What happened in 2010?Looking back on an eventful year

Midterms 2010Looking at the midterm

elections in even more detail

Supreme CourtExamining what the Supreme

Court has been up to

Who said what?See some of the memorable things public figures have said this year

The HillChapel Hill Political ReviewDecember 2010 http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill Volume X, Issue III

About Us

2 The Hill

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international politics. This publication is meant to serve as the middle ground (and a battleground) for political thought on campus where people can present their beliefs and test their ideas. A high premium is placed on having a publication that is not affiliated with any party or organization, but rather is openly nonpartisan on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide the univer-sity community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas, events and trends. This means that, on the one hand, the publication will feature articles that are politically moderate in-depth analyses of politics and political ideas. These articles might be analytical, descriptive claims that draw conclusions about the political landscape. On the other, The Hill will feature various articles that take political stances on issues.

The Hill Staff

MANAGING EDITORSarah Wentz

EDITORCaroline Guerra

STAFFRachelle BrancaEric EikenberryCaroline GuerraKarina Ibrahim

Alex JonesKevin UhrmacherTunu wa-Dutumi

Sarah Wentz

ARTConnor Sullivan

DESIGNER IN CHARGERachelle Branca

DESIGN & PHOTOGRAPHYSarah Wentz

TREASURERKendall Law

FACULTY ADVISORFerrel Guillory

The HillChapel Hill Political Review

From the Editor:To our readers:

Until Spring 2009, The Hill pub-lished content solely in print, dis-tributing a few issues each aca-demic year. In April 2009, however, we launched our blog and have since expanded our readership beyond what we could have ever imagined. We now have readers not only beyond UNC-CH’s cam-pus, but beyond North Carolina, and beyond our nation’s borders.

With the blog, The Hill has been able to drastically increase the amount of content we produce. We feature new content weekly on our blog, and the best of it makes its way into our magazine each issue. But we at The Hill are not done expanding. This issue marks the first of what will hopefully be-come a long tradition of publish-ing issues online each semester.

This issue features new content from our writers, as well as some of the pieces we’re most proud of posted

thehillpr@gmail.com

208 Frank Porter GrahamStudent UnionUNC-CH Campus Box 5210Chapel Hill, NC 27599-5210

http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehillhttp://chapelhillpoliticalreview.word-press.com

to the blog this fall. You’ll find it looks similar to our standard issues, but with its own unique flair. When you’re not constrained by the costs of publishing, anything is possible.

In this issue, we take a look back at what happened in 2010 (pg 6). It was an eventful year to say the least, with devastating earth-quakes, midterm elections, vol-canic ash from Iceland, and the removal of all combat forces from Iraq. We examine an interest-ing Supreme Court case (pg 11), reminisce on some notable quotes from 2010 (pg 13) and much more.

Thank you for downloading our very first issue of The Hill: Online. We hope you enjoy, and we hope you continue to read in the future.

Sarah Wentz is a sophomore major-ing in political science and global studies.

Send your comments! We’re proud to share our work with you, and we invite you to share your thoughts with us. Send us a letter or email (no more than 250 words, please). Please include your name, year, and major.

December 2010 3

Contents

The Hill: OnlineDecember 2010Volume X, Issue III Contents

CoverTimeline of 2010

Five Faces from the Midterm Elections

Global Warming Hits the Su-preme Court

6 811

FeaturesHealthcare by the Numbers

Quotes from 2010

Julian Assange & Wikileaks

13 5

18

In Every IssueNotes from The HillThe Last Word

4 The Hill

Notes from The Hill

I’ll admit that I’ve suddenly be-come, well, not addicted, but highly interested in documen-taries. I think half of the films in my Netflix queues are probably documentaries, and most of them are probably political documen-taries. Hey, I’m a political junkie, it’s not my fault. Anyway, I recently watched an interesting documen-tary about America’s growing debt, entitled I.O.U.S.A. Produced by Patrick Creadon, well-known for his film Wordplay, the film debuted in 2008. I.O.U.S.A was well received, making Roger Eb-ert’s list of 5 Best Documentary Films of 2008, and competing in the 2008 Sundance Festival. CNN broadcasted the film in Jan. 2009.

The film boasts interviews with notable figures Warren Buffet, Alan Greenspan, David Walker, and Robert Bixby. Okay, you may not have heard of Bixby and Walk-er, but they are noteworthy. Bixby is the Executive Director of the Concord Coalition, a nonpartisan grassroots organization that seeks to educate the public about fiscal responsibility and the debt crisis. Walker served as the Comptroller General of the US (head of the Gov-ernment Accountability Office) from 1998-2008. Walker resigned from the Comptroller General po-sition in Feb. 2008 to become the CEO and president of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation (which also promotes fiscal responsibil-ity. Walker has joined forces with the Concord Coalition to promote fiscal responsibility. Walker and

Bixby are two prominent faces in the slowly growing movement for fiscal responsibility in the gov-ernment and amongst citizens.

I.O.U.S.A. follows Walker and Bix-by as they conducted their “Fiscal Wake-Up Tour” for the Concord Coalition across the country in 2008. The film was aptly timed as it debuted just as the financial cri-sis began to gain momentum and catch the attention of the general public. So no matter what you think of the film, you have to give credit to the masterminds behind the move-ment and the film for forecasting the problem and making efforts to educate the public on the issue.

In the film, the debt crisis is divid-ed into four sections, highlighting what they identify as the four main issues of the debt problem: the budget deficit, the unequal bal-ance of payments, the leadership deficit, and the savings deficit. The existence of a budget deficit, of course, cannot be argued with; and while many want more gov-ernment benefits, the all-around consensus is that the deficit does need to be diminished. The un-equal balance of payments stems from trade, the film explains, as the US imports more than it ex-ports- draining money from the economy that cannot be matched with our limited exports. This is basic economics, and is also dif-ficult to argue with. Personally, I won’t try. As for the leadership deficit, which claims there is a lack of political leaders willing to lead

the movement to cut government spending, increase taxes, and cut imports, this appears to be more opinion. There is truth, however, in the fact that politicians don’t want to advocate for these policies. It’s difficult to blame them, however, for while it may be for the better good of the country, these practic-es do not get politicians elected to office. The other section of the film focuses on what Bixby and Walk-er refer to as the savings deficit, which focuses more on individuals than government spending. The savings deficit is defined as liv-ing beyond one’s means, garner-ing debt rather than savings- and Bixby and Walker accuse many of Americans of this practice. Is this true? Probably, unless you can claim credit card debt is not a ram-pant problem, and most Ameri-cans have substantial savings. The film provides contrary evidence, but hey- if you’ve got the proof…

The film is a little dry, admit-tedly, and one must have some interest in the issue in order to be able to sit through the film. If you’ve got no interest in the grow-ing debt, then this is not the film for you. But if, like me, you worry (probably more than necessary) about the nation’s debt, this is a good film to watch. Mostly fact, theory, and explanation, it will likely teach you something you didn’t know about the debt crisis.

Sarah Wentz is a sophomore major-ing in political science and global studies.

I. O.U.S.A. :America’s Got DebtReview

Notes fromThe Hill

December 2010 5

Notes from The Hill

Review Who’s “Fair Game?”I love me some political drama. There’s nothing like a secret CIA cover-up story to get the blood pumping, and “Fair Game” certainly fits the bill.

The political thriller premiered at the Cannes Film Festival in May as the only American film in the main competition. Reviews after the ini-tial screening were mixed; some celebrated the film’s intellectual complexity, while others called it ‘by-the-book’. Ultimately, “Fair Game” calls into question the Bush administration’s claims that were key in justifying the invasion of Iraq.

The 2003 Plame Affair serves as the basis for the film. Former Ambassa-dor Joe Wilson reports back from a Middle-East mission that there is no way Iraq purchased yellowcake, a known ingredient in the production of WMDs. But Wilson is ignored, and President George Bush makes a statement contrary to his findings in the State of the Union. Wilson does not take kindly to his find-ings being swept under the rug, and writes a New York Times Op-Ed explaining that the president lied. But his attack backfires when

the White House goes after his wife, exposing her as a CIA opera-tive who had been living a secret second life outside of suburbia.

The stunning portrayals of Plame and Wilson, by Academy Award winners Naomi Watts and Sean Penn, deserve much acclaim. My only reservation with the film lies in its screenplay. The villainization of the White House makes for good cinema, but how much is too much? In giving us Valerie Plame’s side of the story, the film isn’t exactly what I would call fair and balanced.

But maybe in those circumstances, the White House was fair game for villainization. Consider that after the incident, Ms. Plame had no way to get her side of the story out there. I found myself thinking that this film was her final revenge on the men who transformed her life when they revealed her secret.

“Fair Game” questions the WMD claim that was so central to US in-volvement in Iraq. The exposed actions of the administration make audiences reconsider exactly why

we invaded in the first place. Was the White House sure of its plan to invade early on and merely looking for evidence to back up this plan? The opening credits seemed more suitable for a Michael Moore scare-you-‘til-you-hate-the-Bush-admin-istration movie. Going into “Fair Game” and assuming it’s not an ex-aggeration would be big mistake.

If nothing else, this film tells the story of the power of the govern-ment. That power places tension on Plame and Wilson’s marriage, pushing them to the brink when he wants to pursue justice and she feels that nothing should be done.

The film works on so many levels. Its greatest success is its ability to plant questions into the head of the viewer. And for that, it is a mov-ie that anyone who passes judg-ment on the Iraq War or Valerie Plame would benefit from seeing.

Kevin Uhrmacher is a first-year ma-joring in journalism and political science.

Healthcare By the Numbers

White House Says:

32 million uninsured will be covered

$100 billion reduction in the budget deficit

625 people lost their health insurance every hour in 2009

Republican Contingent Says:

$1.2 trillion cost of the bill for FY2010 - FY2020

12 new tax increases on families making less than $250,000

$436 billion in subsidies going directly to healtcare companies to provide coverage.

Compiled by Kevin Uhrmacher

1 2 3

6 The Hill

Timeline 2010kay, we’ll admit it. When we first started plotting this issue, we had to really sit back, think and figure out what exactly happened in 2010. Because really, it was an eventful year: with

earthquakes, the declaration to the end of the Iraqi War, the passing of healthcare reform, can you blame us for forgetting about some of the smaller stuff? So, just in case you’re a little fuzzy on what happened in 2010, here’s an overview. We hope it helps.

OJan.

1 Spain assumes the Presidency of the Council of the European Union, replacing Sweden who held the presidency for the prior term.

2 North Carolina’s ban on smoking in public places (including bars and restaurants) takes effect.

12 A magnitude 7.0 earthquake shakes the very foundation of Haiti. With a confirmed death toll of 230,000, the Haiti quake is one of the deadliest earthquakes on record. Nearly a year later, Haiti is still scrambling to recover from the earthquake.

12 The XXI Olympic Winter Games, held in Canada, begin.

18 Andrew Joseph Stack sets fire to his home and flies his private plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas. Another reminder than terrorism can be home-grown.

27 A magnitude 8.8 earthquake jolts Chile, which despite being one of the largest recorded in history, does not create the same amount of devastation as in Haiti (primarily because most of the Chilean quake effects were seen in rural areas).

21 The House of Representatives passes the Patient Protection and Affordable Healthcare Act. President Obama will sign the act into law on April 23, but the debate won’t stop even then. Really, can passing legislation ever be simple?

7 Kyrgyz president Kurmanbek Bakiyev flees Bishkek after rioting. Former Prime Minister Roza Otunbayeva assumes the presidency at the behest of the opposition as they take control of the government.

10 The president of Poland, Lech Kaczynski, is among 96 killed in an airplane crash over western Russia.

Feb.

Mar.

April

14 Volcanic ash from an eruption of Icelandic ice cap Eyjafjallajökull spreads through the air, interrupting air traffic over Northern and West-ern Europe and aggravating travelers all over the world.

20 The Deepwater Horizon oil platform ex-plodes killing eleven workers and commencing an oil spill that will last for months. As the spillage continued and the damage to the waters of the Gulf of Mexico and the U.S. coastline continued, international debate commenced about the prac-tice and procedures of offshore drilling.

23 Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signs the Sup-port Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighbor-hoods Act into law, the strict anti-immigration measure that caught national attention and sparked considerable controversy. Say, that re-minds us—got I.D.?

2 The Eurozone and the IMF approve a €110 billion bailout package for Greece.

19 Protests in Bangkok, Thailand result in a clash with the military, ending with 91 deaths and over 2100 injured.

11 The 2010 FIFA World Cup commences in South Africa along with a barrage of jokes and comments about the vuvuzela. We’d insert one here, but it’s just not the same without sound.

19 China announces it will raise the yuan against the U.S. dollar after the United States promises to penalize China unless it does so.

27 The U.S. Dept. of Justice arrests ten people accused of being Russian sleeper agents, and participating in the Illegals Program under the auspice of gathering information about the Unit-ed States. Ultimately, the ten arrested Russians will be exchanged with the Russian government for a few U.S. citizens arrested in Russia on the count of spying.

May

June

By: Sarah Wentz

December 2010 7

Timeline

1 Belgium takes over the Presidency of the Coun-cil of the European Union for its six month term.

25 Wikileaks publishes more than 90,000 inter-nal reports about the War in Afghanistan.

4 Proposition 8 (the same-sex marriage ban in California) is ruled unconstitutional by Judge Walker of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

31 President Obama declares the end of combat operations in Iraq.

21 The U.S. Senate fails to pass a bill that would have repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

10 The Netherland Antilles are dissolved, the islands split up and obtain new constitutional statuses.

13 The 33 miners trapped 700 meters under-ground after a mining accident in San Jose Mine are brought to the surface after surviving an astounding 69 days in the mine.

19 A U.S. Federal Judge strikes down the Dept. of Justice appeal on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell rul-ing. The military begins accepting applications for homosexual service members, and DADT is temporarily lifted.

20 Juan William’s comment about becoming nervous when he sees passengers wearing “Mus-lim Garb” on an airplane sparks controversy and prompts his dismissal from NPR. But if you were feeling bad for him, don’t, Williams was given a $2 million, three-year contract the next day from Fox News.

2 Election Day! Citizens around the nation vote in the 2010 Midterm Elections. The Democrats manage to retain control of the Senate, but the control of the House goes to the Republicans. Only a couple of hours after polls close, serious discussion of 2012 begins, which just goes to show that the election cycle truly never ceases.

11 The G-20 summit begins in Seoul, South

Korea.

23 North Korea shells Yeonpyeong Island prompting a military response from South Ko-rea and a drastic increase in tensions between the two nation-states.

28 Wikileaks releases over 250,000 American diplomatic cables, including over 100,000 la-beled “secret” or “confidential.”

29 The EU agrees to a €85 billion rescue pack-age for the Republic of Ireland from the EFSF, the IMF, and bilateral loans from the UK, Denmark, and Sweden.

2 The House of Representatives passes a bill that extends tax cuts for families who earn less than $250,000 year, and raises cuts for those with a yearly earning of over that. The Senate strikes down the bill two days later, but Obama begins negotiations with the Republicans to amend the bill and allow it to pass.

10 The conclusion of the 2010 UN Climate Change Conference held in Cancun, Mexico.

13 A Virginia federal judge rules that parts of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, is unconstitutional. The judge’s ruling is specifi-cally based on the individual mandate that would require all Americans to get health care by 2014.

15 The US Senate passes the Obama-GOP tax compromise bill. The House of Representatives passes the bill (entitled The Tax Relief, Unem-ployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010) as well the next day. On the Dec. 17, President Obama signs the bill into law.

17 Mohamed Bouzazi sets himself on fire, spark-ing protests across Tunisia over unemployment, food inflation, government corruption, censor-ship of media and speech, and poor living conditions. Tunisia’s Jasmine Revolution sparks protests in neighboring Arab countries, and continues into 2011.

18 Following in the U.S. House’s footsteps, the US Senate passes the stand-alone repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. President Obama signs the bill into law on Dec. 22.

What will happen in 2011? Continue to read The Hill to find out!

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

July

8 The Hill

Domestic

Christine O’Donnell: She Is Not a Witch

The rise and fall of Christine O’Donnell embodies some of the shortcomings of the Tea Party movement. In an election that could have easily been a Senate seat pickup for the Republicans O’Donnell’s extremely conservative positions and

odd personal history gave the Democrats an easy Senatorial

victory in Connecticut. She released a campaign ad that consisted of her staring

into the camera and declaring that she is “not a witch”, ending by

stating “I’m you.” The ad was widely panned by political commentators

and was even parodied on a sketch on Saturday Night Live. In a political debate with her opponent, Democrat Chris Coons, O’Donnell displayed a lack of knowledge on the American constitution, asking “Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?” Nevertheless, Christine O’Donnell was interesting to watch in the time preceding the midterm elections, and it appears as though she hasn’t given up all of her political aspirations.

Five FromtheFaces

2010 MIDTERMSThe 2010 midterm elections left us with one new reality: one in which the Republicans control the House of Representatives and have made large gains in the Senate. The midterm elections also left us with some distinct characters, some new, some old, all compelling. Here are a few of the most important and interesting faces to emerge from the 2010 midterm elections.

Harry Reid: The Comeback Kid

After serving four terms in the Senate,

Democratic Senator Harry Reid seemed poised for another easy re-election in

the state of Nevada. But quite surprisingly, Reid found himself in

the middle of a tightly contested Senate race

against Republican Sharron Angle, another Tea Party backed Republican. Angle was an unusual, media-evading candidate who had little governing experience and was also prone to media gaffes. Despite this, polls consistently put Angle ahead of Reid in the lead up to the November elections. Many political pundits and commentators were writing his obituary, but through an efficient get-out-the-vote campaign and an unexpectedly large voter turnout, Reid prevailed on November 2. Reid will return to a Senate that is significantly more conservative than the one he’s led for the past four years, and it will be interesting to see how he reacts to the newly emboldened minority.

December 2010 9

Domestic

Lisa Murkowski: The Unlikely Victor

With the 2008 Ted Stevens controversy and the startling rise of Sarah Palin, Alaska

seems to be the breeding ground for odd politics

and even odder politicians. The 2010 midterm elections were no different, as shown by the compelling three-

way Senatorial race between Republican

Joe Miller, Democrat Scott McAdams, and third party candidate Lisa Murkowski. After being defeated by Tea Party favorite—and Sarah Palin endorsed—Joe Miller in the Republican primary, Murkowski launched a fierce and determined write-in campaign. The odds were against her, the only person

Rand Paul: The Other Dr. Paul

There will now be two Pauls in Congress, and both of them are poised to give headaches to the Republican establishment. Republican Dr. Rand Paul, son of Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul, will be the new

senator from Kentucky. Paul was backed by the

Tea Party movement and, just as his father, identifies himself

as a constitutional conservative and a libertarian. Paul holds many controversial views; he once stated that he opposes certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to its supposed infringement on private ownership. Paul’s unwavering dedication to the Constitution and his tendency to speak his own mind makes him an incredibly fascinating addition to the U.S. Senate.

Marco Rubio: A Rising Star

In Florida, Tea Party-backed candidate Marco Rubio was elected

to the Senate following a three-way race. His two opponents, Democrat Kendrick

Meek and Independent Charlie Crist—who left the Republican party to

run as an independent—effectively split the Democratic vote, giving

Rubio an advantage in a race he was poised to win from

the beginning. Marco Rubio is one of the more compelling figures to emerge from the 2010 midterms and seems to have a bright political future ahead of him. He is the second youngest member of the Senate at the age of 39, he is good-looking, he is charismatic, and he is Hispanic, appealing to the fastest growing portion of the American electorate. He definitely has the potential to have a real impact on American politics both in the immediate and distant future.

who has been elected to the Senate through a write-in campaign was Strom Thurmond in 1954. Murkowski was able to overcome the odds, however, and was re-elected to the Senate. In her victory, Lisa Murkowski defeated both the establishment of the Republican National Committee and the influence of Sarah Palin, leaving little doubt that she will return to the Senate as a force to be reckoned with. Lisa Murkowski will be an interesting Senator to watch over the next few years, as it seems likely that her allegiance to the Republican Party and its agenda has dwindled in response to their abandonment of her during the primaries.

Tunu wa-Dutumi is a junior major-ing in global studies..

10 The Hill

Domestic

Incumbents, the Economy, and the 2010 Elections

Now that the transformational 2008 election of Barack Obama (which gave majorities to Demo-crats in both houses of Congress) has been superseded by a sig-nificant loss for the Democrats in the House of Representatives and a reduced majority in the Senate just two years later, one may look back upon the legisla-tion of the last two years as the root cause of such an upheaval. Though one certainly cannot ac-cuse the 111th US Congress of inaction or inefficacy, it is, how-ever, questionable if the legisla-tion passed by both houses con-tributed to a general backlash by the public against incumbent politicians, despite the possible benefits of the legislation and/or politicians’ actual involvement in the voting procedure.

Indeed, it appears the Repub-lican Party, taking the obstruc-tionist role during the better part of the last two years, was able to channel voters’ frustra-tion against the majority party in all levels of government into a significant victory in the 2010 midterm elections, effectively ending the across the board ma-jority Democrats have enjoyed at the national level these past two years.

Over the course of the 2010 election cycle, the trend of Democratic and Republican Party approval is highly uncor-related to the election results, but nevertheless shows a pat-tern of gradual voter embrace-ment of the Republican Party. Given the telephone interview polls provided by CBS News, it seems the Democratic Party was losing favor with voters head-ing into the summer, with a low

approval of 37percent in a poll conducted May 20-24 coupled with a 54percent disapproval rating. However, one must note that the same poll represented a dataset low for the Republican Party as well, with an approval of 33percent and a disapproval of 55percent. Clearly, however, voters’ distrust and dislike of the Republican Party did not prevent them from giving Republicans the largest House majority since 1994’s Contract with America.

Legislation passed by the 111th Congress (or inherited from the 110th in new authorizations) such as the Troubled Asset Re-lief Program (TARP), the Stimulus Plan, and the Healthcare Reform bill were instrumental in chang-ing public perception on incum-bency. Implemented by George W. Bush on October 3, 2008, the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) was intended to pur-chase illiquid assets from banks in order to boost the confidence of the financial sector. According to a Bloomberg Poll conducted July 9-12, 58percent of interview-ees declared that this was an unneeded bailout while only 28 percent deemed it necessary. A survey provided by Democracy Corps, which asked the public whether the candidate’s sup-port for TARP “makes you much less likely to vote for the Demo-cratic candidate this November” provides further useful insight onto the public perception of the program. Based on the 1,001 phone interviews, 40 percent of responders said they were “much less likely” to vote for a Democratic candidate while 13 percent stated “no less likely,” regardless of the fact that TARP was initiated under a Republi-

can administration. It seems that blaming the Democratic Party leadership as being the source of government inefficacy with regard to the economy (which is generally considered a major is-sue, particularly in years of eco-nomic recession or anemic eco-nomic growth) contributed to the highly anti-incumbent (and, hence, anti-Democrat) results of the 2010 midterm elections.

In further support of the trend of shifting public opinion, the American Recovery and Rein-vestment Act (ARRA), better known as the Stimulus bill, was enacted on February 17, 2009 to expand unemployment ben-efits and other social welfare programs while creating jobs in order to encourage consumer spending. It is important to note that no Republicans in the House of the Representatives voted for the bill and the majority of the support derived from the Demo-crats. When asking the public about their opinion on the Stim-ulus Plan, ABC News recently conducted a survey in which 68 percent of the participants de-clared the ARRA was “a waste of money” while only 29 percent believed it was “well spent.” This directly correlates with public sentiment in regards to approval ratings for Democratic and Re-publican Parties. The responsi-bility over slow and ineffective recovery has been associated with the Democratic Party due to its high support of the ARRA while the Republicans have tak-en the role of obstructionists on the plan.

Because Democrats were not only staunch supporters of the plan during the implementation

Posted On Our Blog on Nov. 25, 2010

December 2010 11

Domestic

continued from previous page...

of the Stimulus Plan but also in the majority, they seem to have received most of the blame for its enactment.

The Healthcare Reform law that was enacted on March 23, 2010 further contributed to the shift of public opinion with regard to incumbency and the support of Democrats in the 2010 elec-tions. This law aims to expand the healthcare coverage to 32 million of uninsured Americans at the cost $940 billion over the course of ten years. Just like the Stimulus Plan, no Republican representative voted for this bill and support came from the majority of the Democrats. Re-

ferring back to public opinion polls, a CBS News poll taken di-rectly after the healthcare bill’s approval asked 858 interview-ees whether they “approve or disapprove of the new health care reform bill (signed into law March 2010),” this poll showed 32percent approval and a sig-nificant 53 percent disapproval.

One may indeed find conclusive evidence in voters’ approval of Congress in general. Over the last year, poll numbers have shown an increasing disapproval of Congress since the spring- with the latest poll numbers showing an average of a 21per-cent approval and a whopping 73percent disapproval of Con-gress’ job performance. Given

the obvious unpopularity of re-cent passed legislations, and the natural tendency to blame the majority party, it is no surprise many voters are unhappy with the Democratic Party. It appears that in the recent election, the significant gains made by the Republicans were not a sign of support for the Republican agenda or a specific repudia-tion of the Left, but, more likely, a sign of dissatisfaction of gov-ernment’s incumbency and poli-ticians’ unwillingness to listen to their constituents’ primary concern: the economy. In other words, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

Karina Ibrahim is a junior ma-joring in political science.

Climate Change Charges to Court

In early December, the United States Supreme Court decided to review the State of Connecti-cut v. American Electric Power Company Inc. case involving global warming. The PEW Center on Global Climate Change has a great summary of the case that you can find at: http://www.pewclimate.org/judicial-analysis/CT-v-AEP/september-2009.

I’d like to draw your attention to the second question (out of three) that will be heard by the Supreme Court; namely, “whether the Clean Air Act displaces the federal common law of nuisance.” The Obama Administration has been say-ing, “yes!” – in the belief that regulating greenhouse gas

emissions through the courts is complicated and inefficient. It could get difficult, they argue, to tell what the emis-sions standards actually are, when taking into account both the Environmental Protection Agency’s rules and various courts’ public nuisance rulings. The Administration argues that the EPA, powered by the Clean Air Act, should have the clear, final word on emissions.

There are quite a few rebut-tals to this argument, but there is one point of the Adminis-tration’s argument that both-ers me in particular. Maybe maintaining the two-prong regulation scheme—EPA rules plus court-enforced nuisance law—leaves the door open for

some inconsistency between different states, but the EPA’s regulation alone hardly seems consistent! Recent presidents have gone back and forth, strengthening the EPA and weakening it; right now, the Republicans are hoping to cur-tail the EPA’s ability to regu-late at all. One can imagine the pendulum swinging in the other direction with suddenly very strong EPA regulations. If Obama doesn’t want a com-pany to worry about a “nasty” surprise in court, how is that different than a “nasty” sur-prise in federal regulations?

Caroline Guerra is a senior ma-joring in political science and global studies.

12 The Hill

Domestic

With the 111th Congress still in ses-sion but drawing to a close, it only seems time to look back and review the 111th Congress. What have they done? And, what’s more, are the people happy with the actions of Congress?

According to Those Who Poll, the lat-est numbers indicate that Congres-sional approval is rocketing towards rock bottom. The latest Gallup poll indicates an 83% disapproval rat-ing (a record low since Gallup first began tracking approval of Con-gress over 30 years ago), although the Real Clear Politics average is a slightly less stunning 74% disap-proval rating with a 19.6% approval. The recent elections can also act as evidence towards the people’s dissatisfaction with Congress- the significant changes slated for Con-gress come January proof that many voters aren’t happy with the 111th Congress.

Ignoring the approval of Congress, however, let’s look at what Congress has done these past two years. This is particularly pertinent as Con-gress rushes to vote on legislation before the 2010 session closes. Congress has passed significant legislation in the past two years, including:

The American Recovery and Rein-vestment Act of 2009 (commonly referred to as the Stimulus or Re-covery Act). While you have like-ly heard of this, let’s summarize quickly. Written in adherence to the Keynesian economic ideology, the Stimulus Bill included federal tax incentives, an expansion of un-employment benefits, as well as an increase in domestic spending in education, health care, even infra-structure.

The Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009. This piece of leg-islation included HEARTH (Home-

less Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing) which reauthorized the US Department of Housing and Urban Development or HUD’s Homeless Assistance programs. Furthermore, this act expanded eligibility for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, expanded the HOPE for Homeowners program, and ex-tended the increase for FDIC and NCUA deposit insurance limits until December 31, 2013.

The Credit CARD Act of 2009. This act was passed in hopes ”…to establish fair and transparent practices relat-ing to the extension of credit under an open end consumer credit plan, and for other purposes.” This bill was introduced during the 110th Congress and passed overwhelm-ingly in the House, but was never given a vote in the Senate. The act passed with bipartisan support early during the reign of the 111th Congress in 2009 and contained provisions to protect cardholders in a world which is increasingly rely-ing on credit cards.

The Health Care and Education Rec-onciliation Act of 2010 (which in-cluded the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act). Another piece of legislation you may have heard of…something to do with reforming health care and student loan debt. Both a piece of historic legislation in the U.S. and a complicated tale, so let’s not discuss it any further here.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Re-form and Consumer Protection Act. Passed in response to the re-cession as “A bill to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end “too big to fail”, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consum-ers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.”

The SPEECH Act of 2010. Less dis-cussed in popular media than the aforementioned pieces of leg-islation but still noteworthy, the SPEECH Act made foreign libel judgments unenforceable in the United States unless compliant with the First Amendment. Important for truth seeking American journalists working around the world and the average citizen abroad, this piece of legislation is another step in pro-tecting the rights of Americans- no matter how far from home they are.

This list, of course, merely contains the legislation which has lauded more media attention and excludes other legislation passed (and all legislation failed) over the past two years as well as Congress’s recent actions as they’ve rushed to vote before the 111th Congress makes its final vote to close.

So yes, the 111th Congress is not popular amongst the people. Per-haps the 112th Congress will be more popular, at least at first, after all- does each Congress and every politician not decline in popular-ity to some extent while reigning? This, however, is not really the point. The real point is this: even though Congress is not always popular, that does not mean it doesn’t do anything (as seems to be the num-ber one complaint from the Aver-age Joe). Perhaps Congress has its moments of unproductivity, but it seems as though they‘re able to ac-complish some things. Now wheth-er or not the legislation Congress passes is for the good of our nation or not, that’s for you to decide. Re-member, we’re nonpartisan.

Sarah Wentz is a sophomore major-ing in political science and global studies.

Congress in Review What has the 111th Congress Done for You?Posted On Our Blog On Dec. 23, 2010

December 2010 13

Domestic

of20

10Quotes Sharron Angle, Senatorial candidate from Nevada,

said in a speech to a Hispanic students: “So that’s what we want is a secure and sovereign nation and,

you know, I don’t know that all of you are Latino. Some of you look a little more Asian to me.”

Christine O’Donnell to fel-low Republican candidates: “Dorm life has evolved into a blending of the sexes, from coed buildings to coed floors, coed bathrooms and now even coed rooms. What’s next? Orgy rooms? Menage a trois rooms?”

Rachelle Branca is a junior magor-ing in editing and graphic design.

Joe Biden introducing Irish Prime Minister Brian Cow-en, in March 2010: “His mom lived in Long Island for 10 years or so. God rest her soul. And -- although, she’s -- wait -- your mom’s still -- your mom’s still alive. Your dad passed. God bless her soul.”

At the signing of the health-care reform bill, Vice President Joe Bidden noted to President Barack Obama: “This is a big f**king deal.”

Sarah Palin discussing North Korea and South Korea on Glenn Beck’s radio show: “This speaks to a bigger picture here that cer-tainly scares me in terms of our national secu-rity policies. But obviously we’ve gotta stand with our North Korean allies.”

Christine O’Donnell to opponent Chris Coons, both of whom were running for seats in the Senate: “You’re just jealous that you weren’t on Saturday Night Live!”

President Obama said during his visit to New Orleans to observe the fifth year since Hurri-cane Katrina: “I can’t spend all my time with my birth cer-tificate plastered on my forehead.”

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said of Ari-zona’s immigration law in his speech at Emory University: “I was also going to give a graduation speech in Ari-zona this weekend, but with my accent, I was afraid they would try to deport me.”

14 The Hill

International

Obama’s Exceedingly Polite Request Posted September 24, 2010Barack Obama’s administration has determinedly walked into the foreign policy swamp known as the ongoing Israel-Palestine con-flict. Their trudging has resulted in positive, if not exactly grand, progress. For the first time since Operation Cast Lead – Israel’s questionable military excursion into Gaza during the summer of 2008 – both sides are at the same table. A two-state solution will not come over night; right now, cer-tain concessions must be made for the talks to even get into the nitty-gritty. I will not address the Israel-Pales-tine conflict in its entirety; to do so would require the composition of three to four books, and even with that, where to begin? Isaac and Ishmael? Instead, I will comment on the point of contention for this go-round.A number of hyper-religious/na-tionalist Israeli citizens continue to build homes and neighbor-hoods which encroach on Pales-tinian lands. It’s a kind of twen-ty-first century manifest destiny, except this time the settlers have actual Biblical quotes to back up their claims (instead of, ya know, having to change “Israelites” to “American pioneers,” and “Ca-naanites” to “Indians”).A number of hyper-religious/na-tionalist Palestinians will likely respond with violence if this pro-cess continues.Palestinian authorities have threatened to walk away from ne-gotiations if Sept. 26 passes and the Israeli government does not extend its moratorium on settle-ment construction. This is a no-brainer for all parties involved (which means it could very well be disregarded). The current President of the Palestinian Au-

thority (PA) is Mahmoud Abbas, from the Fatah party. While the political leanings of he and his party may not be kosher to some Americans and Israelis, Prime Minister Netanyahu (of Israel) and Secretary of State Clinton would much rather negotiate with him than his political opponents, members of Hamas (an extremist sect-turned-political party which now has a majority in the legisla-ture of the Palestinian Authority). Other than for the sake of continu-ing negotiations, Abbas must se-cure this concession to maintain credibility at home. Netanyahu, already on the right-wing of Is-raeli politics, may find it difficult to talk to a Hamas PA President who refuses to recognize Israel’s existence.And then there’s poor President Obama, stuck in the middle. It’s hard to be perceived as an impar-tial mediator while the U.S. gov-ernment is giving billions in mili-tary aid to Israel every year. But even then, it should be a simple matter to stop these settlements, correct? President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton are just asking, ever so nicely, for this one tiny concession (you will never hear from a high-ranking U.S. offi-cial that, say, the U.N. deems these settlements illegal under interna-tional law).But Benjamin Netanyahu, unfor-tunately, cannot publicly comply. Not when he has a determined base to keep sedated, and not when his excitable Foreign Min-ister, Avigdor Lieberman, wants to keep the settlements growing. This makes sense, as FM Lieber-man lives in a settlement which would likely be eliminated under any peace plan.So President Obama, the leader of a U.S. government which bank-rolls a portion of Israel’s defense, must resort to asking, ever-so-politely, if PM Netanyahu would

please, oh-just-this-once, extend the moratorium on settlement construction.This appears to be a game of diplomatic chicken. I hope, for the sake of a budding two-state solution, that Israel blinks first. Is this to say that Palestine doesn’t have work to do on its own end? Of course not. But such a fundamentally reasonable request should be granted if the most basic of talks are to continue.ERIC EIKENBERRY

It’s Not That Simple Posted September 27, 2010I wanted to offer a quick reply to Eric Eikenberry’s post on the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. Eric has all the facts right, and his desire to see the settlements stop is a worthy one, but the pic-ture is more complicated than he suggests. If my reading is cor-rect, Eric believes that the gen-erous military aid Israel receives from the United States should be adequate leverage for President Obama to demand the demoli-tion of the West Bank settlements. Unfortunately, threatening to re-duce or withhold military assis-tance to Israel is not a credible option. The Israeli Defense Force is a wedge against potential re-gional aggressors such as Iran and Syria, and emasculating it would leave a power vacuum in the Middle East–a vacuum likely to be filled by a belligerent theoc-racy. Because the US must contin-ue guaranteeing Israel’s military strength to ensure regional stabil-ity, President Obama’s only option is diplomatic pressure designed to bring reciprocal concessions from both sides.Moreover, even though Ameri-can taxpayers underwrite Israel’s military power, Israel is not an American client state. It is an in-dependent democracy with com-

Sometimes our staffers respectfully disagree. In September, two of our staffers engaged in a lively debate over the U.S.’s policy regarding Israel & Palestine.

December 2010 15

Internationalplex domestic politics. Although we would prefer settlement con-struction stopped and the current developments torn down, as Eric notes the coalition currently in control of the Knesset believes strongly in the settlements and would prefer not to see its con-stituents’ homes destroyed. More troublingly, the IDF is increasingly staffed by Ultra-Orthodox citizens whose views are more hard-line than those of any other Israelis. In-ternal politics regarding the set-tlements is volatile, and America needs to be gentle when making demands. U.S. Administration has to put American interests first, of course, but the desires of impor-tant Israeli constituencies must be kept in mind. The settlements are the tipping point of any potential peace deal, and all sides have important interests that must be resolved through the hard work of diplomacy rather than flash-bang demands to Stop the Settlements Now.ALEX JONES

For ClarificationAlex brings up several interesting points, and in hindsight, I feel as if I could have been clearer in my reasoning, so please allow me to elaborate now.1. To begin, I am not in favor of withholding monetary support from Israel, and did not mean to imply that. For me, it’s just one of those “hmm, isn’t that interest-ing,” facts of which I’m not sure a majority are aware. Israel has the strongest military in the Middle East, and it’s scientific and infra-structural achievements t rival those of the United States. Yes, it does provide a bulwark against an Iran that is rapidly expanding its regional influence.2. A Palestinian’s view of U.S. in-volvement. If I’m a Palestinian living in Gaza whose home was destroyed during Israel’s Opera-tion Cast Lead, how would I feel about the U.S. as a broker if there’s

a good possibility that the rock-et which leveled my home was manufactured in America or was bought with American dollars? President Obama, like his prede-cessors, has found himself in an interesting position, attempting to situate himself and his adminis-tration as impartial arbiters while favoring one side overwhelming-ly. Is this to say that they should withhold support? No. It’s just one of the ironies of the debate.3. An Israeli’s view of U.S. involve-ment. The Obama Administration has not threatened to withhold monetary or other aid, and has maintained the U.S.’ policy of gen-erous support. Despite this, how-ever, he is viewed with suspicion among Israel’s political elite. Jef-frey Goldberg, a columnist for the Atlantic who has extensive per-sonal and political connections within Israel, wrote the following in a piece that appeared in the September issue of The Atlantic: “On my last visit to Israel, I was asked almost a dozen times by senior officials and retired gen-erals if I could explain Barack Obama and his feelings about Is-rael. Several officials even asked if I considered Obama to be an anti-Semite”As for Israel being a “client state,” I wholeheartedly agree that Israel should exercise its independence in making decisions. But the U.S., however, does not have to support Israel unquestioningly, as it so of-ten has. Right now, in my view, the U.S. treats Israel as a kid brother, something to be protected not only from harm, but from criti-cism. We are constantly going to bat for Israel on the international stage. From 1972 to 2006, the U.S. used its veto power on the U.N. Security Council to shoot down Resolutions critical of Israel no less than forty-two times. That’s not to mention the silence sur-rounding Israel’s unofficial nucle-ar weapons’ capability.Given all of that, I don’t see Presi-dent Obama’s request as a “flash-

bang demand.” Settlement con-struction has already been frozen for months; this issue has been debated in the halls of Washing-ton D.C. and Jerusalem ever since. And though we do not in any way own Israel, it is naïve to think that respect amongst allies is uncondi-tional, that talks between friends do not involve an implicit quid pro quo. Which is why I was disappointed when the moratoriumwas not con-tinued. Netanyahu chose nation-alistic sentiment over what, in my opinion, would be responsible governance. I may be wrong in thinking this, but sometimes at-tempts by Israel’s hardliners to show independence come off as a thumbed-nose toward her stron-gest, most consistent ally. I fear the day when we are not allowed to express disappointment with our allies.ERIC EIKENBERRY

For ClarificationEric,I appreciate your response. Your argument is nicely constructed and each point is well-taken. I will address your concerns in order.1. I understand. Your point was not that we should withdraw sup-port, but rather that our generous aid to Israel provides us lever-age in negotiations with them. This is clear, and I would argue that we have done so over the last 60 years. Last year, for example, President Obama was able to con-vince Prime Minister Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction for 10 months despite Likud’s aversion to this policy. We have nudged Israel toward our preferred policy objectives nu-merous times. Nevertheless, we should not lament Israel’s military strength. To maintain the balance of power in the Middle East with a weaker IDF would either require continued on page 19 ...

16 The Hill

International

In the Information Age, we find everything online. Need to know something? Google it. It’s the immediate reply when you have no clue. Enter the right key words, and there you go! Mul-tiple entries will pop up instan-taneously, allowing you to verify whatever Google tells you. And Google has become more than just a search engine; Google has all kinds of features and prod-ucts including the new Google Car (make sure you check out our November issue for more on that!), as well as the ever so popular Google Maps.

It is the Google Maps feature, typically used to provide local directions, that has caused the recent “border crisis” between Costa Rica and Nicaragua. The border dispute is over an area along the San Juan River, and the conflict is a product of the dredging operation Nicaragua has undertaken in the river. The troubles first began when Costa Rica accused Nicaragua of dumping sediment from the project on its territory (which the Nicaraguan government de-nies).

In addition to the sediment dumping, Costa Rica claims that Nicaragua is clearing a protect-ed Costa Rican forest, and that Nicaragua has taken down the Costa Rican flag on the disputed territory and replaced it with the Nicaraguan flag. Having abol-ished its military after a civil war in 1948 that left over 2,000 dead, Costa Rica is hardly equipped to respond with force- and it would be easy for Nicaragua to take advantage of the situation.

It is not, however, Costa Rica’s lack of an army that is truly in-

teresting about this issue, how-ever. It is the way Nicaragua has defended themselves against the accusations of conquest. In an “after-the-fact justifica-tion” of the so-called invasion, Nicaragua cited Google Maps, whose version of the map sug-gested the territory belonged to Nicaragua. Google, however, has since changed the map to be in accordance with the 2009 decision on the matter by The International Court of Justice. This issue is rather complex, so we shall ignore all the techni-calities of whom the territory actually belongs to, the validity of Google Maps, and even the environmental issues wedged in this conflict. We will leave the Organization of American States (OAS), to whom Costa Rica has already submitted an appeal for judgment, to decide the matter. Instead, we shall look at the role that Google has played.

When you examine the issue from a distance, it seems absurd that a tool from an online web-site (even a website as monolith-ic as Google) could be used as a defense for what could even-tually be ruled an invasion and what could have easily sparked armed conflict if Costa Rica had a military. What is, perhaps, even more absurd is that this is not the first time this year that Google’s Maps function has brought fury from communities around the world. Earlier this year, Cambo-dia criticized the company for displaying what they claimed was a “radically misleading” border between Cambodia and Thailand. Residents of Sunrise, Florida also directed their ire to-wards the California based com-pany earlier this year, after they were literally erased off the map.

Sunrise’s mayor claimed Google has made this error three times now, and it appears this latest time Sunrise remained off the grid (quite literally) for a month.

So what does all this mean? Per-haps nothing beyond a lesson of “be careful what you believe” and “double check everything you see on the internet.” It also, however, seems to show exactly how much today’s society relies on the internet. And, perhaps even more frighteningly, how much faith people all around the world put in Google. It appears that Google may have more pow-er than we previously believed. After all, how many companies have the ability to provoke inter-national war, to distribute land amongst countries (however legitimately it is given), or to erase any existence of commu-nities on the map? While Google Maps is by no means official, it is regarded as such, and the fact that it can beget an international crisis is, without a doubt, cause for concern. That being said, we have to admit there is something humorous about “Google said so” being the trump argument in high-level negotiations between heads of state in a border dis-pute.

Sarah Wentz is a sophomore majoring in political science and global studies.

Border Dispute Created by GooglePosted On Our Blog On Nov. 18, 2010

December 2010 17

International

Please, Never Forget

Originally, I was going to title this post “Never Forget,” and launch into a Red Bull-fueled, need-lessly derisive diatribe against certain elements of our foreign policy with which I strongly dis-agree, but I checked myself; sar-casm is much too cheap for this topic. Still, when discussing 9/11, WWII, even the Alamo, we are admonished to “Never Forget.” Yet here we are, eight years into an ongoing war, and hardly any-body remembers. When remind-ed that we still have thousands of soldiers stationed in Iraq (don’t worry, they’re the “non-combat” type), some state that we’ve al-ready won. As if a war, fought amongst dueling insurgencies after its first year, which made no progress towards resolving deep-seated factional hatred, can be “won” in the conven-tional, triumphant sense.

I’m prompted to write this by the recently broken news that one Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed “Curveball” by U.S. and German intelligence ser-vices, admitted that he knowing-ly provided faulty intelligence which was subsequently used to justify the war. Al-Janabi says:

I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the re-gime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy.

Remember when Colin Powell, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and, at the dawn of the Iraq War, Secretary of State, warned the U.N., aided with slides and everything, that Sad-dam Hussein was developing biological weapons in roving laboratories? I’d bet that’s a little hazy. Well that presentation was based off of “Curveball’s” intel-ligence. But what’s one interna-

tional black mark? Why recall that less than awe-inspiring mo-ment? Why recall the initial jus-tification for war? In 2004, 2005, and 2006, the emphasis shifted onto nobler ground. When the U.S. did not recover WMDs, it was decided by administration and media alike that we were toppling a sadistic dictator and spreading democracy. The fear of Saddam’s WMD became just one of many reasons why we im-posed democracy from the top down. Who, living comfortably (and forgetfully) in 2011 can re-member the heady days when Tony Blair intoned that the Iraqi regime could launch a WMD within forty-five minutes of an order from the top? Or when Condoleezza Rice gesticulated about mushroom clouds?

I hope that the revisionist history forgives me, but, to hell with de-mocracy; our military invaded in 2003, with public support, be-cause of an awful mixture: fear, with just enough bombastic na-tionalism to make the medicine go down smooth.

Men like al-Janabi helped the previous administration build this fear with one poorly-sup-ported, vaguely scary assertion on top of another. But it’s admis-sions like this that help cool my once boiling anger at the Bush administration over this historic blunder. Yes, President Bush, his cabinet, and his national secu-rity apparatus actively desired and proactively sought ways to justify this war, and engaged in dangerous, damaging group-think. But recent information shows that they didn’t actively deceive the public as I believed they once did. Al-Janabi proves that they were themselves de-ceived.

In a month, the news media will

take a day or so to sermonize on the eighth anniversary of the last war. Few will take time to discuss the WMD debacle. That is old stuff, better forgot-ten. Instead, they will focus on how we deposed a murderous dictator (an act which, taken by itself, is an unequivocal good). Conservatives will discuss The Surge of 2007 and celebrate how brute force swung the fight in our favor (a questionable claim better challenged in a separate post). Others will analyze Iraq’s current veneer of stability. They may (and I emphasize may) re-call the Sunni-Shia civil war, the violence and destruction which resulted in segregated neigh-borhoods and a fearful popu-lace.

They won’t voice this sentiment (taken from an excellent 2003 post by the Cogent Provocateur. I found it, however, through Bal-loon-Juice, a refreshingly blunt left-of-center blog):

We were deep in the grip of war fever, and flashing neon warning signs of cooked in-telligence went by the boards. Jane’s Defence Weekly (2003-03-05) diagnosed a case of “incestuous amplification ... where one only listens to those who are already in lock-step agreement, reinforcing set be-liefs and creating a situation ripe for miscalculation”.

Miscalculation is an understate-ment. But I suppose we won.

The Iraq War began in March, but pre-war fever peaked in February of that year.

So, Happy Eighth Anniversary. And, no matter what your views on the war, don’t forget it.

Eric Eikenberry is a first-year majoring in pollitical science.

18 The Hill

International

If all the brows furrowed by Ju-lian Assange were laid side-by-side, they would equal any rip-pling cornfield in area. The pale Australian has been on television screens worldwide for weeks, yet he and his project remain opaque. In this post, I’ll communicate my thoughts about the Wikileaks founder. My perspective is lim-ited by my perceptions, so I hope readers will contribute their views on the topic as well.

Wikileaks is Assange’s personal crusade. He is not an instrument of any larger organization, nor is he the standard-bearer for a movement of likeminded people. Assange sees himself as Winston

of Orwell’s 1984, working alone to subvert a superstructure of ty-rants. To understand his crusade, we should ponder the crusader. Who, or what, is Julian Assange? Is he a journalist? Yes, says the European far left, soothed by the thought of the CIA crushing the free press. Is he a saboteur? Yes, and he should be tried for “trea-son!” thunders Senator Joseph Li-eberman. Is he a cyber-terrorist? YES! cries Sarah Palin, demanding President Obama to assassinate him. These responses may reveal various character flaws in their el-ocutionists (and insight into their minds at the very least), but they won’t help anyone understand Assange. If I may offer my own

answers: no, yes, and maybe.

Assange is not a journalist. Jour-nalists scrutinize institutions and communicate information that will help people hold those who ex-ercise power accountable to the public’s will. Whatever the effect on the policy’s efficacy, Assange’s exposure of our covert war in Ye-men will now factor into the pub-lic’s assessment of the War on Ter-ror. The hawks don’t like it, but the exposé was a public service. If As-sange had revealed only subter-fuge such as this, he could claim the title “journalist.” Alas, most of the documents in his “dumps” are transcripts of diplomatic gossip, useless to would-be watchdogs.

Who is Julian Assange?

Bipartisan consensus (hooray for bipartisanship! Oh how we love empty buzz words!) has it that Wikileaks founder Julian As-sange is a “high-tech terrorist”. If both Vice President Biden and Sen-ate Minority (soon to be Majority) Leader Mitch McConnell agree so concretely, then the issue is settled, case closed. Include that blonde Australian with the likes of Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Abu Ayyub al-Masri in the big book of People We Need to Kill.

Or don’t? Assange has published several thousand diplomatic ca-bles containing sensitive informa-tion (though none were classified as “top secret”). The merits of his actions – best viewed through a prism of vital transparency versus national/governmental interests – are best debated in another post (which I may or may not write, depending on what happens this New Year’s Eve). What should be pointed out immediately (and yes,

blogging about a subject that has been in the news for a month is not “immediate coverage,” forgive me) is that, despite the conven-tional wisdom, Assange has not committed a crime.

The Washington Post article to which I linked in the previous paragraph lays out Assange’s le-gal situation (the article is a little outdated, as Assange is no longer in hiding). Anyway, it is not illegal for a non-government entity to disclose classified information. The New York Times and other major media outlets do it con-stantly (ever read an article deal-ing with sensitive foreign policy issues which heavily quotes anon-ymous sources?). The 1917 Es-pionage Act could provide cover for a Justice Department acting on the behalf of an embarrassed administration desperate to ar-rest America’s most hated Austra-lian. But the World War I era law is constitutional in only the most

dubious sense, and even then, the attempt at litigation would prob-ably end in failure.

I’m addressing this issue because in private conversation, those I’ve talked with who express contempt for both Wikileaks and its very public operator are convinced that Assange has committed a bevy of crimes. It is my highly unprofessional opinion (oh, to be a college undergrad) that he has not committed one. Accus-ing someone of criminal activity is the easiest way to shut down debate, to score points for one’s prejudices at the expense of a complex and needed conversa-tion. To argue that he has harmed national interests is totally fair; to say that he should be put behind bars (or “hunted down”) is not.

Eric Eikenberry is a first-year ma-joring in political science.

So About That Whole Wikileaks Thing...

December 2010 19

International

continued from page 15 ...a considerably larger US military footprint or more involvement from states like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, whose leaders are more illiberal than any Likudnik. Grant-ing Israel some freedom of ac-tion, is frustrating but ultimately beneficial.2. President Obama has taken on a more conciliatory tone toward Palestinians and the Arab world generally, to great benefit for re-gional peace. He has not, howev-er, positioned himself as a neutral arbitrator in practice. He has re-fused to move toward diplomati-cally recognizing Hamas. Doing so would defy the wishes of the Israeli leadership but would im-prove the prospects of long-term peace by demonstrating that the US will respect democratic deci-sions on both sides. It would also slow the movement within Gaza toward even more extreme poli-tics. The Administration has been rather short-sighted in refusing to address the issue and certainly has not backed away from favor-ing Israel vis-à-vis Palestine.

The United States has vetoed numerous UN resolutions con-demning Israel. A close ex-amination of the document Eric presents will show that many of these resolutions were spon-sored by neighboring countries who have been hostile the exis-tence of the Jewish State and that, while the US often cast the veto vote, 3-4 other liberal democra-cies on the Security Council ab-stained. The vetoes, then, were not unilateral actions to shield Israel. Furthermore, the policy of deferring to Israel’s every move is not a long-standing one, as Eric seems to imply. The US actually sided against Israel during the Suez Crisis in 1956, and even su-per-hawk Ronald Reagan harshly criticized the state for occupying Lebanon in 1982 and interfer-ing with American plans to sell fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. We have not always treated Israel like a “kid-brother.” Finally, the pol-icy of opacity regarding Israel’s nuclear program is designed to minimize the threat that the weap-ons would be used and keep re-gional electorates from demand-

ing that their governments initiate an arms race. One could argue this policy should change, but it is based on the consent of both the US and regional powers.To be clear, a “flash-bang de-mand” would be a threat to radi-cally shift US policy towards Israel unless the settlements are ended. I understand now that this is not what Eric is advocating.The story of US-Israel relations–and the current dilemma–is nu-anced and must be treated care-fully on an issue-by-issue basis. US support for Israeli decisions has not been monolithic, nor should it be. Our policy should be re-calibrated on many issues, but these choices must be made with an appreciation of the situa-tion’s complexity.It has been a pleasure to partici-pate in this debate, and I look for-ward to hearing what Eric thinks about my post on Israel-Iran ten-sions.

Alex Jones is a sophomore major-ing in buisiness and plitical sci-ence.

He blasted these archives onto the web to cripple “corrupt and secretive organizations” in his words. He doesn’t want to cleanse institutions; he wants to demolish them. He’s not a journalist; he’s a zealot.

Assange’s zest, as I have noted, is devoted to blowing up the founda-tions underneath “authoritarian institutions” like the US Depart-ment of State. The State Depart-ment is oppressive, he reasons, because information is a universal good and anyone who limits ac-cess to data suppresses the natu-ral human impulse to inquire. His rationale recalls the 1990’s notion that “information wants to be free” and is not entirely unreasonable. The principle of free information was literally written into law by

the Freedom of Information of Act. Unfortunately for Assange, any first-year student in political theory could invalidate his rea-soning by pointing out that with-out a state to protect individuals from coercion; the freedom to seek information is swallowed in a vortex of violence and disorder. Targeting diplomatic institutions is especially likely to set off free-dom-shredding chaos. Diplomats have always relied upon secrecy to practice their craft. The water that gushed from the fountains of Renaissance palaces was meant to keep statesmen’s discussions private. And as former Assistant Secretary of State James Rubin has noted, if diplomats lose their mu-tual trust out of fear that their com-ments will end up on the internet, more and more international cri-

ses will be resolved by war—and the censor’s hand is always heavi-est during times of conflict.

The irony is satisfying, but what if it happens? What if Wikileaks-style document dumps continue for years, the ties between diplo-mats loosen and foreign ministries draw back from close collabora-tion? Then, if a crisis arises—an epidemic, a transnational wave of terrorist attacks, anything—and diplomats act slowly to avoid a web-driven backlash, Assange will have endangered many lives. But of course, revolution is always risky.

Alex Jones is a sophomore ma-joring in business and political science.

20 The Hill

The Last Word

A few months ago, I took a trip to the coast. On the highway, I was caught behind a truck bearing a Rebel-Flag decal. The sticker announced that this crimson standard rep-resents “Heritage, not Hate.” In his whimsical moments, I thought, the driver probably imagines “pastoral scenes of the gallant South.” I presume his gold-dipped reveries don’t feature Abel Meeropol’s fur-ther description of a “strange fruit” with “bulging eyes and [a] twisted mouth” danglling from the motorist’s beloved magnolia trees.

After fifteen minutes stuck be-hind this man, I came to assume he thought he was carrying on a tradition of “defiance” by displaying the Stars and Bars. I hoped he didn’t know that Southern disobedience took the form of regular raids of murderous terror, conducted by men clad in the masked mantles now favored by He-zbollah. Progressives like me have devoted ourselves to re-pudiating this legacy of terror. At best, my reactionary road-mate has chosen to ignore the backs once broken and the necks once snapped on his inherited land.

As my encounter on the in-terstate showed, after four decades of efforts to coun-ter the mythology of the “Lost Cause,” some white Southern-

ers still refuse to confront the region’s ugly racial history. Educators keep struggling to correct Southern misconcep-tions, because people who are ignorant of their own history are intellectually impover-ished. But after thirty years of electoral losses in the region, some progressive political ad-vocates are asking whether the South is fit for social jus-tice.

I was in South Carolina when I pondered this question for the first time. A friend and I were canvassing a rural town for the Barack Obama cam-paign. We drove from home to home, counseling registered Democrats to go to the polls and color in the circle beside Obama’s name. My friend and I pulled beside a one-story ranch. The owner, a registered Democrat, met us in his front yard. We explained who we were and asked him for whom he planned to vote. Keeping his eyes on his border collie, he murmured that he didn’t believe “colored people” were “ready for elected of-fice.” African-Americans, he said, couldn’t even maintain their own properties—so how could he trust them to steward the nation’s government? We scratched his name off the list, assuming he hadn’t bothered to change his registration after the Democrats ceased being the “Party of Jim Crow.”

How many Southern Demo-crats are like this man? It’s hard to know, but given that some exist, a progressive movment in the South seems even less likely than it would otherwise be. Nonetheless, progressives from C. Vann Woodward to Harvey Gantt have dreamt of fashioning a Southern populist coalition of poor whites and poor blacks. Every indicator of collective welfare, from per-capita in-come to public health, places the South at the bottom of the national distribution. Would-be populists believe work-ing-class southerners ought to link arms and push their interests relative to those of other tranches of America.

On the way to the coast, I saw evidence of this proposal’s ap-peal as well as of its improb-ability. Passing the soybean fields and driving though the many country towns, I saw peo-ple living in crumbling shacks and weather-beaten mobile homes. I watched people tread around rusting slabs of metal that neither the govern-ment nor the corporate farms had bothered to extract from the fields. On Sunday, I saw people filing into churches to get spiritual relief from their poverty. The queues consisted of either black or white wor-shippers. Not a single church I passed was integrated.By and large, the institutions

“The Scars of Centuries*”Racial Politics in the South

*The title comes from President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Commencement Address at Howard University on June 4, 1965

December 2010 21

The Last Wordof the southern working class remain racially split. Working-class blacks and working-class whites seldom interact anywhere but at work. Given their lack of contact, it’s not surprising that they don’t see their interests as congruent, or even compatible. Their orga-nizations don’t rely upon each other to build social capital, and sometimes the relation-ship of black and white ins-tiutions is adversarial. As V. O. Key argues in his classic book Southern Politics in State and Nation, southern whites tend to become more conser-vative as surrounding black

populations become more concentrated. White racism helps guide that dynamic, as does whites’ historical per-ception that the uplift of Af-rican-Americans will always pull them down in the social hierarchy.

Unless white and black insti-tutions collaborate more ex-tensively, the Southern work-ing class is likely to remain split and subjugated. New economic organizations like labor unions would help push the fractured racial rock faces back together, but Right-to-Work statutes make make

Southern workplaces almost impossible to organize. Pro-gressives will have to find other means to catylize inter-racial collaboration if they ever want the South to be just.

Strolling to the beach, I saw a few white children and a few black children riding their bikes through a yard. I grinned. Progress, I thought, begins at the grassroots.

Alex Jones is a sophomore ma-joring in business and political science.

WORK FORTHE HILL!

Do you enjoy: a) writing b) blogging c) copy-editing d) design e) drawing f) one or more of the above?

Email us at:thehilpr@gmail.com to find out more about us and join our staff.