Anglischism

Somewhere I remember reading, or at least just totally making up, that one of the basic tenets of happiness through Buddhism is accepting the world and getting over it.

Roughly translated, that means: “Eh….”

I’ve tried applying this to various parts of life (the Bush years were very helpful in this department) and am using the attitude to deal with the current goings-on in the Anglican Communion. As an Episcopalian, a member of that big religious family that comprises the various denominational children begotten of Henry VIII and a stubborn Pope, I’m in the loop every time someone gets unhappy. That happens a lot.
In brief, it’s 2009, there’s a black president, women are people too, we’ve stopped burning gays as fuel, and some folks are incensed.

Pun intended.

Specifically, the Roman Catholic church is making it easier for dissatisfied Anglicans to make a break for Rome:

Am I worried that this is the end of my denomination? That massive flocks of Anglicans will suddenly start saying their Hail Marys even louder (I’m hoping I’m in good stead – I always use the blue candles around her icon)? That trumpets will sound and my home parish will come a-tumblin’ down?

You mean that out of an Anglican Communion of 77 million people, someone’s not happy? Well, that’s to be expected.

“Eh….”

Really, I’ve come to the realization that it’s impossible to make everyone happy. Even if 999 people were soaked in juicy bliss with rainbows shining out their… that last 1 person would be ticked because everyone else was being so damn content. And that’s why being at Disney World too long pisses me off.

So I’m sorry not everyone’s happy, and I try really hard maximize world jolliness, but when I understand that no matter what I do, no one’s going to be totally happy, I can only muster one word… “Eh…”

It’s not that I don’t care, it’s that I just really don’t care all that much. My apathy is my greatest strength. I mean, when MTV can’t find eight people that can peacefully cohabitate on “Real World,” it sets a pretty low standard for harmony in the third largest Christian community on earth. Accepting that there’s no way to ultimately make everybody happy, we have to figure out what to do.

Interestingly, it doesn’t really matter, and I suddenly feel enlightened.

“Ommm….”

See, no matter what we do, we’re going to lose some people. We’ve always lost people. Every time we adopt a new prayer book we lose people. At some point somebody lost people when they dropped doing their whole service in Latin… (Yeah, I’m talking at you, Pope Benedict). We lost people when we let blacks in. Now we’re losing people because we let women play too. If we let more gays be clergy, we’re gonna lose even more people.

But if we aren’t accepting of gays, we’re still gonna lose people – them and a bunch of other folks who’ve figured out it’s 2009, there’s a black president, women are people too….We’re always going to lose some people, and we’re always gonna gain others.

As is, we’ve got some folks who’ve left. But we’ve also got some folks who’ve come into the church because we have a more accepting stance on their innate sexuality – i.e. we don’t spend every Sunday morning damning them.

By my guessing, it’ll come out a wash and there’ll more harm, heartache, and heartburn come from navel-gazing and second-guessing ourselves on how many gay angels can’t dance on the head of a straight pin than from our denomination just deciding to walk the right path and not looking back.

What the hell – when in doubt, try doing the right thing.

And sub-Saharan Africa’s got a problem?

Eh… what else is new.

JOHN DERRICK

Read more...

The Internet Cocoon

The New Yorker's Elizabeth Kolbert writes an interesting piece on how the internet contributes to the rise of political extremism. That might seem a little counterintuitive; after all, the internet brings everyone closer together, right? Well, right...and wrong. Yes, it does bring people together. Unfortunately, it unites the same kinds of people--it allows conservatives to surround themselves with other conservatives and liberals with other liberals.

They end up strengthening one another's biases. It's a well known fact that if you put two conservatives--or two liberals--in a room together and get them started talking politics, they'll end up in a never-ending cycle of agreement. The first guy says he doesn't like Barack Obama; the second guy, wanting to prove his worth as a conservative, disagrees: he HATES Barack Obama. And so it continues from there.

The internet, then, allows not only for the growth of extremism, but also to the spread of malicious and downright false political rumors. Kolbert cites the "birther" movement as a perfect example. There's plenty of evidence out there definitively proving that Barack Obama was born in the United States and not in Kenya or Switzerland or wherever. But because birthers tend to frequent only hard-core conservative websites, they never see this evidence. Even if they do they dismiss it as a liberal propaganda. These kinds of bizarre political movements couldn't exist without the internet.

But I think Kolbert makes a serious mistake when she argues that this paranoid extremism is a purely right-wing phenomenon. She writes:

Several decades ago, a detachment of the American right cut itself loose from reason, and it has been drifting along happily ever since. If the birthers are more evidently kooky than the global-warming “skeptics” or the death-panellers or the supply-siders or the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, they are, in their fundamental disregard for the facts, actually mainstream...The historian Richard Hofstadter’s description of the far right in the era of Barry Goldwater could apply equally well today: “I call it the paranoid style simply because no other word adequately evokes the qualities of heated exaggeration, suspiciousness, and conspiratorial fantasy that I have in mind.”

Sorry, Miss Kolbert, but Hofstadter's argument was outdated two decades ago. The conservative movement is just a troglodytic reaction to the modern age. We're not all tin-foiled-hatted kooks on the lookout for black helicopters. I would add that political paranoia has plenty of practitioners on the left. A liberal friend of mine once solemnly informed me that Halliburton was building "concentration camps" in the Great Plains to house dissidents. And what is the 9/11 "truther" movement, if not the left-wing equivalent of the birthers?

Stupidity knows no color, creed, or ideology. There are stupid liberals and stupid conservatives. There are stupid libertarians, stupid anarchists, stupid socialists, and stupid centrists. That's how politics works and always will work.

WILL SCHULTZ

Read more...

The Tea Party Line

It was supposedly Benjamin Disraeli who called conservatives "the stupid party." So far this year, Republicans have been doing their best to prove him 100% right. For proof, check out the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Though the 23rd narrowly voted for Obama in 2008, it's still Republican territory. GOP Rep. John McHugh was re-elected with 65% of the vote in 2008.

But that was then and this is now, and now doesn't look so good for the GOP. Doug Hoffman, a former Republican, has broken with the party and is now running as the Conservative Party candidate. He's getting support from the usual conservative suspects: Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Club for Growth, et cetera, et cetera. Hoffman might just cost Republicans the election a recent poll shows him splitting the conservative vote with Dede Scozzafava, the Republican candidate, giving Democrat Bill Owens a narrow lead.

This is why talk of a GOP revival in 2010 is, for the moment, highly overrated. The Republicans will never win until they get their ideological house in order. Do they want to move towards the center to win back moderates? Or would they rather move right and re-energize conservatives? It's hardly a recent debate; the conservative and moderate wings of the GOP have been duking it out for decades. But the party's never been in worse shape than it is now. They need to come to some kind of consensus, or else risk being wiped out for the third straight election.

It's decision time for the GOP. Right or center? Moderate or conservative? They don't need to come up with a final answer. But they need an answer. And they need it fast. Only a year to go before the midterm test. Tick-tock...

WILL SCHULTZ

Read more...

The "Don't Give Me That Crap" Theory of Jurisprudence

I have a comprehensive theory of recent United States Supreme Court church and state jurisprudence.

You have to be a First Amendment geek to know how ballsy that statement is. Really, it’s pretty confusing – why is one ten commandments display judged kosher while another is condemned as meshugana? I hope I used that right… go easy on the gentile, I’m a shegetz.

Very recently the Supremes--of the John Roberts variety, not the Diana Ross kind--heard a case about a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert… because when the Death Valley VFW post wants people to ignore a monument, they go all out.

Why does anyone care? It’s in the shape of a cross. There’s been a cross-shaped memorial there since 1934, but it's only now that someone has gotten upset about it. So now there’s a memorial to our WWI dead that stands in the Mojave desert in a plywood box.

What will the Gang of Nine do? I’ve got some ideas about these sorts of cases. I call them the “Don’t Give Me That Crap” view of jurisprudence. Somehow, this theory didn’t fly in the church/state course I took in law school. I think I used to much reality and not enough Latin.

Here’s the way it works – say you’ve got two ten commandment displays at two different courthouses. One of them is erected by conservative Christians intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because they think that the United States isn’t Christian enough. They try this case in the US Supreme Court building, which has a frieze of Moses and the ten commandments over the entrance.

Go figure.

The second display has been around forever and nobody’s really cared, but now somebody, hungry to be oppressed (I imagine them at home, desperately sanding “In God We Trust” from all their coinage and being deliberately unthankful on Thanksgiving) is intentionally trying to stick a fork in Chief Justice Roberts’ eye because...they think the United States is too Christian.

Why, on the same day, does the Court declare commandments one through ten out of bounds and eleven thru twenty fair play? Well, the Supremes don’t like getting jabbed by some little tattletale troublemaker. Under my theory, the Court has adopted a “Don’t Give Me That Crap” approach: don’t go around looking for a fight and then come crying to the Court because you want a nation of theocracy/Godless heathenism – don’t give me that crap.

What Justice Breyer, the swing vote in these cases, really wants to do when some Bible-thumper-who-can’t-stand-the-existence-of-atheists-and-Episcopalians or zealot-atheist-(or Episcopalian like me)-who-won’t-deal-with-conservative-Christians tries to give him an earful is to come down from the bench and jam the fork up the offending party’s...well, you know. But he can’t, so he just votes against them. And after Breyer is done with the utensil, Scalia wants to take it and stick it in their throat.

Under my theory, if you’ve got a legitimate beef, the Supremes will do you right. The desert war memorial cross case has some interesting issues in play, and I’m curious to see which ones the Court latch onto. Regardless of which way they swing, I’m sure I’ll find a way to spin their decision to say they’re enforcing my theory – I’m a lawyer.

But if you go to the Court just to gripe and moan, they’ll send you packing with a fork up your….

Read more...

Screwing Over the Huddled Masses

We’re being immigration visa jerks and that’s gonna hurt us in the long run.

America’s always done well by taking everybody else’s best people and making them ours – Einstein, Von Braun, my mother.

Okay, those were all Germans, but I’m sure there are good people from other countries who also came to the US.

It works out well for the United States – we get brilliant physicists, rockets that take us to the moon, and me. Who can complain about that? We attract smart, hardworking folks to our industries, universities, and culture, and milk them for all their worth.

Seriously, folks, we won WWII with a guy named Eisenhower. Doesn’t sound like a Native American name to me – we used a German to whup the Germans.

But part of this system is us being willing to work with foreigners. That’s pronounced “Furrnurs.”

Better yet, try saying it without any vowels.

If we’re gonna brain drain the rest of the world, we have to be willing to play the immigration game and have a relatively open (one-way) door to the international neighborhood (and bars on the windows). If we close the door too tightly, Prof. Wu will go unravel genetics at Cambridge and Dr. Schneider will go open his company in France.

Instead, we’re being tools.

I know a British woman doing public interest work here in the states, trying to fix things we’ve screwed up for free, and we’re making it an unholy pain in the arse for her to stay more than a few months.

And that’s how we treat our friends! C’mon – we’re allies with the UK. They’ve been our closest friends in the global game of Risk ever since we kicked them out. They’re the only ones who’ve had the pluck/bad judgment to stick with us in Iraq in any force!

Then there’s a German buddy of mine who wanted to come study here. There was a metric tonne of paperwork, and when even a German complains about the paperwork, that’s a lot.

My buddy had to make an in person visit to the consulate in Munich – I dunno, to show folks he didn’t look like a terrorist or something – but the best I’ve heard was about some foreign academics at a local university. They couldn’t apply to renew their visas till, say, two months out from the expiration date. But it’d take the government six months to process the paperwork….

"Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses” and screw em."

JOHN DERRICK

Read more...

Thoughts on Obama's Nobel Prize

A few days have passed, and we've all had time to think over the meanings and implications of Barack Obama's new Nobel Peace Prize. Most people are still puzzled. Why him? Why now? Most--but certainly not all--pundits think that the award came much too early. A few think he should turn it down. Others say that, no, he really did deserve it.

My reaction? I thought of Notre Dame football. No, wait, I can explain! Think back a few years, to when Ty Willingham was head coach of the Fighting Irish. Notre Dame's storied program looked on the verge of collapse. Willingham's biggest crime was that he couldn't beat arch-rival USC. Each and every time the two teams played, Notre Dame took an unholy beating. After three years of this, the school kicked out Willingham and brought in Charlie Weis.

Weis also lost to USC. But--here's the thing--he almost won. That's what made the difference: it looked like Notre Dame was at least trying to win. That was enough to land Weis a multi-million dollar contract for a gazillion years.

So it goes with politics. Bush is Willingham and Obama is Weis. Obama hasn't actually done anything, but he seems to be trying. He won the Nobel Peace Prize for efforts rather than achievements. Is that a good or a bad thing? You decide. But be warned--the Weis experiment hasn't worked out so well for the Irish.

OK, one last thing. For an interestingly contrarian take on the Nobel, read David von Drehle's piece in Time. I don't know if I agree, but it's a very thought-provoking argument.

WILL SCHULTZ

Read more...

Change for China

With all of the discussion of energy saving this and green that, what are people around the world actually doing to combat global warming? The UN Summit for Climate Change met this past Tuesday, September 22, at the UN headquarters in New York in hopes of drafting a treaty proposal to be signed in December at the UN Climate Conference. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, who chaired the summit, stressed that “now is the moment to act in common cause” to create a greener world and to aid developing countries in reducing emissions.

This summit has led President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao to actually agree on something. Although China currently has the highest carbon dioxide emissions in the world, Hu promised that Chinese greenhouse gas emissions would slow within the next ten years. China plans to use renewable resources to generate 15 percent of its energy, and further intends to plant over 300,000 square kilometers of trees. This commitment to cleaner energy comes as a surprise to most of the international community, as China has primarily focused on maintaining its economic growth rather than protecting its environment. Hu did not give any details about how China is going to decrease emissions, causing many countries to doubt China’s sincerity.

The United States is among these disbelievers. Although the United States produces the second-highest amount of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, it is asking for exact figures explaining what China is going to do. But there’s a whiff of hypocrisy here--Obama failed to give any concrete figures of his own. This new policy from China has now “added pressure on the United States and other developed countries to accept deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions”. In response, President Obama has tried to put the pressure back on China by arguing that rapidly developing nations “will need to commit to strong measures at home and agree to stand behind those commitments just as the developed nations must stand behind their own” (guardian.co.uk).

Although some countries may not believe it, much of the world is applauding China’s actions. Al Gore and UN Chief Ki-Moon have both lauded China’s proposal. This is a large yet necessary step towards doing something about global climate change. China is finally moving in the right direction, no longer using its developing status as an excuse. In light of these high expectations, it will be interesting to see what becomes of President Hu’s plans at the convention in Copenhagen this December. Maybe the world is finally moving together in the right direction.

LUCY EMERSON

Read more...

Jonah Goldberg and Happy Warriors

Last night, Carolina hosted a speech by Jonah Goldberg, conservative pundit and author of the bestseller “Liberal Fascism.” Say what you will about Goldberg, but he gives a darn good speech. The crowd interrupted him with applause more than once—especially when he declared that “the GOP needs to stop being pro-business and start being pro-market.” Everyone in the crowd, especially the libertarians, went nuts.

One of Goldberg’s lines really stuck with me. He said that conservatives need to be “happy warriors.” I think he’s right. For the past couple years, the prevailing mood on the right has been an unpleasant mix of bitterness, grimness and self-pity. No wonder the party’s in trouble—if the people already in the party seem to hate it, why would anyone else want to sign up?

The GOP has always been the anti-government party—or, at least, the not-quite-as-big government party—so it’s no surprise that its elected officials are a little ambivalent about their jobs. They return to their home districts, rail against Washington, and then go back to their offices in DC. No wonder there’s some cognitive dissonance. That doesn’t mean, though, that they have to hate their jobs.

The most successful Republican in modern history, Ronald Reagan, projected a spirit of optimism. He was Hope and Change while Barack Obama was still in college. He was the ultimate Happy Warrior. That’s what the GOP needs, I think. They don’t necessarily need to go back to the policies of Reagan. What they should be wishing for is someone with Reagan’s smile, his charm, his sense of confidence. Only then will the Republicans have any chance of recapturing the White House.

WILL SCHULTZ

Read more...

Rights for Refugees?

A refugee crisis is brewing in the Southeast Asian nation of Myanmar. The ruling military junta has destroyed thousands of homes, forcing more and more Burmese to flee the country every day. Many seek asylum across the border in Thailand; as of August 2009, there are roughly 133,000 documented refugees living in 9 camps. The Thai government has tried to ignore the problem and, when confronted with pleas to give more support to the refugees, it argues that some of its own citizens are living in worse conditions. Yet Thailand is actually one of the more accommodating countries in the region, accepting more refugees than any other Southeast Asian country. Most of the aid for the camps must therefore come from NGOs like the Thailand Burma Border Consortium (TBBC).

The Thai government offers little to no protection for the refugees, leaving matters in the hands of the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The huge influx of Burmese refugees means that the UNHCR has been given a greater role along the Thai-Burmese border. They are the only organization to focus on refugee protection, but due to a rocky relationship with the Thai government, even this goal is difficult to achieve. Thai authorities believes that the UNHCR is overstepped its boundaries; furthermore, Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a key legal document that defines refugee rights. The Thai government has never given the UNHCR access to other groups in need, such as the Lao refugees at the Huai Nam Khao camp. In Thailand, local integration has never been possible; locals regard the refugees as illegal immigrants. Although the refugees’ basic needs are met, they do not have much freedom. It is illegal for them to leave the camps, which overflow with problems like domestic violence and substance abuse. If the refugees do leave, they are subject to arrest and deportation by Thai authorities. The UNHCR is helpless to do anything about this, as the Thai government has control over the camps and over immigration policy

The plight of the Burmese illustrates the enormous problems facing the UNHCR. Because refugee camps around the globe are in dire need of resources, and because the UN is supposed to remain neutral, the UNHCR must pick and choose which refugees will receive aid—and which will go hungry. There is also a money problem: UNHCR only receives 1% of its funding from the General Assembly, while 99% comes from other donors. The United States is one of UNHCR’s primary sources of funding, which has led to fears that the UN will favor American policy on refugees. Others fear that the refugees will become dependent on aid from the UN. Some camps have better living conditions than the refugees would receive in their home countries.

In order to provide protection for the Burmese refugees, UNHCR’s goal is to provide third-country resettlement, as repatriation to Myanmar is not possible. They also seek to reduce violence in the camps and to make it easier for non-Burmese asylum seekers to obtain refugee status. There is still much to be done regarding the refugee situation in Thailand. Other nearby countries such as China are only now realizing the gravity of the situation; they have to face the sobering fact that the end to this crisis is not near.

For Further Information on UNHCR: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/home

LUCY EMERSON

Read more...

Challenging Burr

As of Tuesday, September 9, 2009, it’s official: Elaine Marshall is running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Richard Burr (R-NC), making her the first top-tier candidate to enter the race. Other potential top-tier Democrats, such as Attorney General Roy Cooper, U.S. Congressman Heath Shuler, U.S. Congressman Bob Etheridge, U.S. Congressman Brad Miller, U.S. Congressman Mike McIntyre, former State Treasurer Richard Moore, and Lt. Governor Walter Dalton have declined to run. (It’s worth noting that a similar situation arose in 2008, when well-known Democrats declined to face then-senator Elizabeth Dole. National Democratic leaders eventually settled on state senator Kay Hagan, who, despite an initial lack of name recognition, went on to win the November election by nine points, 53%-44%.)

So who is Elaine Marshall anyway, and why should we care that she’s running for Senate?

Elaine Marshall is North Carolina's Secretary of State and has been since 1996, when she became the first woman to hold statewide office. Her first election was her most notable, as she faced NASCAR legend Richard Petty in the general election. Marshall won in spite of Petty’s fame and has been re-elected three times since, most recently in 2008 (Marshall’s electoral history can be found at the end of this post). Before becoming Secretary of State, Marshall served four years in the North Carolina State Senate, representing Wake County’s 15th District.

This isn’t Elaine Marshall’s first try for U.S. Senate, though. She ran in the 2002 Democratic primary, but came in third to nominee (and current president of the University of North Carolina system) Erskine Bowles and state senator Dan Blue in a nine-way primary race. But 2010 isn't 2002. The political climate is vastly different. Marshall is the only prominent Democrat to enter the primary, for one; more importantly, in the 2008 election North Carolina’s 15 electoral votes went to Barack Obama—the first time NC voted for a Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976.

Marshall doesn’t have the nomination wrapped up, though. Durham lawyer Kenneth Lewis is already in the race, and former state senator Cal Cunningham has expressed interest in joining the field. Lewis has not held political office, but he has worked behind the scenes on several political campaigns.

Despite Marshall’s edge in experience, initial polling for the Senate race doesn’t favor any candidate. North Carolina polling firm Public Policy Polling conducted their most recent poll (PDF) on August 14, which shows:

• Burr leading Cunningham, 43-28
• Burr leading Lewis, 43-27
• Burr leading Marshall, 43-31

So Marshall may not increase Democrats’ chances right away, but her experience and her relationship with activist Democrats in North Carolina may give her the fundraising advantage. This will be crucial in toppling a sitting incumbent.

Regardless of who wins the Democratic nomination, history is on his/her side despite the polls. No sitting senator has been re-elected to North Carolina’s Class 3 Senate seat since Sam Ervin in 1968. Richard Burr’s looking to break the trend, but as this race develops, will he find himself in an uphill battle?

For more information on Elaine Marshall, check her profile at the News & Observer and/or her Secretary of State biography.

Electoral History

2008 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (2,316,903)
• Jack Sawyer 43% (1,762,928)

2004 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 57% (1,911,585)
• Jay Rao 43% (1,423,109)

2000 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 54% (1,512,076)
• Harris Durham Blake 46% (1,265,654)

1996 NC Secretary of State Election
• Elaine Marshall 53% (1,333,994)
• Richard Petty 45% (1,126,701)

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Read more...

Scandal in Louisiana?

Since November 5, 2008, political junkies and analysts alike have been discussing the possibilities of 2012, focusing on the potential makeup of the Republican field. Various names surfaced, including now-disgraced governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina and former governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin of Alaska.

Another name, though, received significant mention earlier this year—Governor Bobby Jindal of Louisiana. Jindal gained this attention after he was selected to deliver the Republican response to Obama’s first address to Congress.

Jindal’s name vanished, however, as discussions about 2012 quieted and as President Obama’s legislative plans concerning the economy and healthcare took center stage. Yet Jindal’s name continued to surface in some political circles, especially in discussions about the future of the GOP.

In a party plagued by scandal and confusion—such as John Ensign’s affair, Mark Sanford’s affair, and Sarah Palin’s mysterious and unorthodox resignation as governor of Alaska—Jindal’s name offered a promising alternative. Jindal’s brief national appearance gave him greater name recognition, which, coupled with three years as a congressman and his current post as governor, made him seem like a viable candidate.

But there’s a new wrinkle in the story. Jindal was recently accused of using taxpayer money for political purposes. He spent $45,000 in state funds to visit parishes that he lost in the 2003 gubernatorial race—leading to charges that he is trying to shore up his electoral support.

This action has added Jindal’s name to the list of so-called fiscal conservatives whose actions say the opposite of their words. According to a report from the Associated Baptist Press, Jindal spent the cash financing helicopter trips all across the state. The expense was discovered by the Rev. Dr. Welton Gaddy, a preacher at Northminster Baptist Church in Monroe, Louisiana, and president of the Interfaith Alliance, an organization which (according to their website) “celebrates religious freedom by championing individual rights, promoting policies that protect both religion and democracy, and uniting diverse voices to challenge extremism.” Gaddy wrote an open letter to Jindal on September 1, calling on the governor to reimburse the state for the expenses.

Jindal’s actions have not yet created a major scandal, but any proverbial skeletons in proverbial closets can create problems for politicians, especially those seeking the highest office in the nation. A statement issued by Jindal’s spokeswoman, supposedly in response to Gaddy, only makes things worse:

“This political group opposes putting crosses up in honor of fallen policemen, has attacked the National Day of Prayer and advocates for same-sex marriage, so it's not surprising that they are attacking the governor for accepting invitations to speak at Louisiana churches.”

The problem with this statement is two-fold in that a) it fails to address the issue of wasting taxpayer dollars—something Jindal has continued to campaign against—and b) it goes into dangerous territory by attacking a reputable organization that promotes religious freedom—a key right outlined in our Constitution. Jindal’s counterattack isn’t even a substantial argument. Millions of Americans support gay marriage, and Rev. Gaddy countered the statement by saying that it was a mischaracterization of his organization. The Interfaith Alliance did not oppose the National Day of Prayer—only the group which organized it. Concerning the display of crosses for fallen policemen, Gaddy said the spokeswoman was referencing a lawsuit in Utah in which a panel ruled that crosses were secular symbols

Clearly, Governor Jindal has made some missteps here, like many of his Republican colleagues. Perhaps he isn’t the savior the GOP has been looking for after all. The 2012 election remains several years away, but if Jindal does intend to run, these are not the steps he should be taking if he hopes to topple an incumbent president.

TRAVIS CRAYTON

Read more...

Welcome Back!

Welcome back! Today kicks off the return of The Hill’s blog. We have an all-new blogging staff, so expect plenty of new posts in the weeks ahead.

For those of you not familiar with The Hill, we are the University of North Carolina’s first, best and only non-partisan political review. We’re dedicated to analyzing the latest trends in politics and public policy, both at home and abroad.

Crisis in the Middle East? That’s our beat. Obama trying to push a new bill through Congress? We’re on it. The Hill tells you what’s happening and why; it gives the history behind current events, and tries to predict what the future holds. All non-partisan, of course. We don’t do bias.

The Hill’s blog is a little different. Because the magazine appears only twice each semester, it’s hard for us to keep up with breaking news. That’s what this blog is for—instantaneous commentary and feedback. Check it for weekly updates from our talented team of writers and bloggers.

The past few months have seen plenty of high-profile news stories: Sotomoyar’s confirmation. Specter’s defection. Kennedy’s death. Elections and riots in Iran. Warfare on the floor of Congress. From now on, The Hill will be able to give stories like this the coverage they deserve.

Though The Hill is scrupulously non-partisan, that doesn’t mean we’re bland. Our bloggers won’t simply report the news. They’re here to give their opinion, and they will give it, freely and plentifully. They cover the entire political spectrum, from left to right and everything in between. We’re nothing if not balanced.

So enjoy! This blog is here for you, the reader. Check in to see what’s happening in the world of politics. See what our bloggers think. Leave your own comments. Discuss. Debate. And, as always, be sure to read The Hill.

Read more...

International Politics, Chicago Style

The now admittedly doomed (and therefore sometimes desperate) John McCain for President 2008 campaign did its very best to paint Obama as a doe-eyed idealist, prepared neither to lead the free world nor to face down the world's fiercest dictators. Obama's interactions with Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega at the Summit of the Americas last week seemed to confirm some of those fears. Pat Buchanan recently wrote a scathing article in which he called Obama an "apologist," unwilling to defend his country. Obama's inaction even caught the attention of some on the left, such as Eugene Robinson, who urged Obama to "slap back." But there are signs that Obama's Chicago past have produced a hardened politician, albeit one that doesn't fit the inside-the-beltway profile one would expect in a President.

First, there is a thoughtful post by the ever-impressive Daniel Larison at The Week, which interprets Obama's behavior at the Summit as calculating and wise. Second, there is speculation that Obama is playing hardball with the new Israeli government, something virtually no US President has had the courage to do since Eisenhower. Allow me to explain.

For those of you who missed it (and missing it was simple, because the US media completely ignored it), Jeff Stein of CQ Politics broke a story alleging that Rep. Jane Harman (D-CA) had been overheard (via NSA wiretap) promising an Israeli agent that she would "waddle into" into an ongoing case, in which two AIPAC lobbyists have been accused of spying on the US government. In return, the Israeli agent promised to lobby Nancy Pelosi to make Harman the chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee. Quite the quid pro quo, especially considering it would essentially mean that a foreign government had played a major role in installing the leader of a vital intelligence oversight body. But what does all this have to do with Obama?

The story goes on to say that then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales aborted an FBI investigation into Harman, because "he needed Harman’s help defending the administration’s warrantless wiretap program." So the case was dead. How are we coming to know about it now?

Enter Philip Giraldi's post on the American Conservative Blog:

"My spook friends are speculating wildly but the theory that seems to make the most sense is that the White House is extremely angry about the Netanyahu government’s trashing of the peace process and also by his appointing of former Mossad spies Naor Gilon and Uzi Arad to senior positions, as both were involved in the Larry Franklin/AIPAC case. The Administration is apparently seeking to demonstrate that it will not be pushed around by Bibi and is showing that it has teeth by taking aim at a prominent Dem politician who stepped over the line in demonstrating her enthusiasm to play ball with AIPAC. This is pretty much speculation at this point, but I have heard from several independent sources that the White House is extremely vexed with Netanyahu and is going to tell him that his delaying tactics on substantive negotiations with the Palestinians will not be acceptable, so it might seem likely that a little pushback is taking place. Whether the Obamas will allow Harman to walk the plank remains to be seen."

Though this is entirely speculative, it seems plausible. The Obama team has shown that it's willing to let other Democrats take the fall in order to strengthen their position (read: Chris Dodd and the AIG bonuses). And the Israeli government seems to be responding in kind, with the new Foreign Minister saying that "the US will accept any Israeli policy decision." We may never know if this is what's really going on, but it's worth considering.

-MATT TUCKER

Read more...

Obama's War

Sad as it is, one of the most profound observations so far about Obama’s short tenure as President came from a Tweet by Iowa's 75-year old senior Senator, Chuck Grassley. While Obama was announcing a new ‘surge’ of 21,000 troops into Afghanistan, Grassley tweeted:

Now it bcomes Obama War Not Bush war any longer

To be sure, Obama’s move wasn’t exactly a surprise. He made a significant speech during the general election outlining his vision for a more vigorous war in Afghanistan, and he suggested the possibility of attacking Pakistan during a primary debate (he's continued and intensified controversial strikes by Predator drones in the border regions, and his focus on the internal affairs of Pakistan suggests further involvement is possible). Despite the fact that he campaigned on the issue, Sen. Grassley is right: these actions have transferred ownership of the Afghan war from Bush to Obama.

So what are we to make of this "comprehensive, new strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan"? Let's take a look at the speech Obama made, where he announced the "surge":

1. One of the most significant parts of the plan was an appeal to our European allies, NATO members in particular, to contribute, saying that it was not only an "American problem." However, NATO committed nearly no new troops after Obama's trip to Europe earlier this month.
2. Obama, in what is arguably a vast improvement over Bush's execution of military expeditions, defined an explicit goal: "to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan , and to prevent their return to either country in the future."
3. Obama repeatedly emphasized that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inextricably linked in this conflict, though I'm afraid that conflicts with the historical reality of their relationship. According to Dr. Amin Tarzi, who spoke at UNC earlier this month, the Afghani and Pakistani governments do not recognize each other. This complex reality is just one crippling legacy of British colonialism in the region (more on that in a later post).
4. Obama takes a page from the liberal book of international politics in emphasizing the need for economic security and education. Dr. Tarzi said this will only work if the people of the region don't know the US is backing these efforts. As former CIA officer Michael Scheuer said in his piece, "Afghanistan: Where Empires Go to Die," "absence makes the Afghan heart grow stronger," implying that the US's footprint should be as light as possible when possible.

Given these objectives, what are the facts on the ground that we can anticipate?

First, McClatchy Newspapers reported last month that multiple Islamic militant groups reached a unity agreement in which they agreed to put aside their differences and focus on repelling the new troop surge.

Second, the President Zardari just signed a peace deal with the Pakistani Taliban, committing the Pakistani government to enforcing shari'a in the Swat region. The Wall Street Journal is reporting that this is already emboldening the militias and giving them new ground on which to train.

These two events are particularly frightening, especially in light of this video, which shows how hostile and heavily armed people in the Northwestern region of Pakistan are.

There are certainly more things to consider about "AfPak," and I intend to write a fairly regular post about the developments in the region, in addition to presenting some of the religious, social, and geopolitical history so that we can better understand what is actually going on there.

-MATT TUCKER

Read more...

Environmentalism

Environmentalism doesn’t have to mean cold showers and warm beer: sometimes it can be just a matter of getting our heads out of our… and doing the little things we should be doing anyways.

I had a friend in college who would leave the fan on in his dorm room while he was at class and such. I asked him why he was wasting the energy – a fan doesn’t even keep things any cooler, it just moves the air around and feels good when you’re in the room – and he replied that it wasn’t his electricity. Maybe he was just being sarcastic, but I don’t recall him then turning off the fan. I do remember that he’s a wonderful, swell, smart guy who’s probably reading this.

On a related note, these days I’m doing a little research into mercury advisories for fish. Apparently, wild catfish in NC, including in the municipal pond I fish out of at Anderson Park in Carrboro, have so much mercury in them that there’s an advisory against me eating more than one serving a week. That’s just six ounces. And for “women of childbearing age, pregnant women, nursing mothers, and children under age 15” the advisory says “Do not eat” (that was boldface in the original, http://www.epi.state.nc.us/epi/fish/safefish.html).

How is this related to my friend with the fan? Well, coal power plants, like the ones that produce the hunk of our electricity, also produce mercury that billows up into the air, drops down into our ponds, gets ingested by fish and then eaten by us.

I’m pretty sure that my friend isn’t responsible for the exact molecules of mercury in the last catfish I caught, but I think if enough people were willing to take the extra second and a half a darn worth of caring to turn off their fans, lights, TVs… when not needed, then I might be able to maybe eat two servings a week of catfish.

Whether we like it or not, we’re all connected and each of us affects everyone else on Earth.
Darn, that’s deep.
So please stop being such …holes.
Darn, that’s honest.

I’m not saying (as I type this on a laptop in a well-lit, climate-controlled office) that we don’t need electricity. I’m not advocating people make major, martyr-ific sacrifices in their lives – going to bed at sundown, bumping into things in the dark, reverting back to some sort of 15th century, pre-industrial level of suckiness.

But is it all that hard to turn off the freakin’ fan?
Instead of a cold shower, how about taking a minute to install one of the low-flow shower heads some folks are giving away these days. Instead of drinking warm beer, how about folks saving electricity, and money, by not heating their places to 80 degrees in the winter and cooling to 60 in the summer?

If you’re going to drive ten miles to the gym to hop on the treadmill then swing by the tanning salon on the way home, griping about gas prices the whole way, couldn’t you just go for a walk on a sunny day?

These are some lessons I learned from my friend with the fan. Failing them, if you want to get folks’ attention on energy issues, you’ve got to make them pay out the….

Like at the gas pump.

-JOHN DERRICK

Read more...

The Hill 101

Aloha, hello and welcome! Today marks the official start of The Hill's blog. As you might know--probably from reading the previous post--The Hill is UNC's non-partisan political review.

This blog will further The Hill's mission to cover politics both at home and abroad. Our blog will offer a mix of commentary, reporting and interesting links, all courtesy of some of our best writers.

I need to explain one more thing. Because of the way this blog has been set up, all posts will be attributed to "WS." Well, this isn't quite true. Our writers will be creating the posts; I'm just the guy posting them. I'll make sure to note the ACTUAL author of each and every post.

For your reading pleasure, I'd like to offer a couple sites worth checking out. This will have to do until we set up a blogroll:

RealClearPolitics: A terrific website that collects and collates the day's best commentary.

Political Wire: A must-read for any political junkie.

TAPPED: Political blog published by the liberal journal The American Prospect; if that's not your taste, try The Corner, from the conservative magazine National Review.

Andrew Sullivan: One of the first major bloggers, and still one of the best.

Instapundit: The godfather of conservative blogs.

Stay tuned for most posts in the future! This blog has just begun to fight!

Read more...

Welcome to the official blog of The Hill!

As the University of North Carolina's only nonpartisan student political review, The Hill serves as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus.

This blog is intended to extend that same functionality online. With the absence of the space restrictions that sometimes limit coverage in the print edition of The Hill, our team of bloggers will have the opportunity to go more in-depth on a range of issues. Please feel free to contribute using the comments feature below each post, and please send ideas and comments to the editor.

Read more...