One year after Mohammed Taheri-Azar’s attack on the Pit, it is sobering to think that Carolina’s only physical protection from a similar act of terror are the metallic three-foot poles known as bollards that guard the entrances to campus. These retractable rods – small in size, unassuming in appearance – that dot the roads and pathways from Davis Library to the Bell Tower and Memorial Hall are the last line of defense for the thousands of students, faculty, and workers who come to the University each day.

Thankfully, a first line of defense is thousands of miles away in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries in the Middle East. Each day, over 150,000 American soldiers put their lives at risk to defend American civilians at home by fighting in terror’s breading grounds abroad. These soldiers, whose mission is often criticized in the press and derided on television talk shows, are vital to America’s safety and continued freedom.

As Carolina learned on March 3, 2006, terrorism is difficult to prevent. When a terrorist boards a plane, constructs a bomb, or, in Taheri-Azar’s case, rents a car, it is essentially too late to avert the attack. Airborne U.S. Marshals, bomb-sniffing dogs, and bollards can only do so much to stop an enemy intent on killing. By seeking out the root of terror in the Middle East, however, the United States military can disrupt and destroy terrorist activity before it has the opportunity to reach American soil.

No doubt, taking the initiative against terror comes with a high price. American forces currently face chaos in Iraq, military expenditures have spiked, and some Middle Eastern governments have become increasingly reluctant to cooperate with the United States. Worse, the American military cannot prevent every terrorist from entering American soil. Taheri-Azar, for example, lived nearly his whole life in the United States before carrying out his attack.

Yet the War on Terror’s cost cannot compare with the consequences of withdrawing American soldiers from the Middle East. Terrorists want to destroy the United States not because American forces occupy the Middle East, but because the United States – its freedoms, its culture, its values – represents a ‘great Satan’ in radical Muslim thought.

Pulling back from the front lines will not curb terrorist activity, Leftist arguments to the contrary. Instead, America will expose itself to an energized enemy, eager to exploit our vulnerabilities at home. Without a presence in the Middle East, America’s margin for error will shrink from the streets of Baghdad to our shores, cities and hometowns. We will have invited the enemy to our gates.

And in Chapel Hill, at least, only bollards will stand in terror’s way.

----

Get the March issue online now.

Carolina Review is excited about new changes to our blog. The most obvious change you may have noticed is our new design. The blog's new look now incorporates the look and feel of our whole Web site to provide a consistent experience across our entire site. Links to old posts and access to comments remain unchanged, but now the blog is even easier to navigate since it contains links to our entire online features.

In addition, we will now post an item when a new issue is released. This posting will give you a chance to read the lead editorial and comment on our issue. Check out our February issue (below) and look forward to more postings over the remainder of the year.

We hope you enjoy the improved Carolina Review blog, and please send us your feedback at cr@unc.edu.

The University of North Carolina prides itself on tolerance. From study abroad opportunities to the academic diversity requirements, the University seeks to ensure that its students have access to a broad range of ideas and beliefs. Undoubtedly, such exposure expands students’ perspectives and creates multiple learning opportunities both inside and outside the classroom.

Yet one viewpoint is often conspicuously absent from Carolina’s wide array of tolerance: the voice of conservatism. Although the University rarely silences conservatives outright, many of Carolina’s policies, programs, and instructors work in unison to ridicule, diminish, and degrade conservative beliefs.

One recent example of this lack of acceptance can be found in the University’s selection of Sister Helen Prejean’s The Death of Innocents for the Summer Reading Program. Prejean’s book follows the emotional journey of two men whom the author believes were wrongly executed. With each twist and turn, Prejean attacks the practice of putting prisoners to death. Indeed, according to the Daily Tar Heel, at least one committee member expects that, “Students who are for the death penalty will be forced to defend their position.”

Of course, defending one’s beliefs is a hallmark of the learning process, and academic institutions should present alternative positions to foster creative thinking. At the same time, however, the University rarely confronts the convictions of its liberal students. The Summer Reading Program, to take one small example, stands as a glaring testament to the fact that conservatives will be ‘forced to defend their positions,’ while liberal students can find reinforcement for their beliefs within Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed or Michael Sells’s Approaching the Qur’án.

The 2007 selection promises to be no different. While not all conservatives advocate the death penalty, the vast majority of freshman who will come under fire for supporting execution, will hold conservative beliefs. Their experience in the orientation book discussions will be baptism, so to speak, for the necessity of standing up for their views while students at Carolina.

Some will lose their way, but the truth is, regular confrontation only makes most people more certain of their beliefs – more adept at defending what they knows is right. At Carolina, conservative students will learn to polish their arguments and exercise their minds, while liberals, overwhelmingly, will simply be able to regurgitate the beliefs of others.

Perhaps liberals hoping to make the most out of their collegiate experience, therefore, should advocate for a summer reading book that challenges their ideals. As philosopher John Stuart Mill so eloquently put it, “He who knows only his side of the case knows little of that.”

By now you have probably heard all about how John Edwards has resigned his post as Director of the Center on Poverty, Work and Opportunity. The DTH commented on it here and the News&Observer commented here.

An interesting aspect of the story is what the new director (and the former deputy director), Marion Crain, told the DTH. "It's pretty much the same as what I was doing before," Crain said. In other words, Edwards really didn't do much of anything while he was the director.

This just confirms what the Review has said from the start. Check out our earlier musings on the Committee to elect Joh..., I mean the Center on Poverty here and here.

Okay, so it's been a while. That happens sometimes. But we're back. Hope you enjoy a new semester full of news, commentary, and art from the conservative perspective.

On Wednesday, Nov. 15, Students for a Democratic Society led yet another protest. Here's the DTH story on it. This a group that has been resurrected at liberal campuses all over the country this year. And their main activity is protesting. They protested John Aschcroft speaking at UNC earlier this year by holding signs outside of Memorial Hall and interrupting him during his speech. Read about it here and here. And just a few weeks ago they led a protest in the Pit in which they claimed that Army recruiters are racist b/c they try to entice recruits with money for college. A disproportional number of poorer people are minorities. Therefore, recruiters are racist.

But the best protest yet was on Wednesday. About 30 students and townspeople met on McCorkle Place and marched the mile down E. Franklin St. to the soon-to-be-opened Army recruiting office. I walked with them to see if anything interesting happened. It did.

Other than the guy on the side of the road yelling "F--! You, You 'F--$'" most of the response during the march was positive. There was a lot of honking of horns in support of the protest. The interesting part came when the group arrived at the recruiting office.

There were about 10 Korean and Vietnam war veterans waiting for the protestors. As the group chanted "Hey, Hey, Ho, Ho, this recruiting station's got to go," one of the Korean war veterans yelled back, "Don't you know anything else to say," and "You brat babies haven't had to work a day in your life."

It was a pretty ugly scene. Luckily, however, the veterans calmed down and let the protestors sing their silly chants, and things didn't get out of hand.

Then some of the protestors said a few words.

A representative from the American Friends Service Committee(AFSC), a quaker group that does programming against war, was promoting a program of the AFSC called "What's Next" that tries to inform young people about their options and tells them not to believe what recruiters tell them.

A student protestor said over the megaphone that the war in Iraq was an "imperialist war" with a "poverty draft."

A woman speaker claimed that "recruiters target women for sexual assault." Supposedly, the only reason women are recruited is so that male enlistees can sexually assault them.

Most of the veterans kept quiet during the event. One of the Korean war veterans told me that he just came to show support for men in the military. "When you've been in the military, you know what it is to support one another," he said.

A Vietnam veteran told me that going into the army was the best thing that ever happened to him. It was a character-building experience and he got money to go to college and to get his MBA. "These people are feeding the enemy propaganda," he said.

As the event drew to a close, I shook the hand of one of the korean veterans and told him I appreciated what he had done. And as the signs blaring "recruiters lie, civilians die" and "stopping fascism starts at home" I felt embarrassed to be a UNC student.

Two articles of interest today about campus politics.

The first is an AP story about how Students for a Democratic Society has reemerged on campuses. Read about it here.

The second, and more important article, is in the American Conservative. In case you don't know, this is the magazine founded by Pat Buchanan. It's one part protectionist, two parts anti-war, and 1/2 part crazy. But this article is excellent. Read about it here.

It talks about how campus conservatives are not in touch with the intellectual underpinnings of the conservative movement. Instead of reading Kirk, Weaver, Hayek, Buckley, etc., most college republicans want to be "activist" and shake things up. Now activism is great, but you have to have philosophical grounding or you will start supporting things that aren't conservative at all. For example, you won't see the college republicans criticizing Bush, eventhough, as conservatives they should be.

That's where Carolina Review comes in. We are the intellectual forum for the conservative movement on campus. The libertarian vs. conservative debate on marijuana in our upcoming issue, for example, shows some philosophical life in the movement. And that's what the book club we did last semester was about. We read essays from the founding conservatives and examined what they argued about back then.

So, hopefully we'll get back to that, but in the meantime, anyone interested in what it means to be a conservative, should read the article in the American Conservative, check out www.isi.org, and be a reader of what Albert Jay Nock calls "serious" books. That means books that require you to think and reflect. Nock wrote that this world has plenty of people that are literate, but few people who really know how to read. Be able to read.

I was reminded today that tomorrow is Columbus Day and it made me think about a letter I wrote to the DTH my freshman year. It was in response to some leftist dribble that had been published the previous day. Here is the (unpublished letter):

Yesterday, there was a letter to the editor printed in the DTH that discussed the meaning of Columbus Day. Brooks and Locklear remind readers that “the portrayal of Columbus as a hero is not only naïve but incorrect.” They then assert that Columbus was a murderer of peaceful peoples and conclude that “this day should be used to memorialize the indigenous people who lost their lives because of this invasion.” Though I concede to the point that Columbus’ accomplishments are misunderstood, I must disagree full-heartedly with the editorial.

First of all, not since the 60s have elementary textbooks portrayed Columbus as a hero and the “illustrious discoverer of our country.” As everyone knows, he landed in the Caribbean. The textbooks that I was forced to read spend many pages on the damage that men like Columbus and Cortez inflicted upon local populations.

Secondly, the emphasis on the killings of Native Americans by the first discoverers is misguided. Yes, Columbus killed natives. And men like Cortez came shortly after to kill many more. But the native people were not exactly like they have been portrayed in popular movies like Pocahontas and Dances with Wolves. Tribes warred with one another, pillaged, and did what they could to survive. When Cortez conquered the Aztec’s, it was not one violent group destroying another group of high morals. It was the conquering of a people that believed in human sacrifice by a technologically superior group of people. It had been going on for thousands of years in Europe.

Columbus Day is not about a hero or a murderer. It is a day that commemorates the uniting of the world. It is a day that highlights the beginning of globalization; a turning point in the progress of human kind. If Columbus had not made his famous journey, another man would have at a later time.

Therefore, no one should be irked by these celebrations. And those Leftists that would say that Columbus’ misdeeds are representative of the history of the United States are sorely mistaken. The actions of an Italian explorer do not taint the character of a nation founded two-hundred and fifty years later. This country has a list of its own sins, committed by its citizenry, which have been reckoned with. Let us only consider Columbus Day, a commemoration of a “New World,” not the holiday of a nation or the kindling flame of a grieving people.

This week, someone will undoubtedly sound off in the DTH about how this is a racist holiday and how wonderful it is that the University tries to ignore it. My response to those people has not changed.

The Daily Tar Heel editorial board touts the Nanny State today. They think that the government should protect us from the combination of trans fat and gluttonous appetites. Read it here.

Desperate for the glory days of the civil rights movement (you know . . . when liberals actually had a cause), the DTH published a heartwarming editorial today blasting the recent House vote which, if approved by the Senate, will require citizens to show a photo ID before voting.

If you have a lot a spare time on your hands and would like to be entertained you can read it here:

http://media.www.dailytarheel.com/media/storage/paper885/
news/2006/09/29/Opinion/Fishier.Than.A.Sushi.Bar-2316398
.shtml?sourcedomain=www.dailytarheel.com&MIIHost=media.
collegepublisher.com

The questionable practicality of their argument is a mute point.

However, on the eve of "race relations week" I found myself disgusted by the editorial board's claim that the legislation will "make voting significantly tougher for target groups. Namely poor people, blacks, Latino, the elderly, victims of natural disasters, and other groups who currently do not have the reason, the transportation, or perhaps the money to purchase a photo ID." (emphasis added)

You heard it hear first. Apparently, according to the DTH, some races and ethnicities have a natural inclination to not have photo IDs. It must be genetic . . .

While I would "never accuse" the far left of manipulating and demeaning minorities with the invention of such stereotypes in order to get elected, one "does have to wonder" if the Bob Johnsons, Oprah Winfreys, and Alex Rodriguezes of the world would agree that attaining a photo ID is one of the many struggles of their races.

Good job DTH . . . can't wait for your coverage of next week.

Government decided to intrude on these people's property rights, and here is their solution.

Rare Woodpecker Sends Town Running for Chain Saws

Good work.

UNC hosted its "Politics of Inclusion" conference on higher education Sept. 10-13. The campus Web site is here.

This may not be timely, but I just read something about it that's pretty interesting.

As can be expected, the conference was a very biased, elitist event. Read here. No one with a differing view was invited...except for one: Congresswoman Virginia Foxx.

She "was asked to participate in a panel discussion on the role of the federal government in assisting poorer families to get their children into college. She surprised the assembly by stating that under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government has no role to play in education at all. Later she told the organizers of the conference that it would have been better to have been more inclusive themselves by inviting more people who don’t accept the establishment views on higher education."

Way to go representative Foxx. Here's a holla to my district, District 5.

Friday is Car Free Day in Chapel Hill and Carrboro. Read about it here.

People are asked to take public transportation and carpool. There will be a celebration on the lawn of Weaver Street Market at 5:30. No word yet on whether there will be dancing.

If anyone's up for, I was thinking I would try to use an entire tank of gas on friday. I'm not sure where I am gonna go, but I kind of feel like driving.

The Daily Tar Heel reports on it here.

Let's get this discussion rolling.

This is how leftists behave when someone wants to express a point of view with which they disagree.

I am aware that every media outlet in Chapel Hill is going to be covering this speech; however, this is something that I simply could not go without commenting on.

The Daily Tar Heel writes:


Although the approximately 50 students and community members who came to protest Ashcroft's speech don't agree with his politics, they do agree that open debate is vital.

What open debate? The speech was littered with interruptions, people walking out and protestors yelling and holding up "F--- Your War" signs as attendees left Memorial Hall.
Lest people forget, the vital part to this vital debate is listening to what your opposition has to say and, dare I say, doing it with at least the semblance of respect.
It seems as if those wishing to engage Mr. Ashcroft in this debate forgot that one minor detail.

Michael Barone has a powerful reflection on 9/11 today. Read it here.

I am sure that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush and all the responsible officials in their administrations wish they had done more. So do we all.

But which of us warned of the danger?...I can't remember writing before 9/11 about the dangers posed by al Qaeda and other Islamofascist groups. So I don't feel entitled to furiously condemn the Clinton and Bush administration officials who failed to see what I failed to see. The 9/11 attacks alone were condemnation enough. And not just of certain public officials but of all of us in a position to have an impact on public opinion who did not alert others to the danger we unknowingly faced.

I do think that if anyone deserves some blame for 9/11, it is Clinton. By 1998 bin Laden had a long enough list of atrocities to make him enemy #1. And although Clinton denies it, many sources say that he was offered bin Laden by the Sudanese government, but declined to capture him.

However, on the actual day of commemoration, I think that it is important to put the fingers down for a day and realize that who ever should or shouldn't have done something, 9/11 was the day we lost our innocence. We can't just expect to be safe anymore. We must be vigilant.

Good piece by David French, former President of FIRE on why he recently joined the reserves. Read it here.

National will is a reflection of millions of individual choices, and the choice I had made to this point was to simply stand aside and lament others’ decisions.

This point could be tied in to so many controversies in America. People are so quick to ask, "Why didn't the government do something?" or "Why didn't the government save me?". When the first thing we should ask ourselves is "Why didn't I help myself?" and "Why didn't I do something?"

On 9/11 there were people outside the police force and fire department that ran into the rubble to help. They didn't say, "Where is the federal government?" They acted.

There's a new state law in North Carolina that says all classrooms have to display the American flag and that time must be set aside each day to recite the pledge of allegiance.

Arguments about the pledge as a pseudo-religious activity aside, the only problem I see with this is that the pledge loses its meaning when it's forced. It's like Islamic states that require women to wear burqas by law: when there is no choice in an action, when there is no decision either to wear or not to wear, to recite or not to recite; then the repetition of any action is rendered meaningless because the participant didn't willingly engage, or otherwise decide anything about, the activity.

To put it another way, it's like Wooley v. Maynard (1976) where the Supreme Court decided it was unconstitutional for New Hampshire to require citizens to display the slogan "Live Free or Die" on all its license plates. The rationale was that forced speech, especially forced "political" speech as it was in this case, cuts right against the First Amendment. But, there is a big difference between Wooley v. Maynard and the state laws about required pledge of allegiance recitation (37 states currently have such laws). The difference is that the new law pertains to schools, which are comprised almost entirely of minors, who have "less" rights as a citizen, perhaps even no rights, when compared to their adult counterparts.

So the law will most likely stay (in fact, I'm sure of it), because it's not "patriotic" to oppose a law that's all about praising the American flag and devoting yourself to American ideals. But for the reasons listed above, there's something unsettling about this law, no matter how innocuous it appears on its surface. After all, our state motto is Esse quam videre, "to be rather than to seem."

Having just been approved to write for this blog, I wanted to take this opportunity to write some earth-shattering post that would shake the very foundation of modern Leftism - you know something that would bring about the complete demise of the Democratic Party and issue in a new dispensation of political thought complete with personal responsibility, classical liberalism, and pretty pictures.

However, as I was preparing the above mentioned revelation, my roommate sidetracked me by saying one of the most brilliant things I have heard since arriving on campus.

"I'm not reading this to retain it. I'm reading this to say I readed it!"

. . . And, just like that, my thesis vanished.

So instead, I thought I would take this opportunity to introduce myself. My name is James Heilpern and I am a freshman here at Chapel Hill. I would like to say that I have a major all picked out, but lying is a sin, so instead I will simply say I am going into "exploratory studies." I enjoy long walks on the beach, (virgin) pinacaladas, and and just today I got caught in the rain.