Conflict in Cote

d’IvoireTwo men

play tug of war over the presidency

France’s Front

NationalA shift in

French politics

BUDGET BICKERINGFederal & state budget negotiations

What it Means to be Nonpartisan and Why Celebrating 10 Years of Nonpartisanship!HAPPY B-DAY TO THE HILL!

The HillThe Chapel Hill Political ReviewMay 2010 Volume X, Issue VI

From the EditorsTo our readers:We were pleasantly surprised at the start of this academic year to discover that this would be our tenth volume of The Hill. The Hill published its first volume in the spring of 2001, and began its second volume with the advent of the 2001-2002 academic year. This spring, we are not only celebrating our tenth volume but our tenth year. Ten years of The Hill, UNC-Chapel Hill’s only nonpartisan political review, and we remain fiercely proud our magazine. Maintaining a nonparti-san magazine on a university campus is no easy feat, but we have enjoyed the challenge over the years and look forward to many more years publishing a “new view” on UNC’s campus.

We chose to focus this issue on The Hill, its history and its nonpartisan message. We discuss what it means to be nonpartisan (pgs 12-13), a look behind the scenes regarding our funding (pgs 14-15), as well as looks into why the nonpartisan conversation is so important (pg 16), and what The Hill has to offer

as a nonpartisan magazine (pg 17).On the international scene, we study the Goldstone UN Report controversy (pg 6), and we exam-ine the puzzling conflict over the presidency in Cote d’Ivoire since the November 2010 elections (pgs 10-11). Meanwhile, on the domestic front, we look at the budget squab-bling on Capitol Hill (pg 19) and in North Carolina (pg 21), as well as examine the copyright controversy regarding Google Books (pg 20).

We’re excited to be celebrating ten years of The Hill, and happy to be leading The Hill into its second decade of publication on campus. We’re proud of The Hill’s history and tradition, and we look forward to further advancing the mission of The Hill. Thank you for download-ing this edition of The Hill, we hope you enjoy and join us on our journey into a second decade of nonpartisan political review.

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

Siddarth Nagaraj is a junior majoring in global studies and political science.

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 e-mail (no more than 250 words, please). Please include your name, year and major.

thehillpr@gmail.com

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

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

The Hill StaffMANAGING EDITORS

Siddarth Nagaraj Sarah Wentz

EDITORSCaroline Guerra

Yash ShahClayton Thomas

WRITERSBronwen ClarkEric Eikenberry

Amanda Claire GraysonBrooke GreenwellCaroline Guerra

Sam HobbsAlex Jones

Radhika KshatriyaSiddarth NagarajKevin UhrmacherAvani Uppalapati

Sarah WentzDaixi Xu

GUEST WRITERSLeah SzarekWill Schultz

WEB EDITORSarah Wentz

HEAD OF ARTConnor Sullivan

ARTJR Fruto

HEAD OF DESIGNRachelle Branca

CIRCULATIONAmanda Claire Grayson

Wilson Sayre

TREASURERKendall Law

FACULTY ADVISORFerrel Guilory

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 nonparti-san on the whole. Hence, the purpose of The Hill is to provide the university 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.

About us

2 The Hill Online

ContentsFrance’s Front National:

Conflict in Cote d’Ivoire:

Walmart’s Women:

Features

107

19A civil-action suit against Walmart sparks conversation about civil-action suits

France’s right may be rising

A recent civil war that didn’t appear on your TV screen

Reaching Nonpartisan

Finding Funding

The Nonpartisan Conversation

Cover

14

12

16What it brings to the table

What does it mean to be nonpartisan?

Government money is hard to come by

10

The Hill OnlineMay 2011

Volume X, Issue VI

May 2011 3

Contents

faced at home, but it is equally important for us to consider the experiences and opinions of the foreign troops on the ground. If we earn the reputation of being an unappreciative and unsupportive ally in this conflict, how will we recruit help in the future? How will we convince our current allies in Afghanistan to stick around? Most importantly, “Black Watch” serves as a poignant reminder to our overexposed senses of how hellish war really is. While it wouldn’t be productive to try to fully empathize with every wounded soldier in Iraq and every family member and friend who has lost someone there, it isn’t acceptable to let ourselves grow numb to the realities of the conflict. Regardless of your opinion of the war, we have to frequently remind ourselves—through art or other means—that we aren’t just playing “Risk.”

Caroline Guerra is a senior major-ing in political science and inter-national studies.

Rife with gunshots, IEDS and f-bombs, “Black Watch” isn’t a play for the sensitive among us. It is challenging and coarse, but probably the most beauti-ful theatrical production I’ve ever seen. The Black Watch is an elite regiment of the Scottish armed forces. The Scottish National Theatre’s “Black Watch,” that came to UNC’s Memorial Hall Feb. 9-13, drew from real inter-views and events from Black Watch soldiers’ experiences be-fore, during and after deployment to Iraq.

Not surprisingly, no one was singing “God Bless America.” While the soldiers were im-pressed by the Americans’ fire-power (and superior cots, at one point), no one was happy with the United States’ decision to send the Black Guard into oneof the most dangerous areas in Iraq/the world with virtually no sup-port. Since the beginning of the war in Iraq, we here in the U.S. have been well informed of the political backlash our allies have

Memorial Hall’s Stagehits

‘Black Watch’

1

4 The Hill Online

Notes from the Hill

The Hill-O-MeterWho’s on top of the heap right now? Who’s fallen far? We track the up-and-comers and the down-and-outs.

John BoehnerWe imagine the Speaker of the House is crying from pride right now. Since assuming his role at beginning of the year, the Speak-er’s House of Representatives has taken near 300 roll-call

votes, the fastest pace since Newt Gingrich took the position of speaker in 1995.

Beverly Perdue Perdue is playing poli-

tics and winning. Last month Perdue vetoed a legislation she said used the unemployed as a bargaining chip (and not to their

overall advantage), and in response the NC

legislature is set to make a new deal on worker

insurance more to Perdue’s liking. Whether you agree with her politics or not, you’ve got admire her moxie.

Bashar al-AssadThis Syrian leader is by

no means the only Arab leader to recently refuse to cede power, nor is the first whose refusal has

led to civil conflict. But we must admit our puzzlement

at how long it took him to face the dissatisfaction of his people and begin to make concessions

(although so far they’ve been minor). Mr. President, turning your back on the people’s shouts doesn’t fix

the problem.

Laurent GbagboThis ex-Ivorian president was the

first in the recent long string of leaders to resist a power tran-sition, but the only one who refused after losing a legiti-mate election and the only one to begin a full-blown civil war.

We’d like to make a joke here, but we can’t seem to find one.

1 2

34

By Sarah Wentz

May 2011 5

Notes from the Hill

officially would “disregard the rights of victims, Palestinian and Israeli, to truth and justice.”

The final report released by Judge Mary McGowan Davies still con-cluded that Israel’s investigations into serious conduct allegations were carried out at a slow pace and that Operation Cast Lead may have il-legally targeted thousands of civilians.

The findings of the report are criti-cal to the International Criminal Court’s current investigations into war crimes and crimes against hu-manity during the Gaza war. U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice warned ICC President Sang-Hyun Song in a cable that an investiga-tion into Israel’s war crimes might damage recently improved relations between the Obama administration and the Court.

While an immediate concern exists to establish an accurate record of what crimes occurred so as to pursue justice, of long-term concern is the role of intergovernmental and supranational bodies like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court. During and since the Cold War, the impartiality of various institu-tions within these bodies—from the Security Council to the Office of the Prosecutor—has come under fire be-cause of politically motivated actions.

In conclusion, the report’s validity will likely be clarified in the com-ing months. Its fate, and that of the Congo mapping report as well, offers valuable insight into the politics and inaction that plague supranational institutions in international affairs.

Amanda Claire Grayson is a sophomore majoring in political science and peace, war, & defense.

The “retraction” has sparked contro-versy on all sides, as the U.S. Sen-ate and Israel’s prime minister and other officials have argued the report “should be buried.” Of the original report’s conclusions that focus on Israel, the Fact-Finding Mission under Goldstone found that the Israeli government targeted civilians during Operation Cast Lead and refused to conduct independent investigations into alleged violations of international humanitarian law.

The revised report—which Goldstone argues is the more accurate one—con-cludes that both of these allegations are false, resulting in celebration from Prime Minister Netanyahu: “Every-thing we said has been proven to be true. Israel does not purposely target civilians and its investigative institu-tions are competent, while Hamas intentionally fires at innocent civilians and does not investigate anything.”

However, the other co-authors have not been so quick to dismiss the report in its entirety. The panel consisted of Richard Goldstone, the South Afri-can former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda; Hina Jilani, a Pakistani human rights lawyer; Christine Chinkin, a professor of international law at the London School of Economics; and Desmond Travers, a former Irish peacekeeper.

The three remaining co-authors di-rected a harsh statement against those who aim to kill the report, arguing that Goldstone (though not mentioned by name) has caved to political pressure and that “aspersions cast on the findings of the report have misrepresented facts in an attempt to delegitimize the findings and to cast doubts on its credibility.” They further argue that retracting the report

The United Nations relies on a range of tools from published reports to full-scale peacekeeping operations to accomplish its mandates. But what happens when one of its more basic methods—the written report—fails to hold nations accountable to the mandate? A number of factors—from political maneuvering to incomplete information—can prevent U.N. re-ports from accomplishing their in-tended goals.

In 2010, the U.N.’s infamous map-ping report detailing crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of the Congo faced political pressure and lack of legitimacy when the United States, Belgium, and other western countries criticized the in-clusion of Rwandan armed forces as perpetrators of the crimes.

A year earlier, the U.N. released the “Goldstone Report” detailing alleged violations of international humani-tarian law during the Gaza war of 2008-2009. While the report received protests from Israel and, by proxy, the United States when published, recent developments have added significant weight to these complaints. On April 2, 2011, Judge Goldstone, the chair of the U.N. Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, retracted por-tions of the report in a very public Washington Post op-ed piece.

In the most quoted portion of the article, Goldstone says boldly, “We know a lot more today about what happened in the Gaza war of 2008-09 than we did when I chaired the fact-finding mission appointed by the U.N. Human Rights Council that produced what has come to be known as the Goldstone Report. If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document.”

&Goldstone Gaza

6 The Hill Online

International

Jean-Marie Le Pen came in second in the first round, winning more votes than any candidate bar incumbent President Jacques Chirac, who de-feated Le Pen soundly in the runoff race. Seeking to avert similar occur-rences, many UMP candidates have since aggressively sought the support of strongly conservative National Front supporters through extreme campaign rhetoric. However, once in office they have typically enacted more moderate policies which appeal to the general electorate. Ironically, Sarkozy himself exemplifies this model, as his electoral strategy during his success-ful 2007 presidential run included a number of speeches lambasting immigrants. It seems unlikely that such tactics will weaken support for the Front this time.

The National Front’s success reflects a larger trend of rising discontent over immigration and economic condi-tions in Europe and its rise concerns many moderates. What most disturbs Donald Searing, Professor of Politi-cal Science at UNC-Chapel Hill, is that despite being “utterly intolerant, the National Front has managed to convince the French public that it is trying to protect laicité and equal rights.” In 2002, the National Front’s showing astounded many disaffected Frenchmen who subsequently backed President Chirac. A decade later, it remains uncertain whether those vot-ers will still recoil at France’s far-right.

Siddarth Nagaraj is a junior majoring in global studies and political science.

worries many French moderates, and although the election is still a year away, the party’s prospects are only strengthened by Sarkozy’s weakness in popular opinion and the Socialists’ failure to coalesce around a strong candidate.

In terms of demographics, it seems strange that someone like Marine Le Pen should lead the French far-right. A 42 year-old divorcée, she leads France’s most famously intolerant and patriarchal party. Her status has proven a useful asset, attracting many voters who were put off by the Na-tional Front’s aged old guard, many of whom (including her father) tried to associate their party with traditional Catholic values while promoting Holocaust denial and the expulsion of immigrants. Recognizing the need to reform her party’s unpopular image without changing its policies, Marine Le Pen has shrewdly depicted the famously intolerant National Front as the guardians of secularism and equal rights, which are underattack from (mainly Muslim) im-migrants. Anti-immigrant sentiment and the unpopularity of free trade have also helped the Front propagate its protectionist economic policy, which has helped establish the party as a major political force in depressed industrial and rural areas. Recent lo-cal elections in these parts of France indicate the new strategy may be working as the National Front won 40% of all votes cast nationwide, twice that of the UMP.

Although it has never succeeded in winning the presidency, the National Front is a disproportionately influen-tial political force. Many mainstream politicians remember with a mixture of apprehension and embarrassment the 2002 presidential election, when

French President Nicholas Sar-kozy is worried. With his approval ratings hovering around 20 percent and the next election a year away, his chances of remaining in the Elysée Palace currently look slim. Many inde-pendent observers of French politics are also concerned, but what perturbs them is the nature of Sarkozy’s most potent political challenger. An in-creasing number of French citizens have lent their support to the far-right National Front, one of Europe’s most controversial political parties in Europe. Long associated with anti-Semitic, xenophobic Eurosceptic populism, the Front has historically been a minor but vocal presence in French politics, advocating a universal ban on immigration and withdrawal from the European Union. While the Front has typically ranked a distant third in national elections behind Sarkozy’s center-right UMP party and the left-leaning Socialist Party, it has increasingly gained political traction in recent months under a new, much younger leader, causing many to wonder whether the next president of France could be both female and from the far right.

The individual in question is Ma-rine Le Pen, the National Front’s new leader, who recently replaced her father, the party’s founder and standard-bearer for nearly forty years.

Although Le Pen has not taken any measures to move her party’s plat-form further to the center, she has already enjoyed considerable suc-cess, as polls conducted in recent months consistently show in that in a multiple-party race she would defeat President Sarkozy with only 19% of the vote. The idea of the Front winning the presidency deeply

France Turns to the Front

May 2011 7

International

States gives each ISCI $5,000 in start-up funds and an additional $150 per man.

The ISCIs are modeled after the “awakening councils” in Iraq, and many believe they are largely responsible for the improved security in Marja. Recruitment is rapid, and the ISCIs could play an important role in the plan to turn over responsibility for security to Afghanistan by 2014. ISCI forces in Marja already outnumber the local police force. Advocates of the ISCIs point out that the local militia is better at identify-ing members of the Taliban and the insurgency. With the help of the new defense militias, the United States is closer to reaching its goal of having one security force member for every twenty-two civilians – a magic ratio in counter-insurgency doctrine. From the outset, Hamid Karzai’s national government in Kabul has resisted the militia program. It warns that the ISCIs could go rogue and descend into warlord tribalism, devastating Afghani-stan’s stability. Several violent incidents between militias and the police lend credibility to Karzai’s argument. Of course, Karzai’s accusations could be a naked attempt to consolidate defense and power under his control.

grants. Afghanistan is among the poorest, least centralized countries in the world, and such projects are important to build the nation. The United States is right to focus on the Afghan people and economy. A more prosperous and developed Afghanistan is less likely to harbor terrorists or threaten regional stability, but does this strategy work in practice?

The district of Marja is a case study for Obama’s strategy. Marja was the “bleeding ulcer” of Afghanistan during General Stanley McChrystal’s tenure as commander of American forces. Since President Obama approved the surge, the district has wit-nessed a transformative influx in troops and aid. A force of two thousand marines maintains security and reports notable im-provements in safety and security.

Significantly, the United States spends 500,000 dollars every ten days in Marja, a community of only 250,000 people. Much of this aid funds a new militia program called “Interim Security for Critical Infrastructure,” or ISCI. In short, a local leader from each agricultural block organizes a group of fifty fighters to defend against insurgents. The United

In the midst of the Middle East revolutions, the Japanese nuclear disaster, the Libyan crisis and the budget debate, it has been easy to forget about the nearly 100,000 U.S. personnel fighting in Afghanistan. Never-theless, the war in Afghanistan is approaching its tenth year of conflict without a clear end in sight. In 2009, President Obama reaffirmed his promise that U.S. forces would begin to withdraw by 2012. In 2011, it only seems apt to evaluate the effectiveness of the plan.

The best way to measure the effectiveness of a campaign is to ask if it achieved its objec-tives. According to Obama, the mission of the United States in Afghanistan is to “disrupt, dis-mantle and defeat Al Qaeda.” The president also committed the U.S. to reversing the Taliban’s recent progress in order to prevent a terrorist-friendly regime from returning to power. Essentially, the new strategy represents a focus on counter-insurgency and nation building.

The United States’ greatest ad-vantage in Afghanistan is its eco-nomic power. Accordingly, part of the new strategy is to improve the infrastructure and local economy of certain regions through small

Afghanistan:Progress

Report

8 The Hill Online

International

and maintains a steady supply of loyal recruits. The Taliban’s fun-damentalist message resonates with a sizeable portion of the population, and the continued American presence makes the Taliban appear nationalistic and heroic.

In sum, the stated mission has not been completed. Afghanistan is not a stable or secure state, although the U.S. has severely compromised Al Qaeda’s capa-bilities. The Taliban’s progress has been reversed, but the organiza-tion has not been neutralized. The Taliban is not going anywhere,

and, in reality, nei-ther is the U.S. (even if its military forces withdraw). The Af-ghan people will always resent and oppose occupation, but Afghanistan still depends on the U.S. military for security. American aid and subsidized militias are possible long-term solutions for nation building that might prove effec-tive even after a U.S.

military presence. Ultimately, however, history has made it abundantly clear that insurgents typically outlast the occupiers.

Sam Hobbs is a sophomore major-ing in history and peace, war, and defence.

Another important factor is Paki-stan, one of the United States’ most fragile, complicated and vital alliances. Traditionally, Paki-stan has supported the Taliban.The United States has worked tirelessly to convince Pakistan that the Taliban disrupts its se-curity by harboring terrorists that travel across the Pakistani border. Gradually, Pakistan allowed the U.S. to help secure its border with Afghanistan, and it reluctantly tolerated drone attacks and co-vert operations in its territory sponsored by the CIA. Pakistan’s cooperation is critical to shutting down the Taliban’s operations,

but a recent diplomatic dispute threatens their support.

One thing is clear: the Tali-ban will be around in 2014. The Taliban is a resilient and du-rable opposition. It is virtually impossible to eliminate such a flexible organization that resides in mountainous, inaccessible regions, can travel across the Pakistani border undetected,

There are several concerns about the new strategy, however. His-tory repeats itself in Afghanistan, and the lesson is that “you can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him.” Following that logic, American ambitions to stimulate the Afghan economy amount to nothing more than throwing money at the problem. In ad-dition, critics insist that recent improvements in security are illusions: there is always a winter lull in fighting, and the district still depends on U.S. marines. It still is not clear if the Afghan government will be prepared to assume responsibility for its security in 2014. In March, the United States handed over several parts of the country to Afghan security forces. Of course, these regions are among the most easily secured.

The United States’ future in Afghani-stan depends on several factors that are largely outside of American control. The first is President Hamid Karzai. The quest for power drives Karzai. Unfortu-nately, Karzai’s self-interest does not align with the stable, thriving democracy that the U.S. pro-motes. He benefits most from the status quo. According to James Askill, writer for The Economist, “Mr. Karzai is too often keen to distance himself from foreign allies while counting on them for support.”

The United States’ future in Afghanistan

depends on several factors that are

largely outside of American control.

May 2011 9

International

The recent set of elections in the Cote d’Ivoire should have taken place in 2005; remaining unease from the Ivoirian Civil War, however, postponed the elections until last year. The war began in September 2002, and while most fighting had ceased by the end of 2004, tensions re-mained high. As things began to calm, the U.N. sent peacekeepers into the state, and finally, after being postponed six times, the first round of elections took place in October 2010. And on Nov. 28 2010, Incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo (Ivoirian Popu-lar Front, FPI) faced opposition leader Alassane Ouattara (Rally of the Republicans, RDR) in the second round of elections.Reports of the election returns, verified by the U.N., seemed to be a clear indication of Ouattara’s victory. However, despite over-whelming support of Ouattara, incumbent Gbagbo did not agree his time as president had come to an end; Gbagbo declared himself the winner of the election and began preparing for a new term.Ouattara, of course, has not ac-cepted this unexpected ob-stacle in the transition of power. But, to the misfor-tune of both men, taking the seat of power is not as simple as a declaration of victory. For one thing, support is key,

something more likely to hurt Gbagbo than Ouattara in the fight for the Cote d’Ivoire presi-dency. Since the election results were announced and Gbagbo made it evident he did not intend to turn over power without a fight, support has flooded in for Ouattara. While Gbagbo clearly has supporters on the domestic scene, Ouattara does as well and, additionally, is now the interna-tionally recognized head of state for Cote d’Ivoire. Indeed, since the dispute began, calls from around the world have come to Laurent Gbagbo asking him to step down: from U.S. President Obama, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the Western African bloc Ecowas (an insti-tution of 15 Western African nations, including Cote d’Ivoire), as well as others.On Dec. 4, Lau-rent Gbagbo was sworn in as

president in an official ceremony conducted by the Constitution-al Council. Alassane Ouattara swore himself in shortly after, his camp declaring that Gbag-bo’s ceremony was illegal and that they would not recognize Gbagbo as the head of state. Since the two ceremonies, sup-port for Ouattara only increased. As for Laurent Gbagbo, he has had little to say in regards to the opposition of his power, but he has taken action.In mid-December, Gbagbo or-dered U.N. and French peace-keepers out of the country, but was met with refusal. In response, the Security Council extended the mandate of the U.N. Mis-sion in Cote d’Ivoire until June 2011. This did not slow Gbagbo either, who then set his sights upon taking down Ouattara’s organization and support.

DisputeOver Ivoirian Presidency

Leads to Second Civil War

10 The Hill Online

International

Human Rights Watch came out with report in late December that Laurent Gbagbo’s security forces were abducting Ouattara’s supporters and “making them disappear.” In correlation, the U.N. said at the time that some 200 people had been killed or disappeared, and rumors of at least two mass graves swarmed.At the close of the year, Ouattara issued a deadline for Gbagbo to step down, but Gbagbo rejected the deadline, claiming the en-tire thing was “an attempted coup d’etat carried out under the banner of the international community.” Fighting contin-ued for months, and the conflict seemed to be the start of a new civil war in Cote d’Ivoire (and indeed, it has been referred to as the Second Ivoirian Civil War). But despite the seemingly obvi-ous roles of Gbagbo as another ruler who didn’t wish to abdicate the ‘throne’ and Ouattara as the wronged man being prohibited from his elected position, roles became less clear as fighting dragged on. Both sides have been accused of, and have likely com-mitted, violent crimes against

one another, and it appears that many civilians have been killed or wounded in the midst of fight-ing between the two factions.One particular incident which has gotten much attention (al-though still was rather ignored in mainstream media) was the conflict in Duekoue. What many have referred to as the Duekoue Massacre killed more than 800 people (reports vary, with some suggesting 1,000 or even more) March 28-29. Even now, more than a month later, questions linger regarding what prompted the killings and who is to be held responsible. Other effects from the conflict have harmed the nation (and in some areas, the world) as well. Cocoa exportation shuddered to a halt in January at Ouattara’s demand. Ouattara hoped that this would financially wound Gbagbo, but it seemed to wreak more havoc beyond Cote d’Ivoire because it took away the world’s largest supplier of cocoa. Further impacting communities was the destruction of many schools in skirmishes. And in terms of hu-man lives affected, an estimated

100,000 citizens fled to neigh-

boring

Liberia, while a currently unde-termined (but significant) num-ber of fighters and civilians have been killed and injured. But finally, on April 11, 2011, Ouattara’s troops captured Lau-rent Gbagbo in Abidjan. Af-ter the arrest, the transition of power has seemed to be relatively simple, although not without scuffles with remaining Gbagbo supporters. Nevertheless, now uncontested President Alassane Ouattara has begun attempts to restore order, starting with send-ing soldiers back to their barracks and returning the enforcement of law, order, and peace to police and gendarmes. Further suggesting a return to peace is the resumption of export of cocoa from Cote d’Ivoire the week before Easter, and classes have begun again at local schools despite struggles with destroyed school-buildings and missing school-children. So while things are not back to “normal” or perfect, the conflict over the Ivoirian presidency is coming to its end. And it seems a story which began with little media attention, despite rocking the daily lives of Cote d’Ivoire citizens, is now drawing to a close with no more fanfare than its inception received.

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

May 2011 11

International

NonpartisanReaching

Most people seem to have a good sense of what it means to be nonpartisan. When we are distributing The Hill around campus, students are allured by the label “nonpartisan,” not con-fused by it. The fogginess sets in when readers become writers. One’s self-censor draws a blank when asked to weed out bias from one’s own writing.

Writing a nonpartisan article requires approaching an issue with fresh eyes, and Hill staffers are often disadvantaged in this respect by years of newspaper perusing and blog following. The strong interest in politics that leads UNC students to write for The Hill in the first place usually comes hand in hand with strong, preset opinions on political is-

At first glance, the article I was editing seemed close to perfect. After adding a comma and cutting a few unnecessary sentences, I felt certain that the piece was clear and grammati-cally correct. It was entertaining, too, with a great hook at the be-ginning and a punchy ending. In one important aspect, however, the article did not meet The Hill’s standards and would have to go back to the author for serious revision. In answer to a typical Hill as-signment of a 700-word, nonpartisan analysis of an issue, we had received a well-written and exciting 700-word editorial.

We at The Hill pride ourselves on being the only student-run, nonpartisan political review on campus. Most of that label is easily achieved; we do not have faculty members breathing down our necks, trying to take control of the publica-tion, nor do we have trouble keeping a staff of political junk-ies focused on politics. It is in remaining nonpartisan that we must dedicate by far the most amount of energy.

sues. A “fresh eyes” approach to the president’s budget proposal, for example, can seem like a lot to ask of someone who knows exactly how he or she feels about the president and his budget proposal. But that approach is exactly what our publication demands.

Of course, staying well-informed is not actually a disadvantage.

Prior knowledge is often a necessary ingredient for a strong piece of po-litical writing. Stay-ing nonpartisan in an article about Poland would be easy for me because I know nothing about Polish politics and have no preset opinions about Polish politicians. It would be more dif-ficult for me, on the other hand, as an Ar-

kansan, to write a nonpartisan piece on my former governor, Mike Huckabee. My firmly held opinions on Mr. Huckabee could seep through if I were not care-ful, but insight gained from years living in his state would make for a stronger, more nuanced article than any piece on Poland I could put together.

Nonpartisan arguments must be drawn from the facts and not be extrapolated beyond the situation at

hand.

12 The Hill Online

Cover

The challenge for writers is to be both knowledgeable and restrained. Many writers incor-rectly believe this restraint bars them from coming to any con-clusions in their articles. Writers can maintain nonpartisanship and still argue a point; in fact, writers for The Hill must make arguments in their writing to avoid converting the publication into a newspaper.

Nonpartisan arguments must be drawn from the facts and not be extrapolated beyond the situation at hand. An author may write a piece explaining U.S. action in Libya and argue that President Obama’s decision to get involved was politically detrimental—without revealing his or her general beliefs about international intervention or President Obama. There must be a sense of caution, as if between the lines the author were saying, “Given the facts, I have come to X conclusion, but a new set of facts would call for another evaluation.”

It can be challenging to keep our publication nonpartisan, and some-times we have fell short. Over the years we sometimes have published articles better suited for left-leaning or right-leaning magazines. Maintaining non-partisanship has been especially tricky in the blogosphere, where writing is generally expected to be more casual, less measured. This 10-year anniversary gives us a chance to renew our commitment to nonpartisanship in everything we pub-lish, both on the web and in print.

Though it takes dis-cipline and practice to write nonpartisan analyses, it is worth the extra effort to provide the community with a dependable alternative to explicitly liberal or conservative material. Partisan political writing is important

This 10-year anniversary gives us a chance to renew our commitment to non-partisanship in everything we publish, both on the

web and in print.

May 2011 13

Coverin its own right; people often want to read analysis written by those with similar base as-sumptions and priorities. At the same time, readers deserve the

option to read unaffiliated political writing. Partisan opinions can become pre-dictable over time, and a return to the facts—with no prior commitments—

offers a refresh-ing chance to reevaluate one’s own interpreta-tion of the news.

Caroline Guerra is a senior major-ing in political science and inter-national studies.

Since its inception a decade ago, The Hill has been made possible by support from Student Congress … (and readers like you). Our annual attempts to win a fraction of the student-fee cache illustrate the tensions that played out in Washington as National Public Radio (NPR) squared off against a U.S. Congress divided over whether to continue allocating government funds to public broadcasting.

Dozens of students crowd the hallway, clutching stacks of spreadsheets and invoices. Alternating expressions of boredom and anxiety flicker across their faces as they wait to be summoned into the lecture-hall-turned-congressional-chamber to put a dollar amount on their student group’s contribution to campus life at UNC.

Student Congress controls the revenue from the “Student Government Student Activity Fee” and meticulously doles out these funds to student organizations in an annual budget process that seems as complex and contentious as the real deal on Capitol Hill.

In 2007-2008, 131 student groups vied for a portion of the student-fee pot. In an e-mail to the

groups’ leaders (myself included), Val Tenyotkin, then-chair of the student Finance Committee, warned, “Please keep in mind that the grand total requested from all who are reading this e-mail is twice the available budget. Expect SEVERE cuts.”

It’s an era of tightening belts at all levels of government – from student to state to federal. No line item is too small to escape budgetary scrutiny. The heated debate in Washington over funding for NPR belies the relatively inconsequential $445 million ultimately allocated for the next two years to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the federal funding source of public television and radio.

A newly conservative Congress eager to shed billions from its red-inked books set its sights on NPR. The one-two punch of NPR’s firing of analyst Juan Williams over his remark on Fox News about Muslims and the subsequent sting of an NPR fundraiser caught on camera making anti-Tea Party comments to an undercover “donor” re-energized the debate over NPR’s alleged liberal bias and whether it should receive any taxpayer

support.

For government-subsidized news organizations, it is not enough to provide proper accounting of each dollar requested; they must also demonstrate that that dollar serves the public good. Former student body treasurer Anisa Mohanty recalled debates in Student Congress over funding for a variety of student publications, from fashion magazine Kaleidoscope to The Hill.

“I’m sure the debate continues on as to whether they benefit enough students and whether each contributes to overall campus dialogue to merit funding, but the broad consensus was that they did,” Mohanty said.

Mohanty noted that Student Congress is prohibited from making funding decisions based on partisan objections to the content of the student publication.

Nonetheless, The Hill’s commitment to nonpartisan analysis of political events and trends took center-stage in the annual pitch to Student Congress, according to Hunter Gray Ellis, who served as The Hill’s treasurer beginning in 2006. Members of

Broughtto youBy...

14 The Hill Online

Cover

Student Congress “did appreciate what The Hill was about,” Ellis said. “There was the sense that, ‘you guys do a really good job and we’re gonna do what we can to help you out.’”Much like The Hill has secured a reputation as a credible source of political analysis on campus, NPR enjoys one of the highest credibility ratings among major national media outlets, according to a 2010 Pew Research Center study. However, the Pew survey found significant partisan gaps in perceptions of NPR, with Republicans less than half as likely as Democrats to believe “all or most” of NPR’s reporting.

Privately financed broadcasters ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox News ranked slightly lower than NPR in overall credibility, Pew found. Corporate affiliations come with their own attendant conflicts; as a recent segment of The Daily Show lampooned, NBC reporters must frequently disclose in the course of their reporting that General Electric is the parent company of NBC.

Disclosure is one way to minimize the damaging effects of conflicts of interest on media credibility. Another is a firewall between the business and editorial staffs to insulate content-producers from the inevitable strings attached to money.

That can’t work at a small student magazine like The Hill, where

the international editor helps make the funding pitch and the treasurer writes articles on authoritarian regimes in Southeast Asia. So The Hill opted to omit coverage of student governance from its student government-funded pages, leaving coverage of UNC student government to The Daily Tar Heel, which has been student-fee free since 1993.

The Hill’s solution to the conflict of interest dilemma would virtually silence NPR, which dedicates a large chunk of its airtime to covering the federal government that helps fund it. Likewise, erecting a firewall would hamper The Hill, which serves the student body partly

by offering such a wide range of experiences to its staffers.

Ellis remembers ducking out early from a friend’s birthday party to plead for funds from Student Congress at 11:30 on a Friday night, but says, “It was worth it. I joined The Hill for

the opportunity to gain writing experience, and I came away with business accounting skills like how to read an invoice.”

Leah Szarek, class of 2008, served as editor of The Hill from 2006-2008. She now works in communications for an investor education non-profit in Washington, D.C. Contact Leah at leah.szarek@gmail.com.

Please keep in mind that the grand total requested from all who are reading this e-mail is twice the available budget. Expect

SEVERE cuts. ”

“

May 2011 15

Cover

mean a recitation of what hap-pened in the world last week. If people want that, they can turn on CNN or Fox and watch it happen for themselves.

What should nonpartisanship be, then? Radicals past and present declare “Question authority!” The nonpartisan press should do them one better by saying “Question everything!” Non-partisanship means gathering as many worldviews as possible and subjecting them all to that one-word question: Why? Why do conservatives think this, and liberals think that? Why do the Pakistanis think this, and the Indians think that? At its best, the nonpartisan press should en-courage the reader to engage in the same sort of critical inquiry. If the reader puts aside an article and says, “Well, I guess I need to rethink some things,” then the writer has done their job. This is the value of nonpartisan conversation: not that it tells you what to think, but that it gives you a new way to think.

Will Schultz graduated in 2010 with a degree in history and po-litical science. He is now studying United States history at Princeton.

of bias, these papers wrapped themselves in the mantle of facts. One writer for the New York Tribune described his paper’s style as “Facts; facts; nothing but facts.” Facts were suppos-edly nonpartisan, objective, and impossible to dispute.Now, decades later, has this quest for nonpartisanship suc-ceeded? Hardly. Facts alone are not enough. People today are drowning in facts, pelted non-stop by facts from Twitter, from Facebook, from their buzzing RSS feed. Perhaps a journalist could reach nonpartisan nirvana if they could somehow corral all these facts in one place, but that seems an impossible dream. Our age demands a new definition of nonpartisanship.

First, I need to say what nonpar-tisanship shouldn’t be. Nonpar-tisanship doesn’t mean writing only about things that everyone agrees on. Everyone agrees oxy-gen is good; that doesn’t mean we need a thousand words to that effect. Nonpartisanship doesn’t mean always finding the midpoint between liberal and conservative extremes. That’s a recipe for bland, on-the-one-hand-on-the-other stories. Most of all, nonpartisanship doesn’t

We are all partisans about something. You might protest: “I’m a registered independent!” or “I don’t even vote!” But parti-sanship is not a matter of being a Republican or Democrat. Parti-sanship is about your worldview, the lens that filters everything you see and hear. Conservatism is a form of partisanship; so is liberalism. Partisanship isn’t nec-essarily a bad thing. We all need a system for sifting through the information that bombards us each day. Too often, though, par-tisanship calcifies into prejudice. A nonpartisan press can help keep our minds open. The ques-tion, however, is whether “non-partisanship” is even possible.

History seems to say no. Journal-ists have been trying to achieve nonpartisanship for years, with little success. The idea of an “ob-jective” press first appeared in the United States late in the nineteenth century. Before then, most newspapers were bought and paid for by political parties. Historian Frank Luther Mott described these “dark ages of partisan journalism” as a time of “scurrility, assaults, [and] bla-tancy.” The new media avoided such naked partisanship. To pro-tect themselves from accusations

...partisanship is not a matter of being a Republican or Democrat. Partisanship is about your worldview...

The NonpartisanConversation

16 The Hill Online

Cover

NonpartisanshipA Different Kind of Voice:

perspectives and flawed view-points. The purpose of placing nonpartisanship at the center of our magazine’s mission is not to deny the legitimacy of anyone’s opinions but to celebrate, rec-ognize, and navigate around the different opinions that exist in order to begin a different kind of conversation. Ultimately, we feel that this approach helps us create a stellar student publication to which individuals of all persua-sions, political or otherwise, can contribute their talents.

Sarah Wentz is a junior major-ing in political science and global studies, and one of the chief editors for The Hill for the 2011-2012 academic year.

Siddarth Nagaraj is a junior ma-joring in global studies and political science, and one of the chief editors for The Hill for the 2011-2012 academic year.

publications (especially those of a political nature) could dream of having. Being nonpartisan also boosts our credibility and prestige, as we attract consider-able interest from potential new writers of different backgrounds and sources through our desire to maintain an independent stance in a media environment over-run with bias. Nonpartisanship defines The Hill, showing that we’re not just another magazine, we’re something unique. What’s more, being nonpartisan is a challenge. Looking beyond your own partisan beliefs (which we must admit we have despite claims of being a “moderate” or “independent” or “what-have-you”) can be hard, and requires constant effort no matter how long one spends on the staff. Nonetheless, it is perfectly pos-sible to produce excellent work for The Hill and have passionate views on a wide range of subjects. Indeed, if you have strong be-liefs about an issue, then writing about it in a nonpartisan fashion can help you learn more about that matter. Our staff of editors exists not just to handle style concerns in articles but also to help limit bias and guide writers if a piece becomes too opinion-ated. It is therefore of the utmost importance that section editors be committed to reducing bias in all forms. Ultimately, we all have different

In a world where media bias increasingly predominates and rules the conversation, nonpar-tisanship is more important than ever. It is important to recognize that as much as we depend on news outlets such as CNN, Fox, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, even NPR- they are not without their bias. Sometimes the bias is liberal, sometimes it’s conservative, and it is essential to recognize this no matter your personal beliefs. And no mat-ter your beliefs, it is crucial to follow news sources not only in accord with your beliefs, but in contradiction, and with no partisan beliefs at all. Regardless, it is difficult (if not sometimes impossible) to identify news sources which are nonpartisan. The Hill aims to fill this void, seeking to fill the posi-tion of “the missing voice.” We search to remain not ignorant or uncaring of partisan politics, but uninfluenced by them. Our job is not to put forth our own partisan opinions, no matter what our convictions are. Our responsibility is rather to ex-amine partisan perspectives and beliefs in a balanced manner as we search for a middle ground. By seeking to maintain nonpar-tisanship, we can recruit staffers from all walks of life on campus, giving us the ability to recruit a more diverse staff than many

May 2011 17

Cover

ployeesOn March 29, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments. The court for the first time has three female Justices – Justices Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Ka-gan. These three associate jus-tices did seem more open to the plaintiffs’ claim. However, all of the justices expressed skepticism over the plaintiffs’ arguments. Justice Kennedy, a swing vote in the court, found a flaw in their case by stating, “Your complaint faces in two directions.  Num-ber one, you said this is a cul-ture where Arkansas knows, the headquarters knows, everything that’s going on.  Then in the next breath, you say, well, now these supervisors have too much discretion.” There is an appar-ent contradiction between the plaintiffs blaming Wal-Mart’s corporate culture as well as its failure to supervise individual managers across its stores.

The Supreme Court has not made a decision yet on this case, but the precedent the outcome will set will have resonating ef-fects for future class-action cases. If Wal-Mart wins this case, it may be more difficult to liti-gate class-action suits for other disputes related to civil rights regarding employment across different geographic locations. Furthermore, it remains unclear if and how these women’s com-plaints will be heard in our legal system if the class certification is not upheld.

Daixi Xu is a sophomore majoring in political science and art history.

1.5 million women (all who have worked at Wal-Mart since December 1998), making it the largest class-action suit in history. Although this is a sex discrimina-tion case, the legal battle for the last decade has not been whether these women experienced dis-crimination but whether the case can proceed as a class-action suit.

San Francisco’s U.S. District Court initially granted class certification to the case, which was then upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Last year, Wal-Mart appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. Wal-Mart claims that the class is too big and contains a “kaleidoscope” of women who worked in different stores all over the country and cannot have had the same experiences of discrimination.

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs class-actions suits, and Wal-Mart claims that the case does not satisfy the prerequisites for a class-action suit outlined by Rule 23 Section A. Because the class includes women who worked at geographically dis-persed stores, Wal-Mart claimed that the managers in its 3,800 stores made decisions regarding pay and promotions and that the seven plaintiffs who have worked in California stores can-

not geographically represent all female employees across the nation. In opposition, the

plaintiffs asserted that the dis-criminatory practices originate from flawed corporate policies that affected all women em-

Betty Dukes and six other women who worked at Wal-Mart stores in California filed a sex discrimination case against the company ten years ago. They claimed that Wal-Mart system-atically discriminates against women in regards to pay and pro-motions. The plaintiffs claimed they were passed for promotions that were ultimately given to male employees who had less experience and seniority. They further asserted that they were paid less than male coworkers who did similar work. A 2003 study by Richard Drogin of the University of California, Berke-ley found that women make up 65 percent of Wal-Mart’s hourly employees but only 33 percent of managerial positions. His study also showed that women earned less than men in both hourly and salary jobs.

This case was filed as class-action suit, a type of suits involving plaintiffs who represent a collec-tive group of people with similar claims. They create efficiency by reducing court burdens and con-solidating similar individual law-suits against a defendant. Class-action suits also allow people to be represented who cannot afford

legal

fees to bring about a suit themselves. This class-action is esti-mated to have up to

Civil-Action SuitAgainstWalmart

18 The Hill Online

Domestic

2012Looms Large Over

GOP Budget Splitmight suggest.With the failure of the Bowles-Simpson bipartisan

commission to produce real re-sults and the prolonged silence from the White House on the budget until the past month, it has been left to Republicans to formulate their position on the budget and take the first step. Unfortunately for them, a con-sensus has been difficult to come by. The dilemma the G.O.P. faces is whether their success in 2010 was a call to change partisan political bickering or a call to action against Obama’s spending habits. If they don’t figure it out soon, Republicans are going to find it difficult to unite behind a single candidate next November.

Kevin Uhrmacher is a first-year majoring in journalism and po-litical science.

came the majority leader. As mi-nority whip, Cantor introduced YouCut. Each week, the program puts potentially wasteful govern-ment programs up to a vote on its website and the winner gets brought before the House for an up-or-down vote. This reaching out to the populace has gained Cantor big points, but Demo-crats have called it a gimmick. It certainly is a more transparent style than Boehner’s wheeling-and-dealing style – Boehner tends to broker a deal and then rouse the troops to support it. This style might work for now, but with Tea Partiers and budget hawks both putting their sights on him, Boehner would do well to include a diverse group in negotiations.

When Obama laid out his bud-get plan, he ripped into House Rep. Paul Ryan’s (R-WI) plan in a speech with tones only heard from him during election sea-son. The plan proposed deep cuts in programs like Medicaid and Medicare. Ryan, head of the House Budget Committee joined Cantor and Jeb Hensar-ling (R-TX) for a press con-ference to return the punches. Important to note: Boehner was nowhere to be found. Is it that he didn’t care to defend Ryan’s plan? Or maybe he was never extended an invitation? If the second is true, the divisions may run deeper than appearances

2010 was a bounti-ful year for the Republicans, but if the party is not careful, it could find itself on the other side of the electoral battle in 2012. A divide opening between two factions within the GOP threat-ens to cut off at the knees what could have been a very plau-sible run for the White House. Rooted in a generational divide and exacerbated by the budget crisis in April, the schism has left many calling for a coup of the old guard.

If revolution were to happen, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia would cer-tainly lead the charge. Cantor’s want of budget cuts and dislike of compromise certainly has counterbalanced John Boehner’s take-what-you-can-get attitude. The House Speaker has formed a working dialogue with President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that proved critical to averting a government shutdown in the eleventh hour on April 8.

Boehner’s work was called a success by many because of his negotiation of $38 billion out of the FY2011 budget. But he has also taken heat from the far-right. Staunch fiscal conser-vatives complain that he vowed to cut $100 billion at the outset and took much less than that as an acceptable solution. Cantor’s work in budget reduc-tion started long before he be-

May 2011 19

Domestic

There are 37,000 unemployed people in North Carolina who lost their extended unemployment ben-efits after Governor Bev Perdue vetoed House Bill 383. This Re-publican-backed initiative would have permitted the unemployed to receive their final twenty weeks of federal unemployment benefits, at the cost of a thirteen percent cut in the state’s budget.

Perdue followed through on a veto threat on Saturday, April 16, refus-ing to sign into law the large budget cuts proposed by Republicans. The cuts propose halting raises for gov-ernment workers, and requiring a larger contribution by employees to their pension plans. Democrats say that budget cuts will hurt public education and the state’s environ-ment; Republicans say the state must take fiscal responsibility.

In a telephone interview with The Hill, Barry Smith, editor of M2Mpolitics.com, a website spe-cializing in North Carolina politics, said that “Republicans are propos-ing a billion dollars in cuts on top of Perdue’s budget proposal. They ran on that campaign last fall, promising budget cuts without tax increases, so they feel the need to keep their promises.” He went on to say that “Republicans are also against enroll-ment growth in schools that will be shifted to local county government, because they feel that this is an unfunded mandate to the counties.”

States are eligible for the federal extended benefits plan if the local unemployment rate is at least 10 percent higher than it was in either of the two previous years. Unem-ployment in North Carolina re-mains high at 9.7 percent, not high enough to meet this requirement. The EB program began phasing out in North Carolina on April 16.

Because the money for the program comes from federal funding, it can provide up to 20 weeks of additional unemployment benefits without adding to state deficits.

The state’s three month average unemployment rate improved from 2010 and 2009, which is why North Carolina no longer qualifies for the funding. South Carolina and 13 other states in the same situ-ation have passed legislation to revise their formulas and keep the extended benefits flowing. In North Carolina, however, the number of people on state unemployment decreased by 1,949, and there are now 434,996 workers that are of-ficially unemployed.

In the aftermath of the unemploy-ment benefits shutdown, there has been a lot of criticism exchanged between the Democratic governor and state Republicans.

Gov. Bev Perdue’s spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson tweeted “Gov. Perdue intends to veto HB 383 later today. Statement will follow. A darn shame, holding 37,000 hostage. #ncga could do better.” In response, Republican Senate leader Phil Berger said Perdue should be ashamed about her decision to veto.

Smith said that “many North Caro-linians don’t like the political in-fighting overall. They’re probably pointing fingers in more than one direction, probably more at leg-islative Republicans than at the Governor. And had she signed, she would have given up a big bargain-ing chip in budget negotiations and reduced a lot of her clout.”

Democratic NC House Minority Leader Joe Hackney has said that there isn’t much the democratic minority can do to reauthorize the

benefits without bipartisan support.

Six budgetary subcommittees on issues like healthcare, prisons, trans-portation and education approved spending plans after complaints from constituents that the budget cuts were too deep. Their proposals will merge into one bill that will be considered by the finance and budget writing committees, with hopes of getting a final plan to Gov. Perdue in early June.

The public school system, which equals almost 60 percent of the year’s budget, will take the largest hit with an overall reduction of 10.5 percent. The University of North Carolina system would stand to lose $469 million in state funds, which equals a 15.5 percent cut. The schools’ administrations would decide where the cuts would fall, but it could mean eliminating 3,200 faculty and staff positions, as well as cutting many course offerings.

Most of the healthcare cuts would be in the form of a $460 million reduction in Medicaid. Democrats have criticized this proposal, dis-agreeing with cuts to the mental health system, reductions to the Smart Start early childhood initia-tive, and a ban on grants to Planned Parenthood.

The fight is far from over, and it will be interesting to see how the issue progresses. Luckily for some, it may be possible that the out-of-work who lost their benefits will recover the money if legislators and Perdue come to an understanding. Meanwhile, budget bickering shall continue on.Radhika Kshatriya is a sophomore majoring in philosophy.

Budget PoliticsAffect Benefits in North Carolina

20 The Hill Online

Domestic

On March 22, Judge Denny Chin of US Districts Court in New York City shot down Google’s grand attempt to digitize millions of books. The subject came to court in 2005 when a group of authors and publishers filed a copyright in-fringement lawsuit against Google. Google had scanned millions of books that were under copyright and published parts, or all, of them online without obtaining consent from the copyright holders.

Google’s endeavor, though de-clared unlawful, fits into the mold of Google co-founder Larry Page’s values. Ken Auletta, author of “Google: The End of the World as We Know It” said to The New York Times, “It was very much consistent with Larry’s idealism that all of the world’s information should be made available freely.”

However, since not everyone has the same ideals, Google and the party of publishers and authors began negotiation settlements in the fall of 2006. After a 2008 settlement that drew much disapproval, especially from lawyers of Microsoft and other companies, the two parties created a final settlement document on Nov. 13, 2009 to be approved in court.

The $125 million settlement the two parties reached was called the Amended Settlement Agreement (ASA). Under the ASA, Google had the rights to continue digi-tizing books to sell subscriptions to an electronic books database, online books, as well as advertising on pages from books, and to take certain other prescribed actions. Of course, not everyone would have been bound to these terms –

rights-holders could opt-out of the system. They could exclude books from some or all of the uses listed above or even completely remove a book from the database. Rights-holders could also request that a previously digitized book be taken out of the system.

However, many critics argue that the opt-out system violates basic copyright law. As defined by U.S. Law, a copyright owner should be able to unguardedly know that his or her rights are not being violated. Under the ASA though, copyrights holders have to actively ensure the protection of their rights.

One might argue that this system does not cheat copyright owners because they would obtain 63% of the revenues Google made. However, this payment is only in the cases where Google finds the copyright owner – leaving orphan books (books whose rights-holders cannot be found) as a large source of revenue. Under the ASA, Google would have exclusive publishing rights to orphan books – in turn, allowing Google to set high prices. Therefore, Judge Chin argues, the ASA would allow Google to monopolize the digital book industry.

This deal placed the publishing compa-nies and authors who originally sued on the same side as Google. Judge Chin pointed out that the Author’s Guild, which agreed to this deal, consists of only about 8000 authors. Since it is

obviously not representative of all authors and publishers, Judge Chin stated the deal was unfair and il-legitimate, among other reasons. Many other parties against the ASA include Amazon, Microsoft, academics, copyright experts, and foreign governments.

Judge Chin clarified that the is-sue of copyright law and orphan books was a matter for Congress, especially since the decision carried international ramifications. Pamela Samuelson, a copyright expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said to The New York Times, “the orphan works and unclaimed books problem should be addressed by Congress, not by private settlement of a lawsuit.”

In his decision, Judge Chin men-tioned that an opt-in system might have had better chances of legal success. But Google says this option would leave many orphan books in their dusty, forgotten place as before. Regardless, Judge Chin says self-interested parties are not allowed to make decisions that, in some ways, redefine copyright procedures. With the two arguments at a deadlock, Google must now make a decision about its path in digitizing books.

Avani Uppalapati is a first year ma-joring in political science.

Copyright LawTangleswith

Google

May 2011 21

Domestic

his job, and that’s something both governments should think about”.

Relations became strained between Mr. Calderón and Mr. Pascual, the former feeling “betrayed” by the ambassador. The Mexican presi-dent, in an interview with a Mexi-can newspaper, publicly denounced the ambassador, saying “that man’s ignorance translates into a dis-tortion of what is happening in Mexico”. The president reportedly refused to attend important meet-ings if Mr. Pascual would also be in attendance.

The dispute between Mr. Calderón and Mr. Pascual calls into question the role of ambassador and the extent of involvement he or she has in developing strategies to confront foreign issues. The war on drugs, an issue that affects thousands of Americans as well as Mexicans, necessitates both countries having an equally active role in designing solutions. Neither nation can afford the problems arising from miscom-munication and callow misconcep-tions of “betrayal.”

To preserve relations in the future, both governments need to engage in open talks regarding key issues that impact citizens of both countries. The Mexican government should take into consideration advice from American officials, like Mr. Pascual, and the United States needs to respect Mexico’s autonomy in its jurisdiction over internal affairs.

BRONWEN CLARK

ongoing war on drugs, opposing the military strategy favored by Mr. Calderón.

One of the leaked cables reveals Mr. Pascual’s frustration with the Mexican government in their refusal to enact certain strategic moves. American intelligence had provided the Mexican Army with information regarding a powerful drug cartel leader, Arturo Beltran Levya. Levya’s cartel was known to be transporting a variety of drugs into the United States and was also known for human smuggling, kidnapping, contract killing, and extortion. Mr. Pascual was frus-trated with the Army’s reluctance to act on the American intelligence, which was later taken instead to a unit of the Mexican Marines that had been trained by Americans. Levya was then killed in one of the biggest raids on a drug lord in recent years.

When the drug war worsened in 2006, Mexico issued a rare plea for help to the United States, who responded with the Merida Initia-tive, a $1.6 billion plan to focus on rebuilding institutions within the country and providing more American assistance. Federal law enforcement agencies in both coun-tries met regularly. Both countries were pleased with Mr. Pascual’s progress in mediating drug-related issues in Mexico. Affairs between the two countries, such as the extra-dition of criminals from Mexico to the United States, went smoothly.

To the Mexican government, Mr. Pascual appeared too meddlesome and seemed to overstep his role. Rosario Green, a Mexican sena-tor, believes that “Mexico needs an ambassador that knows the limits of

The recent resignation of the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico has focused attention on the strained relation-ship between the two countries. Carlos Pascual submitted his res-ignation March 19, 2011, citing his frustration in Mexico’s refusal to act upon suggestions for eliminating drug cartels as a key component in his decision to leave.

Confidential documents released by WikiLeaks in December made public the strained relations be-tween Mr. Pascual and Mexican President Felipe Calderón. Dis-patches from Mr. Pascual, sent in 2009 and 2010, questioned Mexico’s bureaucratic practices for addressing cartels and the ability of the government to effectively eliminate criminal organizations in the city of Juarez.

In a statement, the Mexican For-eign Ministry seemed to scold the American officials who sent the dispatches, saying that the cables “reflect certain deplorable practices, from the perspective of the respect that should reign between nations collaborating on common goals.”

The leaked 2009 cables report on Mexico’s military strategy to con-front drug cartels. The dispatch from Pascual notes that the op-eration “succeeded to an extent in disruptingthe cartels… [but] as a public security effort [it] proved to be a significant failure”. While Mexico has arrested a handful of drug lords in recent years through military approaches, Mr. Pascual speculates that the majority of drug cartels have merely relocated elsewhere, out of the immediate reach of the Mexican government. Mr. Pascual favored institutional reforms in Mexico to confront the

Originally posted: March 29, 2011

U.S. Ambassador to Mexico Resigns

22 The Hill Online

Best of the Blog

Osama bin Laden Dead:How Do We React?

Originally posted: May 1, 2011

I’m a college student, and it’s the middle of finals week so I spent most of my day in the library working on a paper about China in Africa. I happened to come back to my room to work for a change of scenery at about 10pm, and I happened to see a friend’s Facebook status that Obama was set to make an address to the nation on national security- quite odd for late on a Sunday night after the press corps had long since put a lid on news for the day. So, of course, political junkie that I am, I turned the news on lickety split. I turned the TV on early enough (10:40pm) that no one was yet speculating about what the announcement was. I was mentally flipping though anything it could be, and getting kind of anxious…so when they said that Osama bin Laden was dead, I wasn’t sure what to think or say. I’m still not.

Osama bin Laden is dead.

On the one hand, I (along with many other Americans) am relieved, hopeful, proud to be an American, and happy that justice has been served. But on the other– celebrat-ing a man’s death, no matter how vile he was…it seems a bit much. I understand people’s reveling, but congregating outside of The White House shouting in joy and chanting “GO USA” seems… well, I’m not sure- but definitely not right. And looking at my friend’s Facebook statuses, I become even more unsure of how to respond.

Many friends’ statuses shouted “Osama bin Laden is dead!!!!!!!!!!!” (and no, I’m not exaggerating on the exclamation marks)

Others said things like “What does this mean? Nothing.” And “His

death doesn’t matter.”

One claimed “the most evil man on the planet is dead…” (I don’t think we can give him that much credit)

Another said “So, Osama is dead…anyone wanna celebrate?”

A few others suggested rushing Franklin Street (where UNC-CH students rush when we win a sig-nificant basketball game), and later stories have indicated a group of students did.

Many asked the same question I asked “How the heck am I supposed to study for finals NOW?”

And another summed up my conflict quite nicely saying “while i believe that everything osama bin laden did and stood for was wrong, finding hope and celebration in the death of any human is just as sickening.”

Other reports have reached our eyes and ears at The Hill of American flags being passed around the UNC libraries, fireworks at Elon Univer-sity, and at Appalachian State Uni-versity- riots with students flooding common areas and the area in front of the chancellor’s home. And most of you probably saw the crowd that gathered outside the White House celebrating even before Obama made the announcement.

So where does this leave us?

Osama bin Laden was a far cry from a good man, and his plots led to the death of thousands…but when we celebrate his death with singing in the streets, how much better than him are we? Is that a fair comparison to make? Are these qualms legitimate, or should we ignore the idea of compassion

for a moment, shut up, and rejoice?

On the part of President Obama, in his address to the nation he ap-peared relieved, proud, even joyful saying “Tonight we can say…justice has been done.” He went on to say that it was a “good day” for the U.S. and Pakistan (who collaborated in the CIA’s plot to kill bin Laden).

A related, but not entirely flowing, point I would like to draw attention to in this reflection is Obama’s in-tentional remark to clarify that this effort has not been “a war against Islam,” going on to say that, in fact, Osama bin Laden was a “mass murderer of Muslims.” At a time when Islamophobia appears to be on the rise, I must admit to being glad that Obama made a point of making such a statement.

So what do we say now? I’m not sure.

Osama bin Laden is dead, but Al Qaeda is not.

Terrorism has not ended forever just because bin Laden is dead.

Retaliation from Al Qaeda or other radicals is a distinct possibility, and our nation needs to be on alert.

Indeed, U.S. military bases around the country (and the world) are already on heightened alert.

So what does this mean? Does it mean anything? Maybe, maybe not. We’ll just have to wait and see. But for now, we’re going to reserve judg-ment. Because it’s hard to say how you’re supposed to respond when you hear of the death of one of the world’s largest terrorists.

SARAH WENTZ

May 2011 23

Best of the Blog

ChickenPlaying

tions and newspapers of note sit around and furrow their brows and churn out eight hundred word articles about why the party they don’t like is mak-ing the Statue of Liberty cry, or something along those lines.

But on the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling, something different is in the air (or the Capitol building cafeteria). That

something, of course, are the Tea Partiers, led by Ayn Rand disciple Paul Ryan, and the love of my life, Congresswoman Mi-chelle Bachmann (“She will be mine. Oh yes, she will be mine.”). The movement, which is rap-idly losing popularity for some strange reason, has nevertheless emboldened a Republican party, which has control over one-half of one branch of government, to entirely remake America.

So, you pick up your knobby knees and charge (with the grace of a young Forrest Gump) to-ward your older brother, who tears toward you with a big grin on his face.

If this game seems just as dumb to you now as it did at age five, then, well, you’ll be glad to know that differing branches of our government are engaging in the

same asininity with the national debt ceiling. Periodically, our national debt approaches the limit which government has set for it to increase. Periodically, Congress votes to raise that ceil-ing. Typically, this passes with minimal fanfare. At most, the minority party uses it to embar-rass the party in power (“My GAWD, look at how much they’ve spent!), and a gaggle of old white men at various institu-

If you are a younger brother as I am, you may recall one (or several) bright summer after-noons made wonderful by the innocence of childhood. There you sit, digging into an anthill with a stick, when your older and larger sibling comes up to you and says, “Let’s play a game.”

“But I’m looking at ants,” you protest, but before you know it, you are standing, facing your sibling, a stretch of green grass between you.

“Okay,” he says, “here’s what’s gonna happen. We’re going to run at each other as hard and as fast as we can, and the first one to step away and avoid getting hit, is a chicken.”

Your brother has just played a devilish trick, and your five-year-old mind is whirling. Your embarrassingly underde-veloped prefrontal cortex, the seat of reason, is feebly crying out, you moron, don’t do it! He’s bigger than you, and you know he won’t step away! But your amygdala, which has not had any problems sprouting up, has the louder voice, and cries, he called you a chicken! And he broke your Batman action-figure last week. That was like, the best action-figure ever made! DESTROY HIM.

24 The Hill Online

The Last Word

the upcoming vote to raise the debt ceiling em-boldened a Republican party to entirely remake

America.

Amendment. So, Congress de-funding Planned Parenthood will result in less Pap tests, not less abortions. Agh, look how you’ve distracted me.). Also, tax cuts. Wait, tax cuts won’t lessen our debt? How dare you insult the ghost of Ronald Reagan!

President Obama doesn’t find himself in the greatest position to debate this issue because as a Senator he himself voted against increasing the ceiling in 2006. And arguing that, “yeah, I knew it was going to pass anyway, so it was purely a protest vote,” is really, really lame.

So, what happens if we don’t vote to raise the ceiling by May 16 (the date economic experts are saying the national debt will reach its legal limit)? Well, we don’t know exactly, even if we have a general idea. Most na-tions aren’t stupid enough to default on their debt when they can easily avoid doing so. But if some can be believed, there will be a few months of account-ing gimmickry followed by over $700 billion worth in cuts. So, in the end, the Tea Partiers would get their wish. But on the other hand, soldiers wouldn’t be get-ting paychecks.

So that is where we stand. But hey, guys, let’s drop all this and play a fun game. Do you see China over there? I want you, America, to run at it as hard and as fast as you can. And if you step away…

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

politicize a relatively routine vote to raise our debt ceiling?

Well, they are. Hence, the ex-tended and unnecessary Game of Chicken metaphor. Oh, they’ll vote to raise the debt ceiling, much the same way that evil, vaguely Eastern European dude in Air Force One would return President Harrison Ford safely; if and only if they get exactly what they want. This, as Jonathan Chait notes, is the first time that a party has demanded concessions in exchange for their vote to raise the ceiling.

So, what do they want? Spend-ing cuts, naturally. Ooh, and they really hate Planned Par-enthood. You know how low-income women having access to birth control and mammograms makes conservatives angry (yes, I’m aware that Planned Parent-

hood performs abortions. A whopping three percent of its budget goes toward them. I’m also aware that, if you disagree with me, you’re probably un-aware that no federal funding goes toward those abortions, per the long-standing Hyde

How out of touch of touch are they? Last week, the Republican majority in the House actually voted to end Medicare as we know it as part of Representative Ryan’s Path to Prosperity (no, I don’t believe that setting up a voucher program and calling it Medicare makes it Medicare.). Liberals found this vote mildly amusing, as during the year-long rhetorical arms race that was the debate over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans fiercely de-fended cuts the administration planned to make to Medicare Part B.

With that vote last week, Re-publicans didn’t just touch the third rail, they grabbed and held on until they were electrocuted to the point of being burnt-out husks whose only collective ac-tion was to repetitively chant “tax cuts” (wait a second…).

Okay, so what does the collective suicide of the Republican Party have to do with the national debt ceiling? Think of it. If they were that ideologically determined to vote on a proposal that they knew would (and did) die in the Senate, wouldn’t they try to

May 2011 25

The Last Word

Do you enjoy writing, blogging, copy-editing, design, drawing ... or all of the above?

Email us at:thehilpr@gmail.com

to find out more about us and join our staff.

Come work for The Hill!