Carolina Review Blog

Blog has moved

2009-01-18T12:18:00.003-05:00

The Carolina Review blog has moved. You can now find us at:

http://crdaily.com/

You've GOT to be kidding...

2008-12-22T22:48:00.001-05:00

Media bias anyone? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2008/12/22/white-house-fires-times-housing-meltdown-story/

The World Loses Its Mind

2008-12-16T20:07:00.001-05:00

Well, at least the Fed has. I guess inflation is no longer a concern?

Sensible analysis on the Economy

2008-12-05T11:28:00.002-05:00

To Peter Thiel: Yes, yes, yes!
In a conversation between Peter Robinson of the National Review and Peter Thiel of Clarium Capital Management, Mr Thiel "teases" out the true nature of our crisis. His advice should be heard by all citizens of this nation. Check it out at the Uncommon Knowledge website.

Another FDR is Exactly What We DON'T Need

2008-12-01T21:04:00.002-05:00

When will it end? Barack Obama is alternately our Messiah, Lincoln, and, now, FDR. Or at least pundits say he needs to be FDR. Richard Cohen's latest Washington Post column echoes this sentiment. Over the past sixty years, liberals have perpetrated the FDR myth: namely, that he brought us out of the Great Depression. The fact is HE DIDN'T.
George Will, also of the Washington Post, sums up the data destroying the FDR myth. He also elucidates another point conveniently forgotten by leftists: Herbert Hoover didn't promote laissez-faire economics. In fact, he substantially INCREASED taxes that only further impaired any possibiblity of economic recovery. And, of course, we are still experiencing the effects of the New Deal (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Social Security) that are going to bankrupt our country.
So no, we certainly do NOT need another FDR. We need someone who will cut taxes to stimulate economic growth (as both JFK and Reagan proved), promote fiscal restraint (like Margaret Thatcher after the Winter of Discontent), and stay our of the free market (unfortunately, no modern president has done so to the proper extent). Then, we can experience a recovery and commence another era of American prosperity. Regrettably, Obama is not that person.

Why Conservatives Should Like Obama's Cabinet Appointments

2008-11-21T10:15:00.003-05:00

Shockingly, many conservative commentators are actually coming out in favor of some of Obama's nominations. We've got Clinton for Secretary of State, Napolitano for Homeland Security, Robert Gates staying on at Defense, etc...
These selections show a lot about what will most likely occur under Obama's administration. Gates staying on at Defense indicates some continuity on the Iraq strategy. Clinton came out as a hard-liner during the primaries and may steer Obama in a more sophisticated foreign policy.
Now, Arizona Governor Napolitano may seem an interesting nomination to cheer, but if she resigns, her successor is a Republican, giving Arizona Republicans an advantage in 2010. Same with Schweitzer from Montana (possible Secretary of Interior). Senator Jack Reed's replacement would be appointed by a Republican Governor 9he's being considered for Secretary of Defense).
Karl Rove had a good article about the obstacles Obama will face in his first few days in office.
All in all, things are looking up for Republicans. This is the second consecutive electoral defeat, but 2010 is looking up. Do not despair.

Rebuild the Party

2008-11-18T00:23:00.003-05:00

Alright, well as the Republican Party is the only party that adheres the conservative principles at the moment, conservatives have a vested interest in maintaining the GOP. The 2008 election revealed a number of weaknesses within the party structure (not the message). Money was the key issue, with the Obama campaign, DNC, DSCC, and the DCCC out-fundraising their Republican counterparts by wide margins. In North Carolina, Democrats won across the board. So now there are proposals out there that try to rectify these weaknesses: NC Conservative Future and Rebuild the Party. Check out these websites and start talking. We need good ideas for Republicans and conservatives in general to get elected. If not, we may be facing a long exile in the wilderness...

When Will They Stop?

2008-11-17T12:10:00.003-05:00

The Democrats are unrelenting in attempting to spread their anti-deregulation mantra. Apparently they believe in the "Big Lie Theory," that, if you say something over and over again, it becomes true for the masses. A recent article in the New York Times relates the story behind former Senator Phil Gramm, the man behind the deregulation wave in the late 1990s. And of course, they quote various professors who claim that Gramm's actions "contributed mightily" to our current economic crises. Sigh.
Apparently, the editorial board of the NYT and the whole Democratic Caucus needs to read the series of articles from the latest edition of the Carolina Review where the real factors that caused the economic crisis are documented: the Fed's low interest rate, Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, the "moral hazard," the Community Reinvestment Act, and organizations like ACORN who pressured community banks to give loans to people who could not afford them. Hum... dereguation surprisingly does not appear on the list because, in fact, dereguation DID NOT cause the crisis! No credible economist (with the exception of Paul Krugman) actually believes this.
So, to the NYT and Democrats in general: please stop spreading myths about the economic crisis. Thank men like Phil Gramm instead of attacking them.

Immanentizing the Eschaton

2008-11-05T00:58:00.009-05:00

So, Obama has won. I haven't collected my thoughts on the issue yet, but I have a few things to say:

We live in a center-right country. I think this election was more of a vindication of Obama himself than a vindication of his radicalism. We might still be ideologically conservative (see the Newsweek report on America's ideological leanings) but operationally liberal... but at least we're ideologically conservative...
This is not the same as 1964, when Goldwater lost handily. That was a clear rejection of conservatism. McCain was always more impulsive than ideological.
Perhaps the greatest irony of this election is that Iraq, the issue which led to both candidates' victories in their respective primaries (Obama got traction in the Democratic Primary because he opposed the war from the beginning and McCain wouldn't have had a chance to win except for his support for the surge), played such a small part in the election in the end.
The silver lining for this election is that Bush has been clearly repudiated. Hopefully, the GOP will realize that America has repudiated "compassionate conservatism," but not traditional Conservatism.

The Larger Point of Obama's Associations

2008-11-03T00:07:00.012-05:00

The following post is adapted from, of all things, a couple of my Facebook comments on a friend's wall. A CNN anchor, Sanchez, brought McCain spokesman on the air; the spokesman did a pitiful job of deploying the Rashid Khalidi issue against Obama.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5OTQUe397I

Sure, Sanchez can see through the nonsense about 'the LA times should release video and violate its confidentiality agreement,' but he's wrong to suggest that the PLO is simply another group with different views on Israel whose views are useful and true just because they exist.

This relative view of morality and truth is a symptom of the internationalist ideology that McCain should be accusing Obama of espousing. This association with a Palestinian statist could have been a catalyst in this accusation. McCain should have argued that Obama's espousal of this internationalist ideology would cause him to follow policies in office that would strip us of our sovereignty (i.e., giving political support to the ratification in the U.S. Congress of U.N. treaties created by an antidemocratic socialist/Islamist alliance), while his trade protectionism would depriving other countries like Mexico and Colombia of desperately needed remedies for poverty.

The problem with Obama is that he's so far left on so many issues that he's antiliberal - he favors public authority over private freedom. Against some free trade, against capitalism to a large extent, against protection of some offensive speech; embraces relative morality to the point that he will espouse relative truth in his domestic social policy.

The point of saying that is not to file charges against Obama, but to lampoon McCain for failing to attack Obama on his weaknesses. McCain went for personal connections to try to reveal Obama's internationalist ideology because 1) McCain doesn't know what he's doing and 2) Obama votes present on many important bills.

In that sense, McCain is a weak articulator. Too weak to win.

Yeah, the McCain guy was unprepared. He could have answered all of Sanches' questions if he had done his homework.

For example, here's a sample answer to the question about the other anti-Semetic guy: Jeremiah Wright. Black liberation theology is anti-Semetic, and Obama was influenced by black-liberation writers. I think he drew his Marxist ideas from those writers and not anti-Semetic ideas (that he drew any such prejudice from Cone, et all, is doubtful). I am convinced that Obama does not harbor any anti-Semetic or any other racial prejudice. But it is a bit scary that he espoused race-baiting Marxist ideologies during his intellectual development.

I'm not sure America would choose Obama if they had read and understood Dreams from my Father. And if they did read and understand it, and they still want it, then welcome to the new socialist motherland. This is democracy, and people will get what they're asking for. Conservatives will have to clean up the economic mess in a few years.

Obama: Electoral College Landslide?

2008-10-31T10:19:00.003-04:00

The media has consistently over-hyped Obama's chances of victory in this coming election. With the economy in the midst of a correction (not a depression as some would have), a war in Iraq that is increasingly unpopular (even though we are nearing victory), and an incumbent president with rather low poll numbers, McCain has an uphill climb. Frankly, this should be a landslide for Obama. The incumbent party has never won an election when the economy is in a downturn, but nonetheless, McCain has fought well. And he might well succeed. The Campaign Spot on the National Review website says that Virginia may not be lost to the Republicans. Northern Virginia, as a percentage of registered voters in the state, has remained almost constant from the 2004 election until now. In fact, the greatest registration increases have come from counties where Bush won by over 60%. These voters could all very well be Democrats, but the situation in VA is not dire for McCain. In Pennsylvania, many people think McCain is crazy for focusing on this state. RealClear has an average of 9.8% in Obama's favor. But he does have a strategy. Rural PA will go Republican, Philadelphia, Democrat. The Northeastern Extension tilts Democrat, but basically splits the vote. Pittsburgh is the area of interest. If McCain can win Pittsburgh by a wide enough margin to offset Philadelphia (maintaining his margins in the rural areas and keeping at least 40% of the vote on the Northeastern Extension), he can win the state. Kerry only won the state by 2.5% (Gore, 4.2%), so it is possible. A Pennsylvania win would offset losses in Colorado, New Mexico, and coupled with a win in VA, would offset a loss in Nevada. McCain needs to win Florida and Ohio, however. And I wouldn't count those states out.
So, yes, McCain faces an uphill climb, but it is achievable. We'll just see how it all plays out on the 4th. As much as the mainstream media wants to, you can't count McCain out.

More Crowder!

2008-10-30T20:27:00.000-04:00

Here we go.

Preliminary GDP Report

2008-10-30T15:20:00.005-04:00

This morning, the BEA published its preliminary report on third quarter GDP. The report estimated a .3% decrease in GDP during the third quarter. Of course, preliminary reports are subject to revision as more information is accumulated, and they are almost always adjusted a few tenths of a percent up or down. But, even assuming that this figure is correct, our economic situation is hardly dire. Listening to the media and the Democrats (as well as, unfortunately, many Republicans), you might assume that the BEA is off by a decimal point (or two). Our economy should be stronger, but this almost negligible downturn does not merit the sort of economic overreaction that we've seen from the Bush administration and Congress. We would need to face another quarter of decreasing GDP to even enter a recession.

Election Issue

2008-10-29T12:38:00.009-04:00

The new election issue of the Review will be distributed this evening. Here's a preview of the new issue:

Dear Readers,

As Election Day nears, an increasing number of conservatives have announced their support for Senator Barack Obama (D-Ill.). The list now includes (among others) Doug Kmiec, Ken Adelman, Christopher Hitchens and (most painfully) Christopher Buckley.

The Carolina Review will not be following suit. We are utterly unconvinced by the arguments of those on the Right who support Obama. We can see no loop holes in the conservative ideology that are big enough to enable any sort of conservative to support Obama, his positions or his temperament.

The aforementioned conservatives almost always say they support Obama in spite of his ideology and history of leftist positions. They typically say that, though he has always legislated as a leftist, he will govern as a centrist. Abir Chatterjee’s article deals with one plank of Obama’s platform- his tax policies- and argues that Obama exhibits an unreformed, uninteresting form of Liberalism which casts an ineluctable doubt on the notion that Obama will govern from the center. Case in point, Obama’s policies are so leftist as to satisfy Marx’s policy suggestions.

Further, we believe that Obama’s reaction to the financial crisis has been manifestly inept. Zachary Dexter and Anthony Dent trace the origins of the crisis and conclude that Obama is flatly wrong. The crisis was not caused by Wall Street greed and deregulation (as Obama has argued), but rather numerous actions of Congress, the FED, and several other government institutions.

Not only is Obama wrong about the cause of the crisis, he’s also wrong about how to fix it. For a multitude of reasons, we conclude that the $800 billion bailout of the financial sector is not going to solve the current catastrophe and will only prolong and worsen our economic downturn.

We also distrust Obama’s positions on the military. Christopher Jones’ article takes a look at Obama’s proposals concerning military spending and contends that an Obama presidency would do irreparable damage to the development of military technology. Without that technology our ability to preserve national security will be greatly hamstringed. There is no evidence to suggest that Obama’s military policies will be tempered by any kind of moderation.

Most often, conservatives site Obama’s temperament as the reason for their support. Brad Smith’s article argues that Obama has reached a celebrity status and that his campaign is supported to a large degree by simple groupthink and Obama’s “mindguards” in the media.

It follows that conservatives should naturally recoil from Obama. After all, we are the more sober wing, and the conservative temperament should be repulsed by anyone whose success is largely built on palpable insobriety. It takes a peculiar sort of temperament for a person to develop into a celebrity, and that sort of temperament is ill-suited for the presidency.

The conservative viewpoint can often be used to legitimately justify different positions on the same issue. The issue of the potential Obama presidency is not such an issue. In this election, a conservative should stand athwart Obama, and his supporters, yelling Stop.

Sincerely,

Bryan Weynand and Nash Keune
Co-Editors

Go Barack Obama Go!

2008-10-28T00:44:00.002-04:00

Earlier today, our inimitable cartoonist, Justin Crowder, posted a video on Facebook. Watch it.

Palling around with Ayers

2008-10-23T01:43:00.021-04:00

Sorry for the lengthy, unplanned hiatus. I'd attribute our blog silence to other commitments (it is midterm season after all), laziness, and the fact that, as Obama's election seems ever more imminent, following, covering, and writing about the news gets increasingly dreary.

With all of my apologies and excuses out of the way, I'd like to dive right in with a story which was brought to my attention by Toy Beeninga (with an assist by Taylor Holgate). In late September, a group of academics drafted a joint statement in support of William Ayers. Last I checked, 3,247 "friends and supporters of Bill Ayers" had signed the statement, endorsing its message (That number is probably inflated, though. An extremely cursory scan through the list revealed some unlikely signers, such as conservative talk-radio host Mark Levin, supposedly the1,232th signer). According to my source, the following UNC professors and TAs endorsed the statement: Lynda Stone, Amy Charpentier, Kathleen M. Brown, Jennifer Jone, Dr. Maria DeGuzman, Alan Tom, J. Anderson, and Ashley Lucas. You can access (and co-sign, if you'd like) the statement here.

I'll just briefly summarize the salient points (the argument descends into self-parody rather quickly, so I feel no need to go out of my way to mock the Ayers allies). The letter calls the "character assassination and slander of Bill Ayers" a "slanderous McCartyism" and takes umbrage at the Right's characterizations of Ayers. Yes- How dare the crypto-Nazis on the Right call Ayers, who is an unrepentant terrorist, "an unrepentant terrorist?" Nowadays, Ayers is a super-swell guy. He is a "valued faculty member" of the University of Illinois at Chicago who "has taught, advised, mentored, and supported hundreds of undergraduate, Masters and Ph.D. students." Things that Ayers did 40 years ago are "history." After all, can anyone really be considered guilty of a crime after he commits that crime?!? And, well, speaking of that whole "terrorism" thing, my gosh- Ayers didn't really do anything that these 3,247 signers would condemn. Ayers just "participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans," that's all. He simply protested, precisely "as did hundreds of thousands of Americans."

These attacks on Ayers are not only offensive to such a respectable person, though. Apparently, they are also destroying our society. In the words of the document, brandishing Ayers about "casts a chill over free speech and inquiry and the spirit of democracy." Essentially, forming a stigma against those who try to kill Americans "threaten(s) schools as places of compassion, imagination, curiosity, and free thought" because forming such a stigma serves as a warning to "anyone who voices perspectives and advances questions that challenge orthodoxy." So, basically, if you sign the statement, you're helping to save democracy.

Frankly, I can't feign surprise at any of the ... ahem, logic of this letter. Nonetheless, it does reveal the extent of the versatility of academia's colossal fatuousness.

1999 New York Times Article Foretells Subprime Mess

2008-10-06T16:19:00.006-04:00

Excerpt: "Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits."

Click here to see the article.

Home ownership is important, but it's not "affordable housing" anymore when the bank forecloses on your home.

If I was a Democrat...

2008-10-03T15:08:00.003-04:00

I would probably be disappointed by the report released today that unemployment has stayed at 6.1%. That's the same rate we saw last month, which is approximately one-fourth the unemployment rate during the Great Depression and only a sneeze away from what we used to consider full employment. Yes, we are facing a financial crisis, but the economy is not in the free fall that many in the media and the Democratic Party (and, unfortunately, many in the GOP too) want to believe it is in.

VP Debate

2008-10-03T00:25:00.003-04:00

Well, this is what the McCain campaign needed. After the dust settled, even the liberal pundits on the networks were saying that Palin had re-established her credibility. She may not have won the debate. There were certain areas where some criticism may be leveled. There were questions that she didn't answer and she got the name of the general in Afghanistan wrong. But again, Biden didn't answer every question directly, nor did Obama; and Biden claimed that FDR was president and, that FDR announced the gravity of the situation in 1929 on television. So it goes both ways. I personally think that Palin's was of a lesser magnitude. She came pretty close. Biden was way off (Sort of like saying, "It was like when James Madison flew into the Mexico City airstrip to contragulate the victorious troops of the Mexican-American War." Not too historically accurate.). The benefit that Palin had coming in was that she had lost some credibility and was making the McCain ticket lag. People were beginning to question McCain's judgement in picking her as his running mate. The debate now completely changed that. Now she has re-established her credibility and the McCain campaign can focus on the matters at hand and not worrying about their VP pick. So Biden failed in the respect that he needed to make her mess up. He didn't. So now she lives to fight another day. A salutary event in keeping the McCain campaign afloat. Now those poll numbers can start swinging the other way.

Immediate Impressions

2008-10-02T22:36:00.035-04:00

In order, with notes on the beginning of the debate on top:

Perhaps Palin's most unique political charm is her ability to pull of the folksy anecdotes. All politicians in this era of universal Heepism try to pull of the soccer-game examples and almost all of them seem clumsy, unnatural, and awkward. They fit Palin perfectly.
Biden called attention to violence against women, putting police on the streets, etc. as instances of his leadership on controversial issues. Really? Since when is violence against women a controversial issue? Putting more police on the streets is only controversial amongst some members of the radical Left.
At least at the beginning, their was a notable differnce in their tones, pacing, cadences, etc. Whereas Palin's inflections were dynamic, Biden was, well, boring.
I'm very disappointed with the leaders of the GOP, Palin included, concerning their explanation of the financial situation. This is a perfect opportunity to trace the ruinous effect of the government's artificially created credit on the economy, but most (notably excluding Jim DeMint) seem to be hung up on Wall Street corruption. Perhaps there was corruption on Wall Street, but there's no reason to think that there was any more corruption on Wall St than normal.
I guess the populism might be profitable or necessary in this election, though. I'm actually preparing an editorial on an opportunity to score some populist points that McCain missed out on.
Another CR plug- We will have a comprehensive statement on the causes of the financial crisis in the next issue of the Review.
Does Biden think he's fooling anyone with the comb over?
In response to Biden's remarks on tax policy, I'll quote William F. Buckley: "I would like to electrocute everyone who uses the word 'fair' in connection with income tax policies."
The most annoying- maybe the only thing I find annoying- about Palin's remarks is the dangling "also"s which are unattached to any other claims, utterly unnecessary throw-away phrases, circular sentences and the like. I guess everyone has their ticks, especially in such high-pressure situations.
I think anyone who has ever watched a (political) debate could agree that moderators should really just suggest topics to discuss rather than go through the hassle of asking questions which will, in all likelihood, not be answered. Politicians will always answer the question they wanted to be asked.
Since when did the Obama-Biden team want to go ahead with nuclear power? I guess our energy situation has made the cost of certain opinions prohibitive.
Palin has done a good job of tying her own record into the debate. I won't say that it's not always natural or smooth, but very important.
I'm glad that gay marriage is back on the table. After the California decision (which allows homosexuals from other states to marry in California), it rightfully should have been established as a much bigger issue than it has been so far.
I've already been asked who the Talabani is (did she mean the Taliban? Is she going to talk with the Taliban?). Talabani is actually the President of Iraq. Which leads me to my next point that...
Palin has sounded positively knowledgeable on foreign policy issues.
Biden claims that "Nobody has been a better friend to Israel" than Biden himself. I'd actually probably rank Lieberman above everyone else, Senator.
Biden was wrong- Article 1 of the Constitution is devoted to the Legislative Branch, not the Executive Branch. I have to say, though, that I'm never surprised when a liberal manifests ignorance of the Constitution.
Also, Biden claims that Cheney is the most dangerous Vice President we've ever had. No. Not at all. Completely and utterly false. The most dangerous VP we ever had was Aaron Burr, who literally tried to annex (or, more accurately, steal) part of America for himself. The only reason he wasn't convicted of treason was that he told different stories to all of his co-conspirators , and you need to have at least two people to corroborate an accusation of treason. Cheney hasn't done anything close to stealing America.
Overall, it seems that Obama and Biden are talking about changing America. McCain and Palin are talking about changing America's government. I have to side with McCain/Palin.

Republican Leadership Vacuum Filled? No.

2008-09-29T22:05:00.004-04:00

Upon first glance, House Republicans made a courageous move today in defeating the supposedly bipartisan bailout bill. After the bill failed, the Dow Jones index dropped nearly 800 points - the largest point (not percentage) drop in the index's history.

But the real story is that House Republicans simply lashed out against Speaker Pelosi's blame-placement speech earlier that day. They won't show any backbone when the Democrats ask nicely. Pelosi faulted Republicans for the crisis, ignoring years of Democratic cries for "social justice" via subprime mortgage loans and Democratic resistance against stricter oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Those two institutions went on to make totally irresponsible investments at the behest of Congressmen such as House Financial Services Committee chairman Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA). Those investments cost the taxpayer $200 billion. Now that the real estate bubble, created via the Fed's artifically low interest rates, has burst, many subprime borrowers are losing their homes. What kind of social justice is this?

Unforunately, it is not likely that the House Republicans will vote against the bailout bill. Instead, they'll vote with the Democrats to initiate a period of serious inflation that will only end when we reform our monetary policy.

Tax Facts

2008-09-29T21:32:00.007-04:00

Fact: Obama proposes no decrease in personal income taxes at any marginal rate.

Obama says that he proposes a "tax cut for 95% of workers." No he doesn't. His website reveals what he means by "tax cut": a one-time, debt-funded tax credit of $500 to $1,000 check in the mail to anyone who Obama deems worthy. This includes a large number of people who pay no taxes to the federal government. Since the United States is running both a huge debt and a huge annual deficit, this check must be sent with money created out of thin air - or with money borrowed from China or other countries. This former is inflationary and will hurt working families. The latter poses a national security risk.

Fact: Obama will raise capital gains taxes on the economy's engine of growth.

This one is straight from the Obama website, too: "Capital Gains: Families with incomes below $250,000 will continue to pay the capital gains rates that they pay today." So he won't hurt middle-class investors. But Obama will raise the capital gains rate on the engine of economic growth - the investors that make above $250,000. This is a very misguided plan given the current state of the U.S. economy. If the financial markets implode, we'll need to regain strength as soon as possible. The worst thing to do in a time like this is to discourage investment.

Fact: Obama proposes 10 tax credits to achieve "tax relief for middle class families." But few will help middle class families in the long run.

Each one is debt-funded, and many credits will arrive as checks straight from the Treasury to people who do not pay taxes.

Among the credits is a $4,000 college tax credit that will make college more affordable - for a short while, until tuition rises to match the increase in federal funding. Under Obama's leadership, we should also expect the cost of child care to rise.

It is fine to offer a limited number of credits for badly-needed services like health care. It is not fine to starting mailing out checks from the debt-laden U.S. Treasury. The checks, not the deductions, will cause the most price inflation.

Thoughts: Instead of sending debt-funded, inflationary checks to temporarily prop up working families, Obama should focus on creating real jobs and real economic opportunity for working families.

Obama should lower all cap-gains rates, cancel all of his tax credits except the health care credit (badly needed after government intervention in the health-care sector drove up costs to unaffordable levels), and propose tax cuts. Yes, tax cuts - not debt-funded tax credits.

Debate

2008-09-29T20:09:00.004-04:00

8:01 -- Moderator opens the debate by asking how many democrats are in the audience, followed by a huge cheer... Then he starts the debate, failing to acknowledge the Republicans in attendance. Nice one...

8:06 -- College Republicans are given the first statement, and use it to ask the Young Democrats how Obama's plans will be able to succeed without raising taxes, as well as to question the validity of his proposed actions.

8:10 -- The YD's respond with a token Obama talking points, choosing to extol the virtues of the enigmatic concept of "change", saying that we do not need "Four more years of the same" and citing John McCain's voting record. Just as expected...

8:13 -- First question concerns the current economic situation. YDs respond with their usual talking points of "middle class tax cuts", with little address to the underlying problems.

8:20 -- The moderator asks the CRs to respond to the accusations that the Republicans are to blame for the current financial crisis. CRs respond by pointing out that 95 house democrats voted down the bill as well. In response, the YDs totally misconstrue the CR's statement, accusing house Republicans of voting down the bill because they were offended by Nancy Pelosi's Speech.

8:25 -- YD's assert that the economy is fundamentally better under the control of democrats, with absolutely no data to back up their claims. Then, again the YDs hit their beloved point that Obama will lower middle class taxes. CRs challenge this point, as Obama will only give tax breaks to the middle class in the form of income tax breaks.

8:29 -- YDs simply cannot seem to make their points without making obnoxious sarcastic comments, and the YDs in the audience have evidently never attended a debate, as they are unwilling to remain quiet.

8:34 -- YD's say that foreign policy must be based on more than just buzzwords such as "victory" and "freedom". How ironic, considering the great, deeply intellectual idea of "change" Senator Obama has tricked much of our country into supporting.

8:40 -- Finally, someone brings up the point that Obama's assumption that all human beings will eventually get along is brought up. Debate on fundamentals is bringing this debate back from the stagnation of the foreign policy question. Some minds may be changed here...

8:45 -- Of course 2/3 of illegal immigrants pay taxes, they buy food and other goods don't they? What a ridiculous point from the YDs

8:48 -- If the guy who spoke out from the crowd is reading this, just go home now...

8:50 -- All of a sudden, the YDs disagree with one of their party members, something they've been criticizing the CRs for this whole time.

As the floor opens for debate, many interesting (and likely ignorant) questions are expected. This debate wasn't a bad one, but the YD's unwillingness to address the real issues at times reduced this debate to little more than the same old talking points weve heard for the past six months.

The September Issue

2008-09-25T01:24:00.008-04:00

We have recently distributed the September issue of the Review. As a (presumably tantalizing) preview, here's the letter from the Editors introducing the issue (I have no idea what the deal is with the font):

Dear Readers,

As this school year kicks off, there are many exciting things happening on UNC’s campus. From reuniting with old friends, to starting new classes with new teachers, to joining any of hundreds of student organizations, there is plenty to preoccupy an undergraduate’s mind.

And yet, our attention is inevitably drawn elsewhere: the election. Every four years we are bombarded with the quadrennial refrain that this is the most important election in our lifetime, if not the history of the Republic itself. However, unlike other obnoxious clichés, this actually seems true.

With the continual expansion of government well beyond its rightful powers and responsibilities, each election is increasingly important. Either the electorate will accept more statism, or it will empower those who would curb the interference of the government with our lives.

While it would be a tad histrionic to declare that this election will determine whether the great American experiment will meet with its final demise or experience a glorious resurrection, this election will determine (however temporarily) the relation between the federal government and the individual. And, in the immortal words of William F. Buckley (although, frankly, it’s questionable whether WFB ever spoke a mortal word), “There is … something in the system that warns us, warns us that America had better strike out on a different course rather than face another four years of asphyxiation by liberal premises.”

With that in mind, we have focused this issue on national issues, most of which will play significant roles in the coming election.

Our cover article deals with the rise of a liberal Christian theology within the evangelical movement. Lydia Walker examines the increasing influence of visions of so-called social justice and tolerance among what used to be a reliably conservative voting block, tying the issue back to our campus with interviews from UNC’s evangelical Christians on both the Left and the Right.

Anthony Dent’s article focuses on the many flaws in Obama’s healthcare plan. Though Obama promises to fix the system, Dent’s piece skewers Obama’s plan, as it would take us in quite the opposite direction of the true solution.

Brad Smith analyzes potential reforms to education. He focuses on Obama and McCain’s plans to reform our woefully broken public education system, concluding that McCain’s solution, which is influenced by market principles and emphasizes school choice, is superior to Obama’s, which focuses on vague ideas of “accountability” and other solutions that have proven to be abject failures.

The common thread in our critique of Obama is that he has refused to learn the lesson of the 20^th century: policies based on faith in the central government, rather than the individual, are bound to fail.

Sincerely,

Bryan Weynand and Nash Keune
Co-Editors

Weekend Review

2008-09-13T14:41:00.007-04:00

So far, this blog has been exclusively about national stories. With that in mind, I thought I'd start off with some campus issues.

Campus Conservatives are rarely disappointed with the DTH, because we've come to expect the DTH's [insert invective of choice here]. However, that changed (at least for me) on Thursday. The DTH ran a cover featuring a dozen or so student quotes about 9/11. One that they decided to put in bold: "Would we even be in Irag if Sept. 11 hadn't happened?" And another for good measure: "I think people's emotions about it were manipulated in the aftermath to promote an environment of fear." Now, there is a time to discuss these important topics, but that time was not Thursday. That should have been a day for remembering those who were killed and their loved ones. I'm sure the DTH could have found less impudent quotes.
Last year, the Student Stores carried the National Review (hereafter referred to as NR) in its periodical section. This year, it doesn't (or at least, they haven't had any copies the numerous times I've checked). I realize that this story might very well affect only myself, and that the library has a copy, but this is still rather irksome. I also understand that I could just as easily get a subscription, but subscriptions come at discount prices, and I like the idea that my $4.35 (minus the sales tax) doubles the amount that I'm subsidizing NR's existence. Reverse boycott anyone? [Update: On Wednesday, September 17th I did find a single copy of the Sept. 15 copy.]
Now, for the inevitable election coverage. This week, polls have mostly stayed stable, giving McCain a 2-5% national lead. It seems that McCain got more just than just a "Hey I saw that guy on TV" convention bounce. His new lead is built on a (however temporary) mass movement of white females to his side. That said, we all know that this election will be decided by swing states. Rasmussen published a series of polls from the most likely swing states. McCain now has slight leads in: Missouri, Nevada, Virginia, New Mexico, and Ohio (where he leads by 7%). Obama has maintained his slight leads in Colorado (the site of his convention), Michigan, and Pennsylvania. They are tied in Florida. Basically, the race is still unnervingly close.
Excluding their genuflecting at the altar of Obama, the media's bias has been exhibited two ways recently. Of course, we all know of the monomaniacal focus on Sarah Palin. The other side of that coin is a presumably willful silence concerning the gaffes and other mistakes of Joe Biden. This week, for example, he admitted that Hillary Clinton might have made a better VP pick. Well, actually, that might not have been a mistake; that statement seems to be getting increasingly accurate.

Weekend Review

2008-09-06T13:39:00.008-04:00

After both conventions, the polls are all back to where they were two weeks ago. Rasmussen, which had shown a six point Obama bounce earlier this week, has Obama up 46-45%. Gallup has Obama's lead shrinking from 8% to 2%. CBS has the race tied at 42%. [Sunday Update: Rasmussen has the race tied at 46%, and Gallup has McCain up 48-45%.]
McCain's speech- As I wrote during our coverage, I don't think McCain's very good at speaking, though he is an effective speaker (I hope the distinction is clear). Further, nomination speeches are rarely memorable (most memorable speeches come during inaugurals, trips to the Brandenburg Gate, etc.) and his dragged on for a bit too long. That said, I'd like to give a tempered approval of McCain's speech. It reinforced the populist, reformist and maverick narratives. There were some things missing (more comprehensive middle-class tax cuts and such), but it seems like people might start being swayed by McCain's more concrete vision for Changing Washington.
I think the convention persuasively repudiated the silly notion that McCain is the second coming of GWB (which I've been calling for; see below).
During Cindy McCain's speech, she asked, "How about that Sarah Palin?" My thoughts exactly.
It's a bit early to start picking favorites for a McCain cabinet (Lieberman would work as a Secretary of State, Fred Thompson would make an excellent Attorney General...), but McCain-Palin certainly has the momentum right now. In this amnesia-riddled election cycle (anyone still worried about McCain's housing gaffe, once the World's Worst Quote Ever Ever?), that might not matter very much, but things are looking up. The Evans-Novak Report (affiliated with Robert Novak) even predicts that McCain will surge ahead in the coming weeks.

Adjourned

2008-09-04T23:05:00.002-04:00

Once again, our live blog concludes after the Presidential nominee gives his speech. We had a great night, and we hope you enjoyed our coverage. We'll post some more thoughts later on tonight and into tomorrow.

John McCain's Speech

2008-09-04T22:17:00.023-04:00

11:04 - Great ending from what he saw. Resounding applause, powerful words.

11:03 - We're back and he's still talking!

11:00 - Our feed died! UNC is out to get us ...

10:57 - McCain learned the limits of his selfish independence in a prison cell in Vietnam. Obama learned the limits of his selfish indpendence after years of cocaine and marijuana use... yup...

10:56 - The speech is beginning to drag on ...

10:51 - I love how the McCain campaign is, for lack of a better term, changing what the Obama campaign calls "change" into something more concrete.

10:49 - We have a feeling the speech is nearing its wrap-up stage.

10:49 - John McCain isn't afraid of threats, he is prepared for them. Yes we can!

10:48 - Anyone remember any serious discussion of the Russian invasion of Georgia in Obama's specch?

10:46 - Love the tacit implication that Obama is not a member of the group entitled "Americans."

10:45 - Drill, Baby, Drill.

10:42 - Obligatory shot to children during education discussion. BTW - school choice is a winner.

10:41 - Love the line about Obama "wishing away the global economy."

10:39 - I'd like to boo the booing.

10:35 - The CR loves his diatribe against corporate welfare.

10:33 - Swing state shout-outs. Like it.

10:32 - Love the shout-out to Petreus... noticeably lacking in Obama's speech.

10:30 - Subtitle guy at FOX has some trouble. "Vito?" Someone should vito his spelling.

10:26 - Yes, Palin has all of that going for her ... and she's really hot. Just say it.

10:25 - Can there be too many "USA" chants?

10:24 - Handled the situation with that lady (... lady?) adeptly. Let the man speak, please.

10:22 - Let's admit- McCain is, in a classical way, a very bad speaker. He emohasizes the wrong words, stumbles over others, and has no range to his voice. However, people listen to him, because he has a moral gravity forged by his harrowing experiences; it can'not be gained by any amount of practice. .

10:20 - I love McCain, but it's "whom they intend to vore for," not "who."

10:20 - Calls from the CR staff for McCain's mom to crowd surf.

10:19 - We thought there would be no podium, but alas we were wrong. He is at least at the end of the thrust, amongst the crowd, setting him apart from the other speakers.

10:18 - It looks like he's standing in front of a green screen, but it's another random picture and he happens to be in front of the grass.

First Obama ... Now McCain's Ovation. Any bets?

2008-09-04T22:10:00.002-04:00

10:15 - It's over. We clocked it at 2:34, unofficially four seconds longer than Senator Obama.

10:14 - It continues.

10:13 - It continues.

10:12 - Ovation starts

Let's Get This GOParty Started (9:30 PM - 10:10)

2008-09-04T21:31:00.020-04:00

10:08 - We would so vote for McCain's mom. Guess that makes us "McCain's mama's boys."

10:07 - The Orrin Swindle Read-along!

10:05 - As per McCain's mommy - John McCain is a "Mama's boy."

10:04 - Cue the McCain video.

10:01 - WE had a DNC DaNCe party; now we have a GOP dance party... GOPartying (attribution to Rosie Bucherati... send your complaints to her).

9:58 - FOX is giving us a little tease of McCain's speech. Apparently he won't reference President Bush by name but will reference the administration, though not much. His major focus? The McCain-Palin ticket is ready to take over Washington and change some policies. He will "take off the Republican hat and put on the American hat."

9:57 - We'll be treated to another video presentation before McCain takes the stage.

9:55 - This stage will allow McCain more room to walk around and talk to the audience. After all, he won't have to dodge the angels as Obama did.

9:52 - Bad timing on that applause and continued speaking by Cindy. While she was describing the atrocities of what happened to the Rwanda woman, the audience was clapping for her being there. Ouch.

9:50 - It will be interesting to see if John McCain walks around more than Cindy. Though I suppose there are some restrictions with the teleprompters.

9:46 - REAGAN reference.

9:45 - "So how about that governor Sarah Palin?" We agree.

9:43 - Have to love the quotes FOX is scrolling along the bottom of the screen. Goldwater? Why yes, thank you.

9:43 - I'm liking this "town-hall" style speech. I think it's going to work really well for John McCain. I think it personalizes the speaker moreso than simply standing at a podium does.

9:40 - Just a note. Cindy mentioned that Americans are the most charitable people. Indeed. Professor Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University did a study that showed that, though Conservatives make 6% less income on average, they give more than 30% of that income to charity. Just a note.

9:35 - Cindy McCain just took the stage. No podium for her as she stands with her family.

9:30 PM - I think we are about to get our feed back here in the room. The presentations are almost over. FOX News has a Cindy McCain video playing.

A Graham of Speakers (9:00 PM - 9:30)

2008-09-04T21:01:00.013-04:00

9:27 - Let me take a minute out from our momentarily paused coverage to give a shout-out for a great political website. Peter Robinsona and Rob Long run a site that aggragates conservative political commentary. You can access it here.

9:22 - We have lost our feed here for now while the CRs give a presentation. We got the shaft.

9:19 - I guess that McCain will look better by comparison.

9:18 - Love the unexplainanble images of the countryside behind Ridge.

9:15 - The subtitles really aren't cutting it. Tom Ridge is speaking now.

9:11 - FOX News goes to commercial and the feed gets turned down here in the room. Hopefully nothing important happens for another good few minutes.

9:10 - The infamous Clinton finger wag makes an appearance. "WTF" = wagging the finger. That's what we're going to say.

9:07 - "It's not that he doesn't care; it's that he doesn't get it." Nice flipping of the Obama line.

9:05 - We want a "Drill, Baby, Drill!" chant.

9:03 - Graham has quite the accent. "Benchmarks" are "beeenchmarks."

9:01 PM - Lindsey Graham is speaking right now. We have the FOX News feed on so he will probably get cut off in mid-speech.

Live Blogging the RNC

2008-09-04T20:53:00.001-04:00

We'll be live blogging the closing night of the RNC tonight. We don't know yet when we'll start posting because we're watching it with a group, and there is a lot going on right now. Hopefully we'll get settled down here soon. Stay tuned.

Wednesday; or, Sarah "Iron Lady" Palin Night

2008-09-04T17:20:00.014-04:00

A short post, because there isn't much that needs to be said...

Palin: This was probably the most important speech of the convention, and, well, she delivered. She was great. I'd hate to shoehorn her into an clumsy comparison, but I definitely got some serious Margaret Thatcher (who was known as the "Iron Lady") vibes from her. I can't go much further without sounding like I'm genuflecting in Matthewsian tones. If you didn't get a chance to, watch it here.

Giuliani: Best line, after recalling Obama's recent flip-flops: "If I were Joe Biden, I'd get that Vice President thing in writing" (not verbatim). Giuliani, though he did run a bit long and (of course) a lot of what he said was repeated, hit the right tone. And I'm very glad that people are finally mocking the "community organizer" line on Obama's resume.

Steele: Though I know that he's relatively unknown to people who live outside of Maryland, he's something of a hometown hero to beleaguered Maryland Republicans. Our one-time Lieutenant Governor, his (surprisingly close) loss in the race for the Senate was the most disappointing individual result during the 2006 election for many of us. Anyways, his speech, though it didn't feature many new lines of attack, was rousing. Frankly, who else could have been nearly as persuasive in describing his dream of a color-blind society (Michael Steele is incidentally black)? And who didn't just love the "Drill, baby, Drill" line (and ensuing chant)?

Tuesday Night at the RNC; or, Why Fred Thompson was always my Favorite

2008-09-03T00:44:00.028-04:00

Tuesday night was the first full night of convention events. The headliners were Thompson and Lieberman. For the sake of brevity, I'll only comment on the most salient components of their two speeches.

Thompson:

Fred Thompson was slated to give the traditional biographical refresher speech tonight. As he said, "My role is to help remind you of the man behind to vision."

One might reasonably expect this to be a dreadful assignment, and an even worse speech. After all, we all know the whole McCain story. Yes, it was an exciting story the first time I heard it, but now it's gotten so overused.

Well, no. Thompson covered some well-trod ground, following McCain from his Academy days, to his jet school days, to the first mission during which he was shot down, to his decision to return to battle, to his eventual capture, and through the solitary confinement, beatings, cracked ribs, broken teeth, legs and arms of his POW days. But, Thompson's retelling of the story featured anecdotes and other aspects that even I, an early McCain supporter, had never heard. Some were amusing, such as the fact that, "When his captors wanted the names of other pilots in his squadron, John gave them the names of the offensive line of the Green Bay Packers." Others were more gruesome, such as the detail that while in solitary confinement, "the oppressive heat" caused "boils the size of baseballs under his arms."

The vividly detailed story crescendoed to one of the best lines I've heard in a while: "My friends, that is character you can believe in." So far, that is my favorite line of the convention.

Taking a step back, let's compare Thompson's speech to Hillary's. Both were onetime-opponents-turned-endorsers who gave headlining Tuesday night speeches. Whereas Hillary seemed as if she only attended the DNC and endorsed Obama because she would have been blamed for his loss (if he went on to lose), Thompson seemed to be re-introducing us to a close, personal friend of his. Hillary's endorsement seemed forced, and her speech was very sparse with approbation for Obama's character; Thompson's entire speech was a moving character witness. It should be telling that, all speeches considered, there really were no "Let me tell you about this man, Barack Obama" speeches at the DNC. It should be equally telling that the designated "Let me tell you about this man, John McCain" speech at the RNC was so compelling.

[The speech did include some policy specifics, making some subtle and some not-so-subtle jabs at Obama. But those messages will surely be repeated often this week. As I said, in the interest of brevity, I will only cover the character message, the most singular aspect of Thompson's speech]

Lieberman:

It would be easy to think that the sole purpose of Liebernman's speech was proving that Republican talking points sound more impressive when said by Democrats (and that is manifestly true, at least when that Democrat is Lieberman). The speech also served another, very important role, one for which Lieberman is uniquely suited: repudiating the idea that McCain= Bush's third term. This message, which I've said is of utmost importance (see below), was (I think persuasively) conveyed in the middle of his speech:

"My Democratic friends know all about John's record of independence and accomplishment. Maybe that's why some of them are spending so much time and so much money trying to convince voters that John is someone else. I'm here, as a Democrat myself, to tell you: Don't be fooled. God made only one John McCain, and he is his own man."

If Thompson's speech was important for revealing who McCain is, Lieberman's was critical for dealing with who McCain isn't. Even if these were the only lines of the speech, it would have been a good, effective one. As it was (even with its paragraph in adoration of Clinton's presidency, apparently included either to prove that Lieberman is a Democrat or to test whether the delegates were really listening), Lieberman's whole speech provided a powerful witness to McCain's (and Palin's) maverick/reformer (in other words, anti-Bush) side.

Gustav and the RNC

2008-09-02T13:34:00.002-04:00

As Hurricane Gustav made landfall yesterday just west of New Orleans, the Republican National Convention had to roll back their schedule for the day. The original plan was to order the days thematically according to the John McCain campaign slogans. Monday's theme, "Service," was axed in favor of a longer, yet somewhat relating theme of "Serving a Cause Greater Than Self." Instead of hosting the numerous speakers, including President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, over a seven-hour period, the Republicans trimmed the convention activities to just about two hours. First Lady Laura Bush and (future First Lady?) Cindy McCain spoke, asking to aid those in need along the Gulf Coast.

President Bush's speech will, of course, be rescheduled for tonight in a primetime speaking slot, though his remarks will be cut to just eight minutes. He won't even be in St. Paul, however; he will make his case for a McCain presidency from the White House. Joe Lieberman and Sen. Fred Thompson will also speak tonight. Rudy Giuliani was supposed to be the keynote speaker for tonight. Convention officials have said he will retain that role, but it will be pushed back a night or two.

What still remains is what convention officials are calling a "reintroduction" to McCain and a "high-profile introduction" for Sarah Palin. It is not known yet whether the other themes will remain in tact - "reform" for tonight, "prosperity" for tomorrow night, and "peace" for Thursday night. The RNC may just run on one common theme this year in helping aid those affected by Gustav.

A day removed from Gustav making landfall, though, and it looks like the majority of those along the Gulf Coast dodged a bullet. Luckily the storm wasn't that strong when the eye reached land; it was once projected that it would make landfall as a Category 4 storm. Since it wasn't as destructive as once thought it could be, it should pave the way for the RNC to get (somewhat) back on track tomorrow. Politically, though, the storm came at a bad time, interrupting what could have been a surge in the polls for the Republicans riding the Palin wave. Michael Moore realized the opportune timing of Gustav saying that it was "proof that there is a God in Heaven."

We'll see what the polls look like as the next few days unfold. The Palin announcement effectively canceled any boost Obama got from the DNC. Now it's up to the Republicans to forge ahead as November nears.

An Obligatory Encomium to Sarah Palin

2008-09-01T02:35:00.008-04:00

The McCain campaign capped a great August with a stellar VP selection. While something in me wants to be a rebel and buck the conventional wisdom in conservative circles by criticizing the pick, the evidence is just too much. This selection immediately thwarted whatever momentum Obama might have hoped to gain from his convention. By Friday afternoon, was anyone still discussing Obama's nomination speech? This move reinforces McCain's reformer cred, and it will steal away Obama's "soft media" advantage (note the upcoming cover of People). It has already enthused the conservative base: reports are going around that the McCain has received upwards of $7 million this weekend.

The polls are already reflecting this Palin effect. According to Gallup, Obama's 8 point post-convention lead instantly shrank to 6%. A Time poll was more dramatic, showing a 5% Obama lead shriveling to a statistically insignificant 1% advantage.

Of course, she is not perfect. Her main flaw, of course, is her inexperience. The argument goes: the McCain campaign has tried to make this election primarily about experience. Aren't they undercutting that with such a callow VP nomiee? To that I'd say there should necessarily be different expectations for a President than for a Vice-President. Further, she already has more executive experience than the Obama/Biden ticket, and anyways, our current Vice President had quite a bit of experience before taking office, and, well, this sentence finishes itself.

The next most problematic question: Will her youth only highlight McCain's age? Perhaps. But I doubt it will be a critical difference. The people who are going to vote against McCain for his age would probably do so no matter how old his VP nominee was. It's not as if voters are going to all-of-a-sudden realize he's 72 because he's standing next to a 44-year old.

I'd say her negatives, if not insignificant, are manageable, and far outweighed by her already manifest positives.

The Morning After: Some Thoughts

2008-08-29T11:12:00.003-04:00

Barack Obama delivered last night what has been hailed by most of the press as an extraordinary speech, which is not surprising considering The Hills blog is reporting that dozens of members of the media were seen standing and cheering during the speech. And I say most praised the speech because a writer for the AP had a more negative reaction to the speech, which drew the ire of none other than Keith Olbermann.

All in all, the speech, with the exception of the rhetoric of the last five to ten minutes, was nothing that we haven't already heard. Obama said he was going to lay out his proposals, but specifics were few and far between. The main theme of the speech, it seemed, was the entire theme of the night - John McCain would be a "third term" for George W. Bush. Like was noted in the live blog, Obama went after McCain's judgement, just as Sen. Joe Biden did the night before. I think this is going to be their theme over the next couple of months, and it will be up to the Republicans to refute these claims if they want to win the election.

Now, of course, Obama couldn't have spelled out exactly how each of these proposals would work in a 40 minute speech. It comes down to the simple fact that it is the same stuff that we have been hearing in the primaries - broad proposals that sound appealing on the surface but ignore the specifics. For example, Obama said that he would work to raise the salaries of teachers and increase funding for our schools. But he never mentioned where this money would come from or how he would get it.

Perhaps that's what will be spelled out in the next couple of months. Even so, the speech would have been more powerful, in my opinion, with hard numbers and not just the same rhetoric we have been hearing throughout the past four days.

I think most people were looking for a speech up to par, if not better, than the one he gave at the 2004 DNC. As Nash said last night, this one falls short. It certainly didn't strike me as extraordinary, but it did put the ball in the Republicans' court. And it will be their task to rebuke the claims in Minnesota next week.

Now, back to what I was saying earlier about most journalists thoroughly enjoying the speech. Charles Babington of the AP was not one of them. The article, in my eyes, is a fair assessment of the speech. Olbermann, of course, did not think so. After most likely pulling this piece of information off Daily Kos, Olbermann read a few paragraphs of Babington's article, ridiculing him for not watching the same speech and getting the length wrong by a few mere minutes. Olbermann, horrified that this could be reprinted in thousands of newspapers across the country, was sincerely worried for his man Obama. He concluded his rant - which would have made you think you were watching "Countdown" and he was listing off the World's Worse - by telling Babington to "find new work." Keep in mind that this is a former sports reporter turned self-proclaimed politcal expert telling a veteran journalist that his work is factually wrong.

In the end, last night capped of a week of the same for the Democrats. Their message is clear - McCain is Bush #3. As we have mentioned, it is up to the Republicans to develop a well-supported response to this.

Summary

2008-08-29T00:33:00.007-04:00

If I were to respond at length to Obama's speech, I would probably reply to a whole list of things- from Obama's claims about supply-side economics to his old, failed education policies- but so much that I would say would merely be conservative calisthenics. Obama accused McCain of using the same old tactics because he lacks new ideas and can't point to a record of success (hm?!?), but I would say that his positions reveal that indictment to be true of Obama himself. Thus, most of the arguments used to rebut, say, Jimmy Carter or George McGovern, could be repeated to rebut Obama. Even so, we will likely post an in-depth commentary tomorrow.

For now, all I have to say is that after watching most (though, admittedly, not all) of the speeches this week, Obama's was at least above average. But, it wasn't terribly groundbreaking, and I don't think any of the lines will go down in history- or at least they don't deserve to. I would rank it far below the memorable 2004 address. It wasn't quite as policy-driven as I had expected (though I was surprised to hear about his proposal to cut the capital gains tax for small businesses, which I hadn't heard about until now, is a good idea, and, naturally, somewhat contrary to the rest of his ideology). Yes, he mentioned a good number of his positions, but there were very few facts and figures (which is understandable, because the facts and figures- such as the report that revised our second quarter GDP growth to a fairly strong 3.3%- do not fully support his narrative). Essentially, the Obama campaign is asking us to be short-term pessimists, but long-term optimists. I think he would have to have heftier proposals to justify such a leap, but I do think the speech will give him something of a convention bounce. The attack the Republicans must deal with most effectively is that McCain= Bush's third term. If they do not repudiate that argument, McCain will lose.

Adjourned

2008-08-28T23:10:00.003-04:00

We'll both post summary posts later tonight (and maybe more commentary Friday). Hope you enjoyed our converage. We'll be back next week.

The Aftermath

2008-08-28T23:02:00.005-04:00

11:04 - The networks will not fawn over the final night of the RNC like they have tonight. The only reason they may be gleeful is because it will be over.

11:03 - An encore for the Obama and Biden families.

11:02 PM - Olbermann and Matthews are going crazy over the speech. "To hell with my critics," Matthews said.

Barack Obama's Acceptance Speech

2008-08-28T22:17:00.018-04:00

10:58 - Fireworks and more country tunes. Still awaiting network reaction.

10:56 - The last five minutes were the best. But still, 2004 was better.

10:52 - "Change doesn't comes from Washington; it comes to Washington." His best line so far has been a pronoun switch.

10:52 - The election has never been about Obama? Really?

10:49 - The gay remark seemed to get one of the biggest cheers.

10:48 - A "U-S-A" chant turns into a weird "U-Yes-S-We-A-Can" hybrid chant.

10:47 - He's repeated himself a few times this speech. Now he's repeating his blue state-red state monolgue from 2004.

10:45 - "Last best hope?" Isn't that a Reagan line?

10:38 - He's explaining how he's paying for all of it! This has got to be a first in the campaign season.

10:36 - Where is Obama getting all this money from to increase teacher salaries and fund schools?

10:34 - A crack about McCain's 26 years in Congress? Did he read Biden's resume?

10:33 - Obama says that in 10 years he will end our foreign dependence on oil. Drilling stance is still iffy.

10:32 - Finally getting to the meat.

10:31 - "Government cannot solve all our problems, but it can make it so all our problems are solved."

10:29 - Still no substance ...

10:27 - His 2004 speech was about how red and blue states need to unify. This speech has featured an Us vs. Them rant.

10:23 - Instead of focusing on the experience argument (because McCain would win that hands down), the Obama campaign is going after judgement. Biden questioned McCain's judgement last night, and Obama is doing the same tonight.

10:21 - So far the speech hasn't been that transcendent, nothing too noteworthy. The same people must be editing these speeches.

10:19 PM - First jab at the Bush presidency.

Any bets on how long his ovation will last?

2008-08-28T22:12:00.004-04:00

10:14 - And the final count on the ovation ... two and a half minutes.

10:13 - It continues.

10:12 - It continues.

10:11 PM - The ovation begins.

Countdown to the Messiah (10:00 - 10:15 PM)

2008-08-28T21:59:00.007-04:00

10:10 - Supporters of the Obama campaign keep hitting the points of "moving" and "inspiring" people. There is little talk about actual policy ... which is supposedly what this forthcoming speech is supposed to clear up.

10:07 - The video has already started emphasizing the "workmanlike" themes. Hopefully the speech won't be as trite, though.

10:02 - The DNC video for Obama ... images of the heartland, Obama with baby photos - the standard politcal images. The video sems to argue implicitly that self-actualization will lead to a superior presidency.

10:02 - Obama is pro-people, according to an interviewee on MSNBC. As opposed to John McCain being ... anti-people?

10:01 - Another "no more Bush" and "turn the page" reference. You really didn't have to watch a full hour to get the message. Just listen to one speaker.

10:00 - Durbin voted in favor of this war he is condemning. But what's new?

10:00 PM - Sounds like Dick Durbin needs a glass of water.

Can we come up with endless punny song titles for our DNC DaNCeparty? Si Se Puede (9:30 - 10:00 PM)

2008-08-28T21:32:00.010-04:00

9:56 - Anxiously awaiting Dick Durbin's speech ...

9:51 - There is some serious downtime before the 10:00 hour here. The dances sure are interesting though.

9:49 - Actually, his blurb was "Riverating" ... just trying our hand at puns since the DNC seems to be all over those.

9:48 - Ray Rivera's blurb was riveting. This must be the calm before the storm.

9:45 - C-SPAN is turning out to be the channel to watch. All the 24-hour news networks are busy over-analyzing during some of the speakers. And for the purpose of our blog, we want to hear the speakers since we are doing our own analysis. Olbermann's insights have proven to be insufficient which is disappointing.

9:42 - Barney Smith leaves the stage to chants of "Barney! Barney!" No such treatment for Gore.

9:38 - A hyphenated last name, a thick country accent, and three words a minute? Yes - the speaker from Pittsboro did us proud ...

9:36 - It seems like these blue-collar speakers are firing the crowd up more than any of the other speakers have thus far. The message has been the same, though - change, no "third" Bush term and the like.

9:34 - Three spanish speakers so far since around 8:00.

9:31 PM EST - Regarding the blue-collar speakers, Joe Biden said he would listen to these people everday. He says he is going to listen to them everday, but I hope he has professional advisors.

Let the Sunshine In (9:00 - 9:30 PM)

2008-08-28T21:01:00.007-04:00

9:29 - Not much analysis to provide right now. There are constant gaps between speakers, and the speeches themselves are more of the same rhetoric. We want to see Keith Olbermann say something stupid, but we haven't found anything ... yet. Though it is interesting to add that we've seen "9/11 was an inside job" and "Maddow/Olbermann in 2012" signs in the crowd behind the MSNBC desk.

9:26 - Biden doesn't use the "Bill Clinton thumb jab" when he speaks, making him perhaps the only Democrat who doesn't employ this overused technique.

9:24 - Biden takes the stage ... unnanounced according to the offical DNC website.

9:19 - It has been discussed before, but the stage that is in place at Invesco Field invokes images of ancient Greece. When the "Obamessiah" takes the stage, he should be wearing some sort of God-like robe.

9:14 - Michael McDonald provided a rendition of "America the Beautiful." Anyone who saw 40 Year Old Virgin would find this mildly humorous.

9:00 PM EST - Some thoughts on the Al Gore speech right before the hour.
- "Let the Sunshine In" was his intro and outro song. How fitting.
- Gore's speech was mostly forgettable, presenting the same Obama cathecism. The most interesting part of his speech was his equation of Obama to Abraham Lincoln. Really? Lincoln's greatness came from his willingness and ability to make unimaginably difficult moral decisions. Obama thinks that any decision which has moral implications is above his pay grade (or, at least, he said so at the Saddleback Forum).
- Gore mentioned he didn't want to "recycle" Bush's policies of the last eight years. Oh, the puns.

Quick Rundown of the Schedule

2008-08-28T20:44:00.002-04:00

Nash gave a quick preview of what to expect from the Democrats tonight. Here's a quick rundown of what you can expect from us tonight.

We'll be keeping live, running posts in 30 minute intervals beginning at 9:00 PM EST. Barack Obama's acceptance speech will be given its own live post.

9:00 - 10:00 PM EST
- Live musical performance from Michael McDonald
- Susan Eisenhower
- Retired Generals Tribute
- American Voices Program (aka, Obama's attempt at snagging the blue-collar votes)

10:00 PM EST
- Richard Durbin
- Barack Obama

Look for analysis, our own personal thoughts, and of course pithy comments throughout the night. And be sure to leave your thoughts in the comments section.

What to Expect Tonight

2008-08-28T20:13:00.004-04:00

A quick preview of tonight:
Everything will be over-the-top tonight: from the fans, to the media coverage, to the stadium (which, interestingly, was constructed by the same set team that put together Britney Spear's last tour... apparently that ad had predictive, not merely entertainment, value). Everything, that is, except for the speech. The smart money says that Obama's speech tonight will focus on policies. In his words: "I'm not aiming for a lot of high rhetoric... I'm more concerned with communicating how I intend to help middle-class families."

The DNC So Far

2008-08-28T01:03:00.011-04:00

After a long hiatus, the Carolina Review blog is back. We hope to make this an engaging forum where we can interact with our readers this year. Over the next two weeks, we'll be covering the Democratic National Convention and the Republican National Convention. Thursday night, Michael Smith and I will be blogging live during Obama's acceptance speech (as we expect to do during McCain's next week). At this point, I would just like to record a few short observations (which are very far from exhaustive) from Monday-Wednesday.

So far, there has been no discernible "convention bump" in the polls. Monday, the Gallup national poll had a 45-45% tie. Tuesday, John McCain actually slid ahead 46-44%. Wednesday, Obama was ahead 45-44%. These results have been mirrored by other daily polls. Now, though we still have Obama's acceptance speech, which could very well give him a statistically significant lead (however briefly), it cannot be a good sign that the opening of the convention, combined with the Biden VP announcement gave the ticket absolutely no momentum. [Update: Polling from Thursday show is mixed. Gallup polling indicates that Obama is up 48-42%, but Rasmussen, which has had them even all week, has Obama with only a one point lead. At least we can still say that there was no initial bounce from the Biden announcement. Indeed, Rasmussen reports that Obama "lost ground immediately following the selection of Joe Biden as his running mate."]
The pundits generally applauded Michelle Obama's speech on Monday night. At the least, they said that she accomplished her main goal: changing her image from the enraged radical of the primaries to an American everymom. This is something of a trend in the family (precipitated by necessity, no doubt, but made possible by a willingness verging on duplicity). Immediately after securing the Democratic nomination, Obama started trying to present himself as a son of Kansas, guided by Midwest values. He also started moving to the center on a list of issues (Iran, guns, free trade, etc.). More recently, Obama has been attempting a transformation from the long-awaited Messiah to "a clear-eyed pragmatist" (in the words of Biden). Perhaps more incidentally, He has already undergone a CHANGE from the Obama who wrote The Audacity of Hope, the Obama who seemed to ache that he couldn't agree with everyone simultaneously (though he completely understood the viewpoints of those with whom he disagreed) to the sharp-elbowed Obama of today, who superciliously derides his opponents (take, for example, his infamous "bitter" monologue or when he remarked, "it’s like these guys take pride in being ignorant"). On the other hand, I don't think McCain could re-invent himself.
If I could set one rule for the conventions, it would be that no idea may be repeated, which would make them barely long enough for 3 commercial breaks. If I could set a second rule, it would be that no convention speaker may use anything that might potentially be interpretated as a pun. Amoung the many cringe-inducing samples are:

"It makes perfect sense that George Bush and John McCain will be together next week in the Twin Cities, because these day they're awfully hard to tell apart." -Hillary Clinton
"If you watched the Olympics you know China's going for the gold." -Mark Warner
"Even though John McCain spent 26 years in Washington voting over and over against investing in renewable energy, John McCain does support some 'renewables.' He wants to renew the failed Bush agenda..." -Kathleen Sebelius

While this convention may in the end be successful in uniting the Democratic Party, establishing the narrative for the general election, and giving Obama a much-needed bump in the polls, it has already done one thing very conclusively: provided us with plenty of reminders of just how odious politicians are (one of the least heralded benefits of a limited government is that we wouldn't feel so irresponsible if we just ignored these narcissists and their fatuous pronouncements). The worst example so far has to be Hillary Clinton. About a third of the way through her speech Tuesday night she took a moment to remember two prominent Democrats who have recently passed away: Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs-Jones and Arkansas Democratic Chair Bill Gwatney. Then, she went from almost touching to blatantly obscene, saying "You know, Bill Gwatney and Stepahnie Tudds-Jones knew that, after eight years of George Bush, people are hurting at home and our standing has eroded around the world." We don't typically take friends' passings as opportunities to score rhetorical points... and I thought Bill was the indecent one.

Terrorism: One Year Later (March Issue)

2007-03-24T18:35:00.000-04:00

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.

New Blog Features

2007-03-14T21:54:00.000-04:00

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.

February Issue

2007-03-14T21:49:00.000-04:00

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.”

Edwards Leaves Center to "New" Director

2007-01-15T16:19:00.000-05:00

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.

We're back...with a vengeance

2007-01-15T16:15:00.000-05:00

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.

Shouting Match: SDS vs. Army Veterans

2006-11-20T21:05:00.000-05:00

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.

Campus Left grows stronger while Campus Right fumbles in the dark

2006-10-31T12:49:00.000-05:00

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.

Columbus Day: Freshman Sounds Off

2006-10-08T19:46:00.000-04:00

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 Nanny State

2006-10-02T12:42:00.000-04:00

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.

Something does smell racist . . . I mean liberal . . . I mean fishy

2006-09-29T16:35:00.000-04:00

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.

Environmentalism at its best...

2006-09-24T13:55:00.000-04:00

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.

Thank You Congresswoman

2006-09-22T15:52:00.000-04:00

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.

Car Free Day

2006-09-20T12:47:00.000-04:00

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.

Class of 2007. May I present to you your graduation speaker.

2006-09-13T13:48:00.000-04:00

The Daily Tar Heel reports on it here.

Let's get this discussion rolling.

Open Debate Is Vital

2006-09-13T12:49:00.000-04:00

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

John Ashcroft comes to UNC

2006-09-13T08:32:00.000-04:00

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.

9/11: condemnation enough

2006-09-12T00:27:00.000-04:00

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.

What did you do in the Great War?

2006-09-11T23:55:00.000-04:00

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.

Compulsion to speech

2006-09-09T06:20:00.000-04:00

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."

2006-08-31T16:20:00.000-04:00

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.

Keeping 'em Honest

2006-08-30T17:04:00.000-04:00

On Monday Elizabeth Freeman, a former member of student congress, strongly criticized James Allred and Luke Farley. You can read the column here.

"The two polar opposites do have one commonality - Power," she writes. "That could, in the upcoming year, place the student body's well-being towards the bottom of Allred's and Farley's political agendas."

The following day, Luke and Dustin Ingalls tried to put concerns about student congress to rest. You read their letter here.

But it was Kris Wampler's response today that really destroyed the credibility of Freeman's accusatory column. You can read it here. Here's an excerpt:

Former Rep. Elizabeth Freeman, with whom I served on Student Congress, is critical of campus leaders for failing to work harder for the student body.

Yet, in all my time in Congress, I never witnessed Ms. Freeman to be a particularly active member of that body. In fact, in her resignation letter from earlier this year, Freeman stated, "I apologize for my irresponsible lack of attendance lately at student congress meetings, committee meetings, and general events." Her resignation came just before Annual Budget - the time of year when Student Congress allocates hundreds of thousands of dollars in fee money for the coming year.

Considering Mr. Freeman's "concern" for the manner in which such money is doled out, it seems odd that she cut and run just before the most significant allocation of funding all year.

Meanwhile, real leaders like Luke Farley are working hard, every day, for students.

I would like to say, "You got served Ms. Freeman," but that's not really part of Carolina Review parlance. However, I will say that when Kris gets too busy at law school to pay attention to UNC politics, I will miss his brand of candor.

UNC at Rocky Mount: a bad idea

2006-08-22T14:24:00.000-04:00

Bowles has taken a wait-and-see approach to Wesleyan College's effort to join the UNC system. Read about it here.

That is good news for the rational.

While there are several issues to consider within this proposal, this is the most important:

N.C. Wesleyan has had a history of financial problems. While school leaders say things are fine now, UNC would want to verify that and decide whether financial problems will always be with that campus or whether those problems would abate with UNC management.

It seems that everyone is in agreement that Wesleyan should not join the system if it is not financially viable. However, there is something that has been missed here. If Wesleyan is free of financial problems, it still shouldn't be allowed to join the system. Why grow the size of government and make taxpayers pay for something that could operate without tax dollars. Private colleges give a state the same economic and social benefits (of course the benefits of universities in general are often exaggerated) as public colleges, and they are kinder to taxpayers.

So, regardless of Wesleyan's financial situation, they should not join the UNC system.

Faculty Win Grant for Law School Diversity “Research”

2006-08-11T12:10:00.000-04:00

Faculty from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC-Greensboro and the University of California at Los Angeles have received a $540,000 grant from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC) to continue their study of whether racial diversity in U.S. law schools results in educational benefits.

As highlighted by The Educational Diversity Project at UNC-Chapel Hill, which is conducting the study, “controversy exists as to whether racial diversity offers measurable educational benefits in the law school setting and in the increasingly diverse workforce and society beyond law school.” So it is important to discover the true effect of affirmative action policies. However, the timing and the background of the study’s authors suggest that LSAC may have commissioned the study more to produce support for the belief that affirmative action is just and beneficial than to answer a perplexing question -- is affirmative action really beneficial?

Law professor Charles E. Daye and psychology professor Abigail T. Panter of UNC-Chapel Hill, Dr. Walter R Allen, professor of sociology and education at UCLA, and Dr. Linda F. Wightman, emeritus professor of educational research at UNC-Greensboro have already completed the first facet of the study, which involves following 8,500 students who entered about 70 law schools in the fall of 2004 and tracking their progress. The grant was awarded by LSAC under its empirical research program, which awards grants for research about law schools, law students and legal education. The council has awarded more than $1 million to the project's comprehensive research study since 2004.

Charles Daye, former LSAC President, participated in the preparation of and co-signed the Amicus Brief that the University of North Carolina School of Law submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the University of Michigan School of Law in the Grutter case. Furthermore, one of his professional interests is “assuring access to the legal profession by members of under-represented minority groups.” Dr. Linda F. Wightman, former Vice-President of Operations, Testing, and Research at LSAC, has done extensive educational research. One of her studies, entitled “Are Other Things Essentially Equal? An Empirical Investigation of the Consequences of Including Race as a Factor in Law School Admission” and featured on LSAC’s web site, concludes that “the data provide compelling evidence disputing the claim that including race as a factor in law school admission decisions resulted either in admitting students unqualified for the academic rigor of a legal education or in undermining the academic standards of participating institutions.” She came to this conclusion by avoiding “the misleading conclusions that can result from simple comparisons of total group performance, either on admission credentials or law school performance.”

In addition to being strongly in favor of affirmative action, the researchers of the Educational Diversity Project claim that the study’s methods will “provide further nuance, depth, and richness” to the study. The word “nuance” suggests that the study may use whatever means necessary to paint a favorable picture of affirmative action. As Dr. Wightman has asserted before, evaluating “total group performance” can yield “misleading conclusions.”

This grant comes shortly after Richard Sander, a law professor at UCLA, wrote his study, “The Racial Paradox of Corporate Law Firms,” which will be in the next issue of the North Carolina Law Review. Sander concludes in his study that racial preferences in law firm hiring may actually hurt minority lawyers.
Sander is also the author of “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” in 2004. This report concluded that affirmative action in law school admissions hurts minorities. By placing minority students in more elite schools than they would attend if academics were the only consideration, affirmative action has caused some of the disparity between minority and white law school dropout rates and bar passage rates. Sander suggests that without affirmative action, there might in fact be more minority lawyers. This study caused much controversy and led to the publication of many counter studies from what Sander calls “the affirmative action establishment.”

While it is important to assess the effect affirmative action has on student performance and educational experience in law school, such an assessment is only valuable if it is unbiased and truthful. LSAC, as an administrative organization, should be pursuing truth rather than any specific agenda. Unfortunately, commissioning a study to professors with a strong bias is a step in the wrong direction. It seems possible that this study’s consideration of “nuance” and educational experience may suggest that it is being conducted to rebut studies, such as Sander’s, that call into question the benefits of “affirmative action.” A study undertaken by researchers who have not previously staked out a position would inspire more confidence.

Bowles to cut $1.3 million from UNC - General Administration budget

2006-08-03T15:44:00.000-04:00

Read about it here.

That's what I'm talking about. Let's get rid of some administrators. As Insider Higher Ed reports, we have way too many as it is.

[In the last ten years] Total growth in faculty jobs over the decade was 26.4 percent. But that rate of increase was outpaced by several other categories of higher education employees: There was a 28.1 percent rise in executive and managerial jobs. Why do we need more administrators than teachers?

Taylor is Famous

2006-08-03T15:38:00.000-04:00

Our very own Taylor Stanford was quoted in the Washington Times's coverage of the Young America's Foundation National Conservative Student Conference.

Read the story here.

The National Conservative Student Conference offers a chance to "hear a different point of view than on campus," said Taylor Stanford, a senior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Productive Environmentalism

2006-07-25T13:58:00.000-04:00

The DTH reports that there is a new way to get around chapel hill.

A new Chapel Hill business, called Greenway Pedicabs just started operations three weeks ago. These cabs are bicycles with rickshaw in tow. The service runs on Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday evenings from 5:30 p.m. to 2:30 a.m., and is available for reservation during the day. The business is going to donate a percentage of their profits to Students United for a Responsible Global Environment. The owners got the idea for the business because they wanted to cut down on emissions.

I doubt this business is going to cut down on emissions. I also doubt that Students United for a Responsible Global Environment does much good. But when it comes to preserving the environment, neither of those things matters. The world population is growing and conservation is not going to significantly reduce emissions. Similarly, slogans and catchy media events put on by environmental groups aren't going to help the environment. The only thing that will help the environment are market solutions.

You want America to reduce it's dependence on oil, find something as powerful and as cheap as oil and start building the infrastructure for distribution. Invent it and people will buy it.

These guys want to cut down on emissions at UNC. Stop chanting about it and start a business. If there is a demand for pedicab rides, then they will be making a difference. If there isn't a demand for it, then this business won't be around for long. That's the way it works. So, while I don't know how viable this transportation alternative will be, I commend these guys for doing something productive, instead of the usual environmentalist behavior of lobbying for regulation and other anti-economic-progress measures.

Internet gambling crackdown

2006-07-19T11:42:00.001-04:00

Federal authorities arrested the CEO of BetOnSports, a prominent internet gambling company, and they're planning to press charges against several other current and former company officers.

When this came across the Google reader, I thought I should share because in the latest dead-tree edition of Carolina Review, I wrote an article about internet gambling. Specifically, I talked about how none of our Federal laws that Congress keeps passing against gambling are enforceable because of the overseas webservers that host the gambling websites. This arrest, however, marks a shift from the observations I made in my article about Congress' willingness to legislate but unwillingness to enforce:

The fact that these operations are legal in their home jurisdictions “does not entitle them to do business in the United States,” said Catherine L. Hanaway, the United States attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, which brought the indictment. The charges announced yesterday indicate that “their efforts to avoid U.S. law enforcement will be challenged and brought to justice whenever possible.”

The NYtimes article brings everything full circle by talking about the global profitability and popularity of internet gambling, and how the United States is "not in line" with the rest of the world. Those pesky things called principles keep getting in our way, it seems.

What I think will happen? On issues of morality like this, the U.S. is far more likely to regulate than outright ban (Prohibition taught us enough about that). With internet poker being a billion-dollar-per-year industry, I doubt the Federal government is going to start a blitzkrieg campaign to put an end to it entirely. They just want some measure of control (and to dip their hand in the pie of course). The NYtimes thinks this marks the beginning of more arrests and more seizures of online gambling companies, but I'm not buying it. Temporarily, maybe so. But long term, poker in particular is too popular and too big. You'll see public outcry if something like PartyPoker.net (also has off-shore servers) gets taken down.

So instead, some kind of compromise is going to be reached before all is said and done, and you'll see internet gambling popularized in the United States. But that's just my two cents.

Racism on your cellphone?

2006-07-18T14:19:00.000-04:00

Another trumping of 1st amendment liberties, this time in South Africa. A "racist ringtone" has been spreading on cell phones and has been condemned by authorities.

Dr Lionel Louw, chief of staff for the Office of the Premier in the Western Cape and representative of the Moral Regeneration Movement, had this to say:

"The form of behaviour reflected in the ringtone is criminal and its perpetrators will feel the full might of the law." -- "It is a minority who participate in promoting this, and such views are not the reflection of the majority."

The article outlines the message of the ringtone, without actually saying what it said:

It describes how such a person should be tied to the back of a pickup truck and dragged around while driving.

The chorus has a blatantly racist tone and ends with a call to set dogs on the black person.

Without hearing the actual ringtone, it's hard to judge. But so long as it is not inciting actual violence (as in, the message isn't asking people in specific terms to take up arms and kill a group of folks with a real intention--mens rea--of bringing about such violence), then it falls into the category of "protected free speech." Well, in America at least. The rest of the world doesn't share our devotion to liberty (nor does it share its fruits).

Side note: it's things like this, ladies and gents, that make me unafraid of the burgeoning economic power of China. Why be afraid of a people who censor Google, and who engineer social control through murderous legislation. What scares me more is if their transition toward liberty, which has been a slow process thus far, isn't completely smooth...

"Liberty is the great parent of science and of virtue; and a nation will be great in both in proportion as it is free." -Thomas Jefferson, Fourth President of the United States

"Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" -Patrick Henry, "radical" advocate of the American Revolution

Europe's Religious Intolerance

2006-07-17T15:13:00.000-04:00

A report by "Aid to the Church in Need" finds that Europe has condemned the Vatican for "human rights" abuses more often than it has condemned dictatorships:

Between 1994 and 2004, various European institutions have condemned the Holy See on 29 occasions for supposed violations of human rights, while Cuba has been condemned only 25 times and China just 15.

The "human rights" violations have been expressions of speech that certain Europeans deem offensive:

Tamburrini decried the spread of Âanti-discriminationÂ laws throughout Europe, saying in practice the laws have become tools for discriminating against Catholics and other Christians. ÂThese are the laws that have made it possible for a Danish Protestant pastor to be sentenced to six months in prison for speaking about homosexuality in his church. Or for the ChurchÂs ecclesial movements to be classified as dangerous sects by the French anti-sectarian laws of 1996. France has taken even further steps and since March 2004 has prohibited the public use of religious symbols, which has prevented priests from entering public schools,Â the article in Alba noted.

Sound familiar? UNC incessantly talks about diversity and tolerance, but has been the perpetrator of religious discrimination on numerous occasions.

Maybe this is what certain members of the Left mean when they say, "we should be more like Europe." It's not just socialism and the economic depravity that that system induces, but the silencing of "offensive" language and practices (i.e. religion) that they wish to bring about.

UNC Saves the Earth

2006-07-12T00:27:00.000-04:00

The DTH reports:

Town, gown work to slow carbon dioxide emissions

UNC and Chapel Hill have jointly committed to a 60 percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Douglas Crawford-Brown, director of the Carolina Environmental Program, entered the town-gown pledge to the Carbon Connections project at the University of East Anglia, where he served as the U.S. representative.

The Chapel Hill Town Council approved the town's pledge at its June 26 meeting.

UNC produces between 335,000 and 345,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide annually, with the per capita emissions rate about nine metric tons per person per year. About half of those come from electricity and steam generated at the campus cogeneration facility, one of the nation's cleanest coal-burning energy plants.

The University plans to work with CEP to monitor progress and explore options for saving energy.

Let me just pose this question. If "about half" of UNC's carbon dioxide production comes from "electricity and steam generated at the campus cogeneration facility," which is "one of the nation's cleanest coal-burning energy plants," then how are they going to reduce emissions by 60 percent?

It seems that UNC would have to 1)shut down the cogeneration facility completely and curb other energy use, such as campus vehicles, 2) stop all energy use outside of the cogeneration plant and reduce the output of the cogeneration plant significantly, or 3)reduce both cogeneration plant use and non-power plant use by more than 50 percent each. None of these things is going to happen. So pat yourself on the back UNC for setting arbitrary goals that you won't meet.

Bias at the DTH?

2006-07-11T23:18:00.000-04:00

I'm a few days behind here on this topic. But it's the summer.

In this week's edition of the DTH (it comes out on thursdays during the summer) there was a front page story about Bush's July 4th visit to Fort Bragg entitled "Joy, anger in Bush's visit." Go to the Web site and you can see some posts calling the article biased and some vehement defenses of the article. In the DTH general blog, summer editor Chris Coletta defends the article as well.

"It by no means ignores the president’s positive comments, which were definitely part of the story," Coletta says. "However, it also finds a way to examine a different side of Bush’s visit — namely, the feelings it conjured up for a variety of people on an Independence Day that saw the country confused about a controversial war and a controversial leader."

The article is 780 words long, of which 199 words were dedicated to quoting two of the protesters that were at the event, 319 words cataloguing a wife of a servicemen and two officer's feelings about July 4th, and 262 words about what Bush had to say.

So, in a way the article is balanced. It gives equal coverage to Bush's words, Bush's detractors, and neutral sources. However, the 199 words quoting the protesters come in the first half of the article. And considering the fact that many readers just read the first half of an article, it's easy to see why one might view this as biased. Furthermore, is an equal share of time given to detractors and neutral observers really balanced? There was somewhere in the ballpark of 15 protesters and thousands of soldiers at the speech. Should those two constituencies have equal air time? You decide.

The "Other" Politics

2006-07-06T13:03:00.000-04:00

An introduction Jerry Seinfeld would appreciate: What’s the deal with facebook “Political Views”? I mean, come on, this is college; not the United States Senate.

As some of you well know, I’ve parted ways with Carolina Review as a staff writer, content to fire away digital mortars from the safe confines of Bloggerland.

A big part of the reason why I left was that I didn’t feel all that conservative anymore. Liberal shoes didn’t seem to fit (two sizes too small). Neither did moderate (four sizes too big). So what was I left to do? I know I’m not apathetic, even if I do tend toward the fatalistic from time to time. So I just changed it to “Other” and decided to be done with it. Let everyone else figure out what it means, because I sure as hell don’t know.

Facebook has quietly trivialized our social lives to an extent most of us aren’t even aware of anymore. Think about what it is on its surface: a categorical listing of your friends organized by geography, institutions of higher learning, and most recently, by employment in the dreaded “real world” (which is not to be confused with the MTV show by the same name). On certain levels, adding up your friends like you would assets on an expense report seems pretty sick, like a desire for social acceptance and validation gone horribly wrong.

But the worst was when they added a feature that lets you track exactly how you met each of your friends. Two problems. First, how do you know when someone becomes your friend? Where is that metaphysical line in the sand drawn? Second, assuming you could draw such a line, what’s the protocol for noticing every time someone crosses it? Good friends don’t arrive on your doorstep like movies from Netflix. They just show up one day unannounced, because all of a sudden you realize they’re there, and it’s no longer important how they got there, in fact you can’t remember how, but you just know you’d give your left leg for them, if they ever needed that sort of thing.

Wait, wait; so you’re saying you met him in your economics class, talked to him three times (only so you could copy notes come exams), but then saw him at a party, shared a beer and some love for Carolina basketball, and then hungover-ly decided to add them? Sounds like facebook “friends” would be more aptly titled “acquaintances,” or my personal favorite: “negligibly less than strangers.”

Facebook dummied down our social lives to the lowest common denominator (starts with alc-, ends with -ohol), and the “political views” are no different. I can understand Brian’s frustration with the “Conservative On Facebook Only” faction (COFOs, for short); especially when the girl pictured in pearls, residency: Granville Towers, political status: Very Conservative; and yet, she has two photo albums of kegstands, empty Busch Light cans, all wonderfully captioned with nuggets like “omigod we were wasted!!1” and “look! passed out, te he” (And this isn’t even covering her extensive memberships in groups such as “I fall down on the p2p” and “Oh gah, what did I do last night?”)

“Relationship Status”: this was the worst idea in the long, sordid history of bad ideas going back to the Spanish Inquisition (okay, so there might be a couple worse, like on-line basketball ticket distribution, or American Idol). Breaking up over the phone was pretty bad. By email was borderline sinful. But to break-up over facebook ought to earn a public shaming, stockade style, in the Pit in front of your peers. Oh, and you and your best friend from high school are not funny when you post your inter-campus open lesbian relationship as an ironic inside joke, remembering secretly that one night when, omigod, we were wasted!

But, as the more astute among you will notice, I still haven’t answered the “Why Other?” question. The bottomline is this: I don’t take the political status of anyone on facebook seriously (because I don’t take anything on facebook seriously), and Other seems to cover all manners of sin. I’m philosophically and morally opposed to abortion (if there’s even a chance it’s life, even an impossibly small one, we owe it to ourselves not to allow this ever to happen); but I do have a little sister, and an overactive imagination, however I don’t want to know, not in the slightest, what the actual severity of that decision would feel like (and biologically speaking, I never will).

In theory, I think corporal punishment in public schools is a bad idea. Too many wacko high school teachers—come on, we all had them—would (and did) abuse an otherwise good system; but from a practical standpoint, I wouldn’t mind if it came back because it would give teachers the means they need to reel in this nation’s most dilapidated schools. Physical pain leads to fear, which leads to respect, which leads to control, which just might allow someone to learn something.

I’ll take the lesser of two evils any day.

I don’t think the government’s purpose should ever be to provide for everyone, a la the European model of a welfare state. But I do understand that when you’ve got an 11 percent unemployment rate (like our beloved friends, the French), large-scale national welfare makes practical, even if unfortunate, sense.

Universal healthcare is too strong, treating colds in emergency rooms (the current reality) is too weak. Some middle ground (like a hybrid car with gas AND electric engines) needs to be found in a hurry.

But back to the welfare thing. *cues the predictable but belated Fourth of July sentimentalism* In America, a self-described Land of Opportunity, our government should, and often does, focus on creating jobs for people, and in doing so, breaking down the barriers of social mobility via education and creative (although complicated) tax structures. Everyone ought to be able to flourish (and I mean that in the ancient Greek eudaimonia sense) according to their ability. Because even though we are all equal in the eyes of God (or whoever’s pulling the strings up there), that very well might be where it stops. Some people are smarter, more attractive, more ambitious, better public speakers, more charismatic, and so on. For government to be a cookie-cutter service, the same package deal of economic security for everyone, would be an unintended disservice to its people.

I would be a libertarian, if it weren’t for the fact that I still believe somewhat in the idea of a “public good.” Man is a social creature. Retracting into a political model centered on absolute individual freedom denies this in many ways, placing serious and unnecessary limits on our potential as human beans. Sometimes we squish each other, sure; but sometimes we wave from such great heights.

There’s a lot more, but I didn’t mean for this to be a political fringe theory rant (at least not all of it). What I meant was this: out of all those things listed above, how do I simplify them into a seven-option drop-down box on facebook? Even if they let you input your own label—Blue Dog Democrat, NASCAR mom (which thankfully, none of us probably are yet), neo-Marxist, practicing pragmatist, morally deficient liberal, morally self-righteous conservative—would any of them cover it all?

In my idealistically envisioned perfect world of free-thinking, charismatic, caring individuals: no. But we’ll keep subscribing to the labels so long as they keep giving us a sense of having found all the answers. So my politics are Other. You’re more than welcome to explain to me what that means. I’d love to hear it, actually, because I’m just too tired and stupid to claim to know what my politics really are.

David
www.nostempore.net

America, The Land of Freedom

2006-07-04T19:16:00.000-04:00

Today, Americans across the world will celebrate the birth of the United States. On this day in 1776, we officially declared our independence from the tyranny and oppression of the English king. It was an unprecedented act of defiance against the century's most powerful country. In the ensuing war, only our steadfast hope for a better, more inclusive government allowed our troops to beat back the mighty armies of the king.

Too often, Americans focus on the negatives that engulf our great land: war, terrorism, economic woes, the list goes on. In all that gloom, we forget an important fact. Despite our problems, the United States of America is still, two hundred thirty years after its birth, the most respected, free and powerful nation on this earth. For over two centuries we have led the world in the direction of right. On this day we should forget all our nation is not and be thankful for all that it is.

We have stood proud against oppression in foreign lands. We have set the barrier for free trade. We have struggled to open our own land to people of different races and nationalities so that they too can experience the American dream. For those reasons we are the only superpower left on the globe.

On distant battlefields from the jungles of the south Pacific to the beaches of Normandy to the deserts of Iraq, our armies are respected and unparalleled. In both world wars we entered on the side of the downcast, beaten, and oppressed and used our skill as fighters, our dream as free men and women, and our trust in each other to defend freedom’s cause. At the conclusion of the wars, meanwhile, we used those same qualities to help the defeated rebuild their war torn nations – just as we are doing in Iraq today. Indeed, people across the world should be just as proud of America as we are. No country at any time in the eventful history of this world has been as helpful to people of foreign lands than the United States.

When the evil threat of communism began to appear at all corners of the world, what country issued a doctrine protecting any country from its threats? What country entered in hundreds of relief missions to save the world from the U.S.S.R.? What country committed our young men in our armed forces to defend world peace? Only the proud and strong United States of America.

And what of the Cold War's end? Did the United States gloat at the poor, oppressed people of the former superpower the U.S.S.R.? Certainly not! Instead of invading the Soviet Union with bombers and missiles, we sent food, money and relief. Never before, had such an outright winner in a war provided so much help to the people of the defeated nation.

Because of a dream our soldiers had when they fought the British, because of a dream our fore-fathers had when they framed the Constitution, because of a dream shared by the millions of different people in America to promote peace, seek justice, and remove oppression from the world, we are the freest nation on the face of this earth.

On this day we should be thankful for all the extraordinary men and women who have made this country what it is today: George Washington, John Adams, Susan B. Anthony, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, and the list goes on. These men and women not only embodied the American spirit, they lived the dream.

They understood that freedom, not oppression, is the way to lead a great nation to glory. America is a land of brave, smart, patient, and free individuals where everyone is allowed to blossom to their full potential. We are a nation of the people for the people. We may have lost our way occasionally throughout history, but time and again we have striven to correct our mistakes, to repay our debts, and to lead ourselves, and this world, in the right direction once again.

Too often we read between the stars and stripes and see the mistakes of our country and its leaders. Today, let’s look solely at the flag as it proudly billows in the wind and be thankful that we are citizens of the greatest nation this world has ever known: The United States of America.

Independence Day (Part I - North Carolina)

2006-07-04T01:20:00.000-04:00

So, it is officially our Independence Day. And unfortunately, many of us [Americans] let this day go by without much reflection. Whether it's out of ignorance, cynicism, laziness, or a warped worldview, (aging hippie professor still dreaming about the Marxist revolution in America, that means you) Americans often miss the opportunity to reflect on the significance of July 4th. So, today I will try to prevent that, one post at a time.

Let us begin with a few questions:

1)Why do we celebrate Independence on the 4th?

July 2, 1776 is the day that the Continental Congress actually voted for independence. John Adams, in his writings, even noted that July 2 would be remembered in the annals of American history and would be marked with fireworks and celebrations. The written Declaration of Independence was dated July 4 but wasn't actually signed until August 2. Fifty-six delegates eventually signed the document, although all were not present on that day in August.

2) What North Carolinians signed the declaration?

There were three: Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, and John Penn.

Joseph Hewes moved to Edenton, NC in 1760 at the age of thirty. He was appointed to represent North Carolina at the first meeting of the continental congress in 1774 and continued in that capacity until he died in October, 1779.

William Hooper settled in Wilmington to practive law. He was originally a loyalist, but changed his views and was so established a patriot, that he was appointed to be a delegate to the second continental congress. As a result of his changing loyalties, the English decided to "educate" Hooper so that all rebels would understand the consequences of their actions. His plantation, Finian, on the Masonboro Sound was destroyed. Suffering from malaria and a badly injured arm, Hooper soon found refuge in Hillsborough, where he was able to serve as a state legislator. He and his wife are burried in Orange County.

John Penn moved to North Carolina to relocate his successful law practive in 1774. In I775, he was elected a member of the continental congress. He was successively re-elected to congress in the years 1777, 1778, and 1779. He died in September, 1788 at the age of 46.

COFO will now be part of CR parlance

2006-07-03T16:42:00.000-04:00

I just became aware of a great term thanks to Tyler Yount's blog. It's COFO, or Conservative On Facebook Only. I like this term for two reasons. COFO's annoy me and Facebook annoys me. So, COFO will now be an accepted part of CR parlance. Fitz, add it to the style guide.

Murder Factory Boosts Productivity

2006-06-29T15:19:00.000-04:00

So it turns out a good chunk of Warren Buffet's money is going to fund Planned Parenthood. Read about it here.

That's not really that surprising. What is a little troubling, however, is the rising productivity at Planned Parenthood. The Catholic News Agency reports:

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America recently released its annual report for 2004-05, which shows that it took in more total money ($882 million), more government money ($272.7 million) and more clinic money ($346.8 million) than ever before.

In addition, the report shows that Planned Parenthood continued to make money last year - $63 million. The additional profits for last year brings the total profits of Planned Parenthood to $649.6 million since 1987. The total net assets of the company are now at $784.1 million - $478.7 million of which are in cash or investments.

So, the money is poring in for a "pro-choice" group that is anything but supportive of choice:

Planned Parenthood also set other records last year for the lowest number of women it referred for adoption compared with the number of abortions it performed.

Planned Parenthood performed a record number of abortions - 255,015. The annual report shows it performed 180 abortions for every one woman it sent to an adoption agency.

And even if you are pro-death, you should see a problem with this part of the article:

Jim Sedlak, the director of STOPP International, a Planned Parenthood watchdog group, compiled data from Planned ParenthoodÂs annual reports. He said he was surprised the abortion business continued to ask for state and federal taxpayer dollars despite receiving record income from foundations and other groups.

Since 1987, Planned Parenthood has received a total of $3.9 billion in taxpayers' money, Sedlak stated.

Don't forget: UNC is an integral part of this "success." Health services and the women center refer women to planned parenthood regularly. Read about it here.

State surplus spent

2006-06-26T16:07:00.000-04:00

The Wall Street Journal Op-ed page commented today on the list of states with billion-dollar supluses in 2006. They were concerned that these states would spend the excess funds on new programs, leading to potential budget shortfalls similar to those experienced in recent years in the future.

Near the top of this list of winners is North Carolina with approximately $2 billion in unexpected income. What is the state doing with the money? Spending it ofcourse. As I pointed out not too long ago, UNC cashed in under the latest budget. The DTH reported on May 25:

The 2006-07 budget proposal put forward by the N.C. Senate on Tuesday would fully fund a host of major system priorities, including more than $79.2 million to support enrollment growth and almost $21.6 million for need-based financial aid...senators are backing a pay raise of 8 percent for system faculty during the next academic year and the promise of annual 6 percent increases in future years. The system's Board of Governors had requested only 5 percent.

Instead of giving taxpayers some relief, the General Assembly gives UNC more than it asked for. Not more than it needs, more than it asked for. That's pretty outrageous considering how budget requests work. Usually you don't receive all that you ask for, so you request more than you need.

"Well, maybe this will put a halt to tuition increases," the optimist might say. But the DTH editorial board aptly warned against this expectation last week:

But given the news that the UNC system doesn't face state budget cuts for the first time in years, the University and the Board of Trustees are going to have to work really hard to rationalize any tuition increases this year.

Not that they won't try. Tuition hikes at UNC have become more tradition than exception, leading to a sort of annual anti-birthday party where Chancellor James Moeser shows up and takes away students' presents.

A somewhat tangential, but nevertheless irritating, facet of this issue is the helping hand the General Assembly gave athletics boosters at UNC system schools this year. A Charlotte Observer editorial offers some incite:

If you live in North Carolina, get ready to pay $5.2 million this fall so students from other states can play sports and study at our state universities.

Because out-of-state students on scholarship are now considered in-state students, $5.2 million will be paid by taxpayers and students not on scholarship, instead of by boosters. It seems criminal that taxpayers and students should be forced to cover the costs of organizations that are not part of the "public interest." If a wealthy North Carolinian wants to donate to Carolina athletics, great. But don't make people who are concerned about education, flip the bill.

These are just some things to consider the next time there is a budget "crisis" and professors and local politicians call for higher taxes or tuition: however high the tax or large the surplus, it will never be enough. Government has an insatiable appetite for money.

New brand of terrorism?

2006-06-23T12:53:00.000-04:00

Seven men have been charged with a plot to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago, according to a frontpage NYTimes article.

What interests me is this, a quote from Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales:

"Today, terrorist threats may come from smaller, more loosely defined cells who are not affiliated with Al Qaeda, but who are inspired by a violent jihadist message, and left unchecked, these homegrown terrorists may prove to be as dangerous as groups like Al Qaeda."

Smells awfully familiar of the Taheri-azar "incident." These non-Al Qaeda terrorists are arguably more stupid and less purposeful than "real" Al Qaeda terrorists. Taheri did a bang-up job if his intent was actually to kill students, failing to even send anyone to the hospital overnight; and these Sears Tower terrorists didn't even get past the "let's pledge an allegiance to Al Qaeda for the FBI informer" stage.

I think this underscores the fact that there ought to be a distinction between institutional terrorism, and these rogue renegade types. Both are terrorism, mind you, and both are ideologically motivated. But one clearly poses a bigger "threat" than the other, and I think it serves a purpose to distinguish between the two.

I'll be interested to see how this plays out. The talking heads on CNN think the indictment is "thin," especially for a conspiracy case. It's uncertain if the FBI informer didn't bait some of these suspects into the things they're being charged with, which would be entrapment, which would mean they go home scott-free.

Taheri-Azar Update

2006-06-22T15:56:00.000-04:00

Mohammad Taheri-Azar said Wednesday that he intends to plead guilty to all 18 counts against him. These include nine counts of attempted first-degree murder, five counts of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury, and four counts of assault with a deadly weapon wth intent to kill.

His next court date is September 19.

Taheri-Azar to plead guilty.

2006-06-21T17:10:00.000-04:00

Read about it here.

Also, I assume the DTH will have something about it in tomorrow's edition. We'll see.

Carolina Culture Corner Update

2006-06-21T16:54:00.000-04:00

Thursday is the 250th anniversary of William Davie's birth. Some UNC students have been excavating his South Carolina home to try to find out more about the UNC-CH founder and former North Carolina governor. Read about it here.

Did you know that Davie:

• Was raised about 10 miles south of Charlotte in the Waxhaws, just over the state border, and the only N.C. governor buried in South Carolina -- at the Old Waxhaw Presbyterian Church in upper Lancaster County.

• Graduated from Princeton and interrupted his law studies to lead a cavalry troop against the British in the American Revolution, was seriously wounded and promoted to colonel -- all before age 25. President Andrew Jackson later said that Davie was the finest military officer he'd ever known.

• Hated the British so fiercely that he named his youngest son, Hyder Ali, in honor of the courageous Muslim warrior who fought the British in India.

• Was appointed by President John Adams as foreign minister to France in order to improve relations and avoid war. While in Paris for more than a year, Davie dined and met with Napoleon Bonaparte at the Tuileries Palace. Davie negotiated the Treaty of Mortefontaine and as "pledges of amity and union" between the two nations, Napoleon gave Davie several ancient Roman gold coins.

Oxford N.C. in the running for college based on teachings of Ayn Rand

2006-06-14T17:47:00.000-04:00

Read about it here.

Alex, you should like this.

I like how the article describes Rand:

The author of "Atlas Shrugged" emphasized the rights of the individual and laissez-faire capitalism.

I wonder how UNC administrators feel about this. Many of them hate capitalism, but Rand was no social conservative. So, maybe they aren't too irked.

John Edwards: "Flavor of the month"

2006-06-13T17:08:00.000-04:00

The Charlotte Observer reports:

The buzz among callers to Monday's "Talk of Iowa -- Dr. Politics" radio program was Sunday's Des Moines Register Poll, and its surprise first-place showing for Democrat John Edwards...Edwards, who turned 53 over the weekend, continued a swing through the state by campaigning Monday for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Chet Culver in Iowa City. It was Edwards' fifth visit of the year, and ninth since leaving the Senate in 2005.

How is it that Edwards came upon this good fortune?

According to Charlie Cook, editor of the Washington-based Cook Political Report:

That's one of the advantages of not having a job -- that you can give Iowa the TLC, you know, the special attention they need.

Edwards has been giving a lot of TLC. He's been giving it to Iowans and other states that are coincidentally at the top of the primary list. Maybe this $40,000/year job is not really about poverty, but rather it is about political TLC.

Cook adds:

"The last three to four months, (former Virginia Gov.) Mark Warner has been the flavor of the month," he said. "Before that it was (Sen.) Evan Bayh (of Indiana). Edwards has had a real challenge to stay relevant. He needed a boost. And this was a good boost."

Way to go Mr. Vice-Pres..I mean Senator Ed...I mean Mr. Director of the Center on Poverty at UN...Well, whatever you are, congratulations. Enjoy being the flavor of the month. Whether you lose in the primary or in November, you'll have a place at UNC. (Well not really, since few people have ever seen you there, but you get the point.)

"Consensus" Strikes Again: Leaves Conservatives Frustrated

2006-06-08T17:19:00.000-04:00

Read about it here.

Yes, I would like fries with that.

2006-06-06T11:13:00.000-04:00

“The federal government wants smaller portion sizes at restaurants and nutritional information listed on menus.”

This is the lead from an article that appeared in The Washington Times on Saturday, June 3, 2006. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to an online copy of it.
Here’s a summary: The FDA commissioned a report, which was conducted by the Keystone Center, to examine the eating habits of Americans. In this 136-page report, the FDA asserts that we eat more food away from home, 64 percent of us are overweight and 30 percent are obese.

Yay. Government money spent to tell us that we like food.

But what is even more disturbing than this asinine excuse to issue a report is what the FDA is calling for. The agency wants restaurants to “take the lead in cutting fat”. It wants restaurants to cut the portion sizes of the meals they serve. It also wants nutritional information displayed on the menus.
If you walk into a McDonald’s, chances are that the nutrition information will be posted somewhere in the building. If you ask, most restaurants are willing to fork over the nutritional facts of that steak and potato dinner you just scarfed down. (And you loved every bite) If you go into Applebee’s, there is a special menu for those on the Atkins Diet and Weight Watchers. So, the second suggestion is pretty much covered. Even still, the last time I checked, the purpose of restaurants was to sell food, not make sure that we eat healthy.

Call me crazy, but I have faith in the American people. Since we were born, we have had the ability to determine when we are hungry and when we are not. When we are hungry, we eat. When we eat, we get full. If we eat too much, we get fat. That is just the way it works. I guarantee that if you poll people who make New Year’s Resolutions, an overwhelming majority of them will be either: 1) lose weight, 2) eat healthier or 3) go to the gym more often.

The FDA has no legal ability to police the portion sizes that restaurants serve, but the mere suggestion of such is just another example of how the government is invading my life and my dinner table. If I go to a restaurant and order a bacon-cheddar burger with seasoned fries (my favorite!), I want that burger to be as big as possible. It’s not the responsibility of some bigwig at a government agency to tell me how big my burger should be. I consider myself responsible. I consider people, as a general rule, responsible. I consider it the right of the owner of the restaurant to determine how much food they want to serve.
Apparently, the FDA doesn’t agree with me.

UNC student takes part in "romantic" idea

2006-06-05T17:10:00.000-04:00

Columnist Margaret Carlson reports on a new project called Unity08. It is a internet-based initiative to reform the US primary system. The idea is that there will be a Web site where people who wish to partake vote for a nominee for president. It is supposed to be bipartisan. So, if a person wants to run for president under the Unity08 ticket, they have to have a running mate from the opposite party. This way there will be a moderate candidate running for president who wasn't nominated in Iowa.

Carlson writes:

Unity08 is the brainchild of Hamilton Jordan and Gerald Rafshoon, who know how to roll a rock uphill. They upset conventional wisdom in 1976 to elect an unknown peanut farmer turned Georgia governor, Jimmy Carter. They are joined by Republican Doug Bailey, who worked for President Gerald Ford before founding ``The Hotline,'' a must-read daily online summary of everything political.

Also on board is the former governor of Maine, Angus King, who ran as an independent, and a bunch of energetic college kids, led by student council presidents from Yale and the University of North Carolina. In its brief existence, the kid brigade has signed up 23 colleges.

Dustin Ingalls has informed me that Allred is not part of this group. So, it looks like Carlson got her facts wrong. But, whoever the UNC student is that is taking part in this project, I have to comment. No, this is not pure Leftist propaganda or advocating the derecognition of more Christian groups, but I have to point out what's wrong with this initiative.

It's the same old pessimistic attitude that is promulgated by "moderates" who think they are "open minded." They continually tell us how the American system is broken and why John McCain is the greatest man alive because they want "consensus."

Well I don't want "consensus" for the sake of "consensus." And neither did the founders. Read Federalist 10 and tell me how Madison would feel about this modern notion of "consensus." I don't think he would care for it.

Blind consensus leads to mass hysteria over such myths as human induced global warming and catastophic acid rain and mass condemnation of those with dissenting opinions.

UNC System = Big Government

2006-05-31T21:06:00.000-04:00

There have been two big developments in the system in the last couple weeks. First off, the state budget came out and UNC cashed in. The DTH reports:

The 2006-07 budget proposal put forward by the N.C. Senate on Tuesday would fully fund a host of major system priorities, including more than $79.2 million to support enrollment growth and almost $21.6 million for need-based financial aid...senators are backing a pay raise of 8 percent for system faculty during the next academic year and the promise of annual 6 percent increases in future years. The system's Board of Governors had requested only 5 percent.

North Carolina is already a leader in per-capita spending on higher education, spending more than any other state of comparable or larger size on higher education. This funding raise that wasn't asked for shows how UNC spurs big government and tries to bleed taxpayers dry. Students are hopeful that the increases will stop class sizes from increasing and the number of TAs teaching classes, but only time will tell if those expectations will be met.

The second development is the hope of some legislators and residents of Rocky Mount that N.C. Wesleyan will join the UNC system. The DTH reports:

A special provision in the budget calls on legislators to study making N.C. Wesleyan College, a private school in Rocky Mount, part of the UNC system. If the provision makes it through the rest of the budget process, $50,000 will be used by the UNC-system Board of Governors to conduct the study.

George Leef asks the obvious question:

Why on earth would we want to start ladling public money into a school that has managed quite well for half a century on funds raised from willing donors and students?

The answer: there is money to be had. Political interests are going to try to obtain it.

Conclusion: The size of Government in our lives grows.

UNC gets more "Green"

2006-05-27T01:22:00.000-04:00

The New&Observer reports that:

Students at UNC-Chapel Hill have awarded $210,000 to help build a "green" Visitor Education Center at the N.C. Botanical Garden. The student-run Renewable Energy Special Projects Committee made the group's largest award to date to help construct a geothermal well system as part of the center. A $4-per-semester student-approved fee generated the funds.

The Renewable Energy Committee was responsible for the wasteful solar panels that will be on the top of the renovated Morrison dorm. Read about how that project is wasteful here.

According to the N&O,

The geothermal well system will reduce the cost of heating and cooling the 29,000-square-foot Visitor Education Center. Geothermal wells act like a giant heat pump. Water circulates through deeply buried, sealed pipes, taking advantage of the earth's constant temperature of 55 degrees Fahrenheit to cool the building in summer and warm it in winter. Experts say the geothermal wells will pay for themselves in less than nine years.

Sounds a lot like the solar panel project. Let's hope it's not just another opportunity for UNC to build its "reputation as a 'progressive' university."

Thoughts on the "progressive" magazine

2006-05-18T01:40:00.000-04:00

If you are unaware, Boiling Point is UNC's "progressive" student magazine. (Progressive is codeword for Leftist) I normally pick up a copy of their latest issue to see what they're saying. Usually, they have little to say about campus, so I don't read much of the articles, but I just picked up their summer edition and got the urge to read the issue in its entirety. Rather than counter everything in the issue with which I disagree, I would like to simply highlight the most interesting excerpts from each article. It offers a glimpse of the dominant thinking at UNC.

1. "from glasgow to nairobi" by Aaron Charlop-Powlers

So a question that resounds with each of us: Where does UNC stand when it comes to the acceptance of LGBTQ persons? Are some of those same men who think that homosexuality is a sin sitting next to you in class?

Charlop-Powlers poses this question to imply that those who think sexuality is a sin commit violent hate crimes. This is pretty bogus. As a Christian, I believe there are many sins, such as drunkenness, fornication, cursing the Lord, etc. This does not mean that I am violent towards or even judgmental towards the drunk or fornicator.

Carolina is not high school, it is time to begin thinking for yourself, critically, and realize that whatever the Bible might say, whatever your ignorance has allowed you to believe up to that point, is insufficient.

So, basically, those who view the homosexual act as sinful are ignorant, and the Bible is "insufficient." I guess this means that modernity and secularism are sufficient.

2. "pro-life nation: why we need roe v. wade" by Nora Anderson

Anderson posits that the overturning of roe v. wade is imminent. I wish I could be so optimistic (It's pessimism in her case). But I'm not.

...of the 46 million abortions performed on women each year...

Okay, if you can write that phrase and still be pro-abortion, it's kind of hard to argue.

Unsafe self-induced abortions and resulting deaths have been reported in the US even in the age of legalized abortion.

This statement is not that interesting in and of itself. It is made often by the Left. What is interesting is that it goes unsupported in the article. There is not even one example. You can find an example of anything if you try hard enough and here, when the author is trying to make an argument, there is not even an example to back up her assertion.

3. "truths and myths of Muslim culture" by Stephanie Novak

As far as the association of Islam and terrorism goes--there is no valid substance to the charge.

How about the WTC bombing in '93, the attacks on US embassies in '98, the hijacking and crashing of airplanes into the WTC and Pentagon in '01, the Taliban in Afghanistan, insurgents in Iraq, the terrorist camps in Pakistan, the suicide bombers in Israel? No substance. Right.

4. "intenta pasar un dia sin ingles" by Alex Collins

Basically, not all Latino immigrants speak English. And not all Americans speak Spanish. Nothing outlandish here.

5. "breaking the binary: questioning gender dichotomies" by Robin Macklin

While Hollywood spend the last year rolling out films about diversity, identity, and acceptance, UNC has mostly remained in the 1950's mentality.

Students at UNC can minor in sexuality studies. The DTH prints photos from the annual LGBTQ kiss-in. The LGBTQ drag show sells out every year. These things were definitely not visible in episodes of "I love Lucy."

Gender is a social construction; sex is biological, and the two have little to do with one another.

-Conclusions-

I was delighted to see some articles that talk about UNC in this edition, but I was disappointed in how unoriginal they were. Two articles calling for the "education" of "homophobic" Christians. An article claiming that women will die at the hand of a conservative supreme court. Another reminding us that immigrants have a difficult time communicating. And finally, an article claiming that those who are willing to acknowledge the fact that most terrorists are Muslim think that all Muslims are terrorists. I feel like I've heard it all before and I'm still not swayed.

First test post

2006-05-13T18:49:00.001-04:00

Hey this is just a test post...to get me on the contributors list...I'll delete it later.

Parting is such sweet sorrow

2006-05-12T18:46:00.000-04:00

It’s been my experience that these self-regarding goodbyes in a public forum are typically glossed over by non-participants, so I’ll try to make it short and to the point because I’m really only writing this for myself and for those who have a vested interest in Carolina Review.

As some of you know, I’m going to be abroad in the fall. Czech Republic. Prague. Where the beer is cheaper than water. And after thinking long and hard, I’ve decided not to come back to the Review next spring.

I am very thankful for the opportunities that Carolina Review has provided me. I would like to send a special thanks to Deb McCown. She was the editor two years ago when I was a freshman. I turned in my first article, an uninspiring book review of this thick thing by Rowan Scarborough about Donald Rumsfeld, and she promptly demolished it. For the first time, my unwavering self confidence in my ability to write was challenged. She had all these rules and standards, all these ideas for different directions to take the thoughts I’d already put down on the page. Well, two re-writes and countless copy-edits later, the article ran, in a form vastly improved than how I could have ever written it alone.

That was when I fell in love with the journalistic process: the back-and-forth between editor and writer, the fighting and the compromise, all of it leading to a holistic vision and a final product. Thank you, Deb. If it wasn’t for you and Carolina Review, it might have taken me much longer to discover this love, if I even discovered it at all.

I’m leaving the Review for two reasons. First, I feel it’s time to move on to something else. While I am extremely thankful for what this paper has given me thus far, I don’t believe the Review’s particular style of journalism has anything more to offer me in terms of learning about journalism as a craft. It’s a wonderful paper—one of, if not the best, magazines on campus—but it has inherent limitations based on its mission statement, which leads me directly into reason number two:

I’m simply no longer all that conservative. I’m not even all that liberal either. Moderate seems a cliché label to use, and what would be even more cliché is to throw up my hands and say I’m disenfranchised with politics in general. But I don’t have it any more figured out than anybody else. So sign me up for the Greatly Confused Party.

But along those same lines, I do feel as though there is a place for non-conservatives at Carolina Review, or at least, that there can be. I, however, am not willing to put in the extra effort required to work around this tension, which is what I had been doing for the last two semesters.

So this is my goodbye, my fare thee well, Custard’s Last Stand. I’ll still be lurking around the blog, and I worked it out with Brian so that I’ll still be able to post here from time to time. Thanks to everyone for the memories, and good luck to you all.

David
www.nostempore.net

King James in the clutch

2006-05-04T02:12:00.000-04:00

LeBron hit his second game-winning shot of his playoff career tonight. In overtime. With 0.9 seconds left. Cutting through three defenders.

His other game-winner was in game 3, and now the Cavs are one win away from advancing (the series with Washington is 3-2). Maybe now the page 2 writers at ESPN.com will have to shutup, at least for a little while, about James not being able to take control of a game at the end. The kid has held up to his end of the hype amazingly well thus far. I know I sure as hell enjoy watching him play (even though I hate most everything else about the NBA's variety of basketball--especially by comparison to college), and a lot of the times I forget he's only 21 years old.

The NY Times posted an interesting article about James' impact on the city of Cleveland on Sunday. Tangentially, you can read the inferences about why James is good for basketball, more specifically, the NBA. Superstars like James and leadership like the one-year-removed-from-high-school rule, which NBA Commissioner David Stern worked with the Player's Association last year to pass, will lead to a healthier NBA. And we all want a healthier NBA because that leads to a healthier basketball in general. (And also makes it so we don't get whomped next time in the '08 Olympics).

But why should any of us (read: Carolina fans) care about this, you ask? It's easy to get self-sequestered in our own little world of ACC college basketball. We're pretty much the best basketball conference ever, regardless of what the Big East wonks want you to think. But the health of the sport in general has reflections and impacts on our little neck of the woods, too. If it weren't for that one-year rule, we certainly wouldn't be getting the blue-chip recruiting class we've got next season that's making most of the early pollsters put us at No. 2 behind Florida, this year's national champs who will return every major contributor except senior Adrian Moss.