness. Men with facial hair aren’t considered unclean.

Two years ago I stopped shaving my legs. Why don’t I shave my legs? There are practical reasons: I think it’s a waste of time, money, water, etc. There are also reasons of principle: men don’t have to shave their legs according to society and I believe in equality.

Body hair is natural. God gave it to both men and women for real biological reasons. Only recently have women started removing body hair regularly (1915 for underarm hair and 1930/40 for leg hair).

Despite my personal resistance of leg shaving, I do not believe every woman should shave. Feminism is about a lot of ideas but to me it is all about choice; doing what you want because you want to and not because of societal ideals and gender expectations. Do I look down on other women who shave? Of course not. If that’s what makes you comfortable, then you do your thing. There are other legitimate reasons for shaving one’s legs no matter your gender: swimming faster or improving aerodynamics because of cycling, etc.

Moral of the story, shave your legs or don’t because it’s your decision. God gave you hair and it’s your choice what you do with it. In the meantime remember my battle cry: “haters gonna hate / shake em off.”

Dear Students,

For all the complaints that Houghton is too small, too rural, and too “bubble-like,” there is much to be said of its merits on these accounts. Living in such a small community is of course frustrating at times, perhaps even boring, but it provides us a wide array of unique occasions for involvement, commitment, and dedication. In some ways Houghton can feel fairly limited in what it has to offer students in comparison to other significantly larger schools, but in other areas our opportunities far exceed the collegiate status quo.

Being involved on campus is one of those things your Transitions leader urges you to do your first couple of weeks here, an injunction most of us blatantly ignore, too caught up in the excitement of our first year. However, after the nerves have settled and we fall into a routine, the chances to be involved start springing up like the flowers we hope will emerge after the much-too-long winters. We have quite a plethora of opportunities at our disposal: the SGA, The Drawing Board, Printed Matter Press, Global Christian Fellowship, the STAR, and dozens of other clubs, all of which are chances to make our marks on campus, to create our legacies. While involvement certainly has its resumé-building perks for us students, it is also is incredibly beneficial to the college as a whole. Committed students help make Houghton distinctive and a place hopping with creativity; we elevate Houghton’s reputation and add to its street cred. In all seriousness, Houghton would be a much less vibrant place without the bustling of students organizing floor events, performing SPOT skits, slamming poetry at a Lanthorn event, or singing their hearts out at a CAB coffeehouse.

Being involved gives a dimension to your college experience that isn’t communicated with the piece of paper they hand you when you walk across that stage. When you’re involved, Houghton becomes your Horcrux. I mean this in the best way possible: you give a little part of yourself to the school, and that little part you leave behind becomes an indestructible and valuable connection you will remember fondly twenty years down the road. I won’t lie, in the midst of finals or if you’re juggling a double major, involvement really does feel a bit like selling a piece of your soul. Not to worry though, you’ll emerge more intact than ever.

I came to Houghton with the mindset that I would only eat, sleep, and breathe my classes, graduate in three years, and move on to bigger and better things. After all, isn’t that the point of college? Thankfully I’ve changed my mind. You’ve been given this chance to become a part of Houghton’s narrative and to let its story shape yours, so why not embrace it? My advice to you is this: find your sanctuary from academics and worship there regularly.

Holly Chaisson ’16 – Past, Present, & Future STAR Editor

 

Dear Class of 2015,

Here we are. The final issue of the STAR. The end of the last full week of classes. And for about a quarter of the population, the end of college altogether. Alas, four years is far too short a time to live among such excellent and admirable hobbits… I mean people. “I don’t know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve”… but that is what reunions are for.

When I started at Houghton, I was that first year who sat at the front of class, went to basically every campus event, and thought I knew everyone on campus. I went to every chapel my first semester and looked down on those above me who scanned and scrammed. I thought Houghton was the best place in the world.

A lot changed between then and now, as I am sure is the same with many of you. I now sit towards the middle-back of most of my classes, I scrape together barely enough time to finish my work, and now feel like I know hardly anyone on campus. I desperately need these last few chapels and now understand why the upper classes were scanning and scramming.

Through all four years of varying degrees of bitterness or fondness, I can’t say I always thought Houghton was the best place in the world. Now though, as we draw to the end, I can say I think Houghton is one of the best places in the world.

Sure we had a lot to complain about, but in the grand scheme of things walking to get your napkins, living through polar vortices, or taking an IS class you didn’t really love don’t matter all that much. It’s the people who care about those complaining students. Having a VP of Student Life willing to listen and talk to you about issues you are passionate about even though he’s late for a meeting; having intellectual conversations with President Mullen on a bench outdoors; and we all have that Professor that is willing to help you with anything, at any time.

Let’s not linger on those little things we didn’t like, but remember the people who made this little biodome bubble worth coming to.

I want our class to be a good collection of alumni, not some hoard of peasants. Some of you may never want to come back. Other may say “Why would I ever give more money?” I say keep in touch and be an alumni that’s an asset to your alma mater. Don’t be one of those alumni we are worried about offending, be a friendly advisor and guide, not a Facebook troll.

Maybe who don’t see yourself coming back to campus, but be an alumni students can contact to find their first job or internship. Maybe you can’t give a ton of money while paying back your loans, but I say it’s worth investing, in any small way, in the place and people that invested in you.

In closing, Class of 2015, you’re a pretty awesome bunch of people and I don’t think you are peasants, so don’t be after you graduate either. Go do great things out in the world, but keep in touch and remember what the people at Houghton did for you.

“I regret to announce — this is The End. I am going now. I bid you all a very fond farewell.”

Luke Lauer ’15 – STAR Editor & Historian President

Samuel P. Huntington’s thesis on the “Clash of Civilizations” is a seminal work in political science. The work describes a post-Cold War theory of conflict that occurs between groups of nations, monolithically bound together by their ideologies. No longer were individual states warring against each other; the industrialized and post-colonial countries now warred over cultural differences, not for the pursuit of territories or economic properties.

Huntington’s thesis was countered by Edward Said in his “Myth of the Clash of Civilizations”. Said’s primary criticism of the thesis was that it grouped cultures too homogeneously. In his speech, Said outlined his criticism thusly,“Huntington defines Islamic civilization reductively, as if what most matters about it is its supposed anti-Westernism. I mean it doesn’t matter to him that Muslims have other things to do than to think about the West with hatred. But you get the impression that that’s all they are thinking about is how to destroy the West, bomb it and destroy the whole world really.” The myth that Said makes reference to ought to be broken by examining the more nuanced and individualistic qualities of cultures. One must break a culture into sub-cultures and further break this sub-culture into sub-sub-cultures ad infinitum.

Although, as academics, Huntington and Said would be repulsed by the suggestion that a proper approach to the foreign entity might be found in the middle-ground between the two philosophies, that is exactly what I would suggest.

When one begins to address a foreign entity – sex, race, political philosophy, country, city, town, club, group, team, major, etc. – one must begin as Huntington suggests, defining a culture by its known tropes and stereotypes. Truly, there is no alternative. We cannot separate our deeper prejudices, whether good or bad, without complete emotional reservation. Where we must differ from Huntington is in how we treat our judgements.

Firstly, we must not allow any prejudice to keep us from pursuing a meditation and understanding of the entity. Every culture, no matter how violent, intolerant, or dull it appears to be, is worth a deeper examination. There are always motivations for every aspect of a society. One can rarely be too granular in dividing a culture into parts. Even the motivations of individuals may be subdivided at least once or twice.

Secondly, we must allow for the possibility that our judgements will change. One must admit that one’s understanding can, at any point in the process, be wrong. Perhaps you think physics majors give their opinion pieces pretentious titles. Here you would have some evidence in your hands, but in order to understand that culture properly, you must be open to the idea that next week another physics major will publish an opinion piece with a non-pretentious title. It is a definite possibility.

Through these steps, we apply Said’s thesis, breaking a culture down into sub-cultures. However, these subcultures cannot be understood without some application of generalization. Therefore we are required to take Huntington’s approach of stereotyping again. This is then followed by Said’s in a cycle that breaks and constructs new deeper cultural understanding with every iteration. This approach is applicable to any foreign entity, even to an individual.

In practice, you select a group, let us say “people who hang out in the coffee shop”. Look at what assumptions you can make about the group: they drink coffee, they are college students, they listen to music on headphones, they use laptops, etc. Don’t let any of these assumptions keep you averse from getting to know “people who hang out in the coffee shop”. Dive into learning about this group. Find that not all of them use laptops. Develop two categories: “people who hang out in the coffee shop who use laptops” and “people who hang out in the coffee shop who don’t use laptops”. You begin the process again, splitting these groups even more until you reach the absolute limit perhaps, “woman who hangs out in the coffee shop who uses a laptop, listens to Arcade Fire, drinks black coffee, wears jean jackets, runs every now and then, has read Camus, etc. etc. etc.”

You might be able to see a few problems with this. The perspective is wholly superficial. Despite this, there isn’t enough time in the universe to fully analyze everyone in the coffee shop in this way.  The finished description is non-plastic; it can’t contain the person’s changes throughout their life, only those that are present at a precise moment.

Despite these known limits, a moderated application of this Huntington-Said cycle works against prejudice and toward a better understanding of the foreign other. It is this understanding that must always be sought. It brings a greater peace between people and cultures.

One of my favorite Christian bloggers is beginning a review series on Tim LaHaye’s (author of the Left Behind series) book How to Win Over Depression, a self-help manual popular in conservative evangelical circles.

LaHaye’s work is a reflection of common misconceptions that Christians often hold about people with depression. With chapter titles such as “Self-Pity and Depression,” followed by “How to Overcome Self Pity” and even “Depression and the Occult”, LaHaye promotes the idea that depression stems from an individual’s character flaws. In the introduction he even states: he is “certain that most depression (is) caused primarily by sin, a faulty thinking pattern, or some failure on the part of the individual to claim the promises of God.”

This lie cannot be tolerated any longer.

Depression is not brought on by a character flaw, failing to love Jesus enough, or not having memorized enough Bible “promises”.

Rather, depression is one of those awful things that happens for reasons we cannot always explain. Depression is like a tornado, and just as a tornado may destroy a homeless shelter yet leave a crack house standing, sometimes good, loving, kind people, including Christians, are chemically imbalanced or experiencing major life difficulties. The jerks who deserve to be depressed are probably out skipping in a sunny field somewhere.

Even Christians who understand this may still cling to another destructive idea: that depression is a hindrance to faith. For a Christian to be useful to the Kingdom, depression must be “dealt with” ASAP.

Yet when I read the Scriptures what I am presented with is quite different. Instead I see Job and Naomi, two people who suffered tremendously yet found the love of God in the midst of long term despair.

In two sudden series of tragedies, Job lost his family, his wealth, and his physical and emotional health. He went from being a respectable man to being a horribly disfigured nobody. His friends who sought to care for Job found him on the ground, self-harming with a sharp piece of pottery. (Job 2:8)

Contrary to what many would assume of a depressed person, Job the wallowing, depressed cutter came face to face with God. He asked Yahweh deep questions and received profound answers in return. While many flip to the end and think that Job’s redemption came when his heirs, belongings, and health were restored, the actual redemption Job experienced happened in his hold-nothing-back dialogue with God. This communion with God occurred when Job was in the depths, screaming to the heavens “Why?” and cutting his arms.

Anyone who feels like a spiritual failure because of stumbling into self-harm should read the story of Job and take heart.

Then there is Naomi, who suffered through famine, the death of her husband and sons, poverty, and the infertility of her daughters in law. Upon her return to Bethlehem, Naomi declared that Yahweh had turned his back on her and that she was bitter as hell for it.

Praise God that Naomi had a friend (Ruth) who resolved never to leave her, who sacrificed her future for her well being. Notice that Ruth did not exhort Naomi to claim the promises of God or pray to be delivered from self-pity.

As Christians we believe that in Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, there is no part of the human experience that Jesus has not been through and overcome. I am not claiming that Jesus experienced depression, though it is certainly possible. In the Passion narrative, Jesus cried out to God, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mark 15:34)

At this moment, God knew how it was to feel abandoned by God.

If God has felt the full weight of hopelessness and abandonment, then to say that depression is a hindrance to God is just wrong. Depression will not keep one from God because God was there, is there, and will be there.

Therefore, I encourage all of those at Houghton who suffer from bouts of depression to take shelter in the empathy and compassion of God.

I ask all those at Houghton who know someone with depression to be a witness to that love and compassion in word and deed.

The Disappearance of Ninety-Three Million American Workers and Business Startups.

“Who is John Galt?” and why is the US economy experiencing a large loss of job participation coupled with the lowest numbers of new business start-ups in decades?   John Galt was a fictional character in the novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.  Rand emigrated from the Soviet Union in the 1920s and was tainted by her own experience in a communist system.  Rand demonstrates how a mixed economy ushered in by Roosevelt’s New Deal would become like the system she fled.

In Atlas Shrugged, John Galt is an inventor of a self-sustainable engine that can run without fuel.  Galt knows his new invention will either be confiscated by the government for the “good of society” (because no man should profit off of his ideas) or possibly the invention will be heavily regulated (because it would displace workers at engine factories and energy producers).

Rather than subjugate his invention to the will of the bureaucrats, Galt scraps it. Then he secretly plans a strike against the government with an unlikely group of people consisting of innovators, entrepreneurs, inventors, talented professors, upper management, and gifted college students.  Instead of demonstrating or rioting, Galt simply makes these people “shrug” by vanishing, while the government levies a war against the innovators by coercion of excessive taxes and regulations. These policies enable the bureaucrats to confiscate wealth, seize control of companies and compel innovators to give up their intellectual property rights.  As the government takes control of industries it becomes incapable of running complex organizations in a safe and efficient way. The economy collapses and society slips into anarchy.

Today, John Galt seems to lurk inside the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) participation rate numbers; in the last decade we have seen disturbing job participation rates. People not participating in the labor force have hit a record 93 million high. The BLS has shown that men’s participation rate has dropped from 87% in 1948 to 70% in 2013. Women, who have made great strides in the participation rate since 1948, have also faced participation rate declines.  In 1999, the participation rate of women reached its high of 60% now it is 57%.

While the retirement of the baby boomers accounts for some participation losses, the vast majority of age appropriate workers go unaccounted for. Also blue-collar work has dropped significantly in the two decades, but the number of Americans collecting disability benefits due to injury has more than doubled since 1995.  According to Scott Winship of the Manhattan Institute, the government “passed new reforms in 1984 that in time made it much easier to receive SSDI (Social Security Disability) benefits and keep receiving them until retirement.”

Workers seem to disappear and, at an alarming rate, businesses do as well.  New business startups have dropped significantly due to burdensome regulations.  The number of young firms going under within the first few years has increased. Consequently, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, for the first time in 30 years, business failures now outnumber business startups. The federal government has many outdated and contradictory regulations that hurt the entrepreneurial spirit.

Jonathan Ortmans of the Kauffman Foundation noted that “as new regulations are enacted on top of existing rules, businesses are faced with the challenge of navigating an increasingly complex regulatory regime.” Complex taxes have weakened the entrepreneurial spirit also. Ortmans said, “Tax complexity and uncertainty, like regulatory complexity and uncertainty, divert the time, attention, and energy of entrepreneurs away from the essential tasks required to successfully launch and grow their businesses amount to mortal threats to new businesses, particularly in the critical early years.” Regulations stifle startups in banking. For instance, there has only been one new bank created since the passing of Dodd-Frank–a bank regulation bill–in 2010.

When our current political leaders, such as our President, tell entrepreneurs that “you didn’t build that, somebody else made that happen”, one must question if Ayn Rand’s writings were a warning.  Lawmakers and regulators should remember government is funded by tax revenues from workers, owners, and companies.  Not the other way around.  American innovation and industrial strength were built by entrepreneurs who carry the weight of American job expansion upon their shoulders.

We need to stop passing laws, regulations, fees and taxes that injure our enterprise system.  If we do not stop, we are doomed to a similar plot found on the pages of Atlas Shrugged.  In 1942, to encourage hard work for the war effort, the Westinghouse Corporation created a poster later called “Rosie the Riveter.”   In the illustration, Rosie rolls up her arm sleeves, flexes her muscles and says, “We Can Do It”. We need that can-do; we can build that, American spirit in our own vocation and in our political leadership once again.