February 2009 http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill Volume VIII, Issue III

The HillMarch 2009 http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill Volume VIII, Issue III

Chapel Hill Political Review

The weight of the world: Obama’s inheritance

Meet Washington’s newcomers

A Just War? Perspective on Israel’s actions Just around the corner:

Gentrification in Chapel Hill

2 The Hill

On Nov. 4, 2008, America spoke, and the word was “change.” But as a new day dawned in Washington there were plenty of clouds on the horizon. The parades and galas quickly gave way to a dire financial situation, shaky inter-

national relations and numerous domestic chal-lenges boiling over on the back burner. President Barack Obama stepped into the

Oval Office and lifted the weight of the world onto his shoulders.

In this issue, The Hill examines the situation that Obama inherited, and contemplates his first few steps (see our cover section, p. 12). Every policy put in place—every decision—is crucial to America’s success, both at home and abroad. Our writers considered every-thing from the obvious—the global financial crisis (p. 12) and the future of America’s military (p. 14)—to impor-tant situations often forgotten by a sensationalist media (see p. 17).

Our writers-turned-techies investi-gated how the new president is rewiring

the position (p. 19) and what NASA is up to (p. 18). We also took a look at the new faces in Washington and what they might mean for the country (p. 6 and p. 10). For lighter reading, check out the Notes from The Hill (p. 4).

Last year was one of the most interesting and dramatic in the history of politics. It was also The Hill’s best year yet, with our largest readership ever. We are immensely grateful to our readers, whether you read every issue or just picked up your first copy. We welcome your input as we continue our dedicated effort to be your source on politics. Let us know what you think about this issue and others by emailing thehill@unc.edu. As for the political scene, the show will go on—the story does not end on Inauguration Day but simply takes a new turn. As always, The Hill is dedicated to providing you with nonpartisan analysis, and we strive to maintain the highest quality of content.

Thanks for reading.

Juliann Neher is a junior majoring in journalism and politcal science.

From the Editor The Hill Staff

Send us 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. Include your name, year and major.

Our Mission: The Hill is a medium for analysis of state, national and international politics. This publica-tion 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 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.

The publication was paid for, at least in part, by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $.50 per copy.

thehillpr@unc.edu

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

http://studentorgs.edu/thehill/

The HillChapel Hill Political Review

To our readers: EDITORJuliann Neher

WRITERSRyan CollinsJohn Derrick

Drew DimmeryAndre Durham

Hunter EllisCaroline Guerra

Ryan KaneKrishna Kollu

Brittany MurphyIsmaail Qaiyim

Will SchultzYash ShahAlex Smith

Clayton ThomasDaniel ThorntonMichael Young

COLUMNISTSAnqi Li

Michael ParkerMartha Waters

ASSOCIATE EDITORSMelissa BrzyckiCaroline Guerra

Will SchultzClayton Thomas

HEAD OF DESIGNSamantha Deal

HEAD OF ARTDiane Esson

ARTMegan Shank

HEAD OF WEBRyan Kane

HEAD OF CIRCULATIONAndre Durham

TREASURERKendall Law

FACULTY ADVISERFerrel Guillory

March 2009 3

Contents

Technology

Left/Right

Cover

Features

18

March 2009 Volume VIII, Issue III

and more . . .

20

6

12

15

10

Obama and the worldWhat the main man’s lead role has to be

Justifying warAn examination of the motives ef-fecting the Middle East

In Every Issuev Notes from The Hillv The Last Word: A patriarchal backlash

The future of space explorationWhy NASA might be on the chopping block

Incoming!How Washington’s newest members could impact policy

Heavy hittersWhat Obama’s cabinet picks means for policy

16 From piracy, possibilitiesHow new-age swashbuckling might effect international relations

Big Three bailoutAn examination of economic policy

4 The Hill

Notes from The Hill

Medved the mythbusterBook review

Michael Medved’s “The Ten Big Lies About America” is an ambitious book. Medved, a con-servative radio host, sets out to single-handedly undo two decades of revisionist history. He is an anti-iconoclast, intent on restoring a little bit of America’s lost luster. He comes, not to bury America, but to praise it to high heaven.

The book’s pugnacious subtitle, “Combating Destructive Distor-tions About Our Nation,” sets the tone from the start. Medved heaps scorn upon what he calls the “America bashers,” who peddle a message of “victimhood, powerless-ness, guilt, and decline.” There’s plenty to be proud about in Amer-ica, Medved writes, and he sets about proving it by debunking the titular ten myths.

There is little rhyme or reason in Medved’s book. He jumps from myth to myth willy-nilly, without any kind of clear organizing prin-ciple. One second, he is attacking those who claim that “[t]he found-ers intended a secular, not a Chris-tian, nation.” Just a few pages later, he is fulminating against the myth that “[t]he power of big business

hurts the country and oppresses the people.”

Then again, the book is not about the big picture. Medved is more concerned with the nitty-grit-ty details. He marshals an impres-sive list of facts to counter each and every myth, drawing on sources ranging from Thomas Jefferson to Drew Carey. Every chapter is load-ed with facts and figures, all bolster-ing Medved’s thesis that America is a uniquely great nation.

He begins at the beginning. The first myth on his hit list is that “America was founded on genocide against Native Americans.” Not true, says Medved. It was small-pox that wiped out the Indians, not bloodthirsty pilgrims. Having absolved America of its original sin, Medved then proceeds to tackle an even bigger challenge: the myth, as he puts it, that “The United States is uniquely guilty for the crime of slavery.”

That chapter showcases the greatest strength of Medved’s book—and its greatest weakness. On the one hand, Medved per-suasively argues that America was hardly the world’s only slave nation.

He cites numbers to show that our nation imported far fewer slaves than did the sugar-growing na-tions of the Caribbean and South America.

On the other hand, Medved sometimes gets carried away. He interprets any criticism of America as a myth, no matter how valid it might be. Yes, America was cer-tainly far less guilty of slavery than, say, Brazil or Cuba. But does that completely wash away the sin of slavery? No, Medved admits—but only grudgingly.

Criticizing an author for be-ing overly passionate is difficult, however. Medved clearly believes combating these “destructive distor-tions” is a noble cause. America, he reminds us, is the “last, best hope” for the world. Rehabilitating America’s image is not just a matter of historical bookkeeping. It is a sacred cause. America is indeed the “city on a hill,” and Medved is its self-proclaimed guardian.

Will Schultz is a junior majoring in history.

Notes fromThe Hill

By the numbersUpdate

1 % - rise in retail sales for January, after six months of declines7.6 % - current unemployment rate

9.7 % - decrease in retail sales in January compared to January 200830 years - the last time jobless claims equalled current level

$789 billion - current price tag on the economic stimulus packageSource: The New York Times, Feb. 12, 2009

March 2009 5

Notes from The Hill

Eurasia’s major players

Hill-O-MeterBy Will Schultz

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

Hillary ClintonShe’s going back to the White House after all. Maybe not the way she intended, but no one doubts Secretary of State Hillary will be a major player in the Obama administra-tion. But will she be a team player?

Tim GeithnerWhew! That was a close one. Tax problems sank two of Obama’s nominees, but his choice for secre-tary of the treasury got through un-scathed. First on the agenda: fixing the economy. Godspeed, Tim.

Bill RichardsonPresident? Well, that didn’t work out. Vice President? No, Joe Biden got the nod. secretary of com-merce? Hmmm…not going to happen either. Boy, is there anything left for Bill Richardson to lose?

Bob GatesCongratulations, Bob! Even with a management change, Bush’s secretary of defense managed to keep his job. That’s no small thing in today’s economy.

1

2

3

4

Update

Peace in the Caucasus remains elusive after last August’s conflict between Russia and Georgia in the breakaway region of South Ossetia. While the region’s political status remains in limbo, Georgia is a the-ater for antagonism between Russia and NATO. Georgia’s aspirations for membership in NATO and the EU, tenuous even before the armed conflict, are at the mercy of Russia’s fickle foreign policy. Russia has long championed the independence of South Ossetia for geopolitical rea-sons, namely to counter the threat of eastward expansion by NATO.

The Organization for Security and Co-Operation in Europe, a hu-man rights watchdog group operat-ing in South Ossetia, was dismissed from the region at the beginning of the year after Russia vetoed extend-ing its mandate. The organization has long been a thorn in the side of Russian leaders, who saw the

OSCE’s mission as a political tactic to win media support for Georgia

Cold War habits die hard, as Russia still seems to assume privi-lege among the states of the former Soviet Union. It formally recognizes South Ossetia as an independent, sovereign state, perhaps with the intention of subsuming it in the future. The OSCE veto was a blow to hopes that Russia would com-ply with the spirit of the ceasefire agreements, and it indicates the inability of NATO and the EU to gain any leverage over Russia.

President Bush’s confidence in Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili was “unthinking and unblinking,” according to James Nixey of the Chatham House’s Russian and Eurasia Program. President’ Obama’s administra-tion is unlikely to be as consistently loyal. During his campaign , Obama was quick to defend the “territorial

integrity” of Georgia, but acknowl-edged that both Russia and Georgia were aggressive players. He may be more willing to yield to Russia in exchange for leeway on a planned missile shield, or for help in reestab-lishing ties with Iran.

Saakashvili has become a lame duck, surrounded by calls for reform and early elections from cabinet members and ex-speaker of parlia-ment Nino Burdzhanadze. As oil revenue slows and pressures Geor-gia, Russian Prime Minister Vladi-mir Putin has every motivation to grab South Ossetia. Perhaps regime change in Georgia will inspire Obama to invest in the country as a stopper on Russian expansion. Obama’s response will show if the U.S. still holds cards in Eurasia.

Daniel Thornton is a junior majoring in economics and philosophy.

6 The Hill

Domestic

Coming into the 2008 elections, congressional Republicans knew they faced an uphill climb to take back the House and Senate. National Republican Senatorial Committee Chairman John Ensign, the Nevada senator in charge of coordinating the GOP’s electoral efforts in the Senate, admitted that it would be a “good day” if Repub-licans lost 4 seats. But while many were able to forecast heavy Demo-cratic gains, the geographic and ideological makeup of the 111th Congress was harder to predict. With the election over and the composition of Congress settled, the implications for policy and for Congress’ relationship with the Obama administration have become clearer.

The media’s coverage focused on the Senate, where the question was not whether Democrats would expand their majority, but if they would reach the 60-seat mark and win a filibuster-proof majority. It was only after one runoff and two recounts that the incoming class of senators was decided. Democrats unseated 5 incumbents and won 8 seats in

total, swelling their caucus to 59 members. In the House, Democrats netted 21 seats, bringing their total to 257 members out of 435.

Where are all these freshmen from? Two regions in particular contributed greatly to the Demo-cratic gains: the Mountain West and the Mid-Atlantic. Half of the Democrats’ Senate victories came from these two regions (in Colo-rado, New Mexico, Virginia, and North Carolina), as did 12 of their 21 House pickups. These two fast-growing regions also turned blue in the presidential race; `purple’ states like Colorado and Virginia went decisively for Obama, while deep red states like Montana lightened considerably.

Obama is the central figure in understanding Democratic congres-sional gains. Without the Obama campaign’s huge voter registration drives and get-out-the-vote efforts, candidates like North Carolina’s Kay Hagan and Minnesota’s Al Franken might not have pulled out their narrow victories. Many candidates used Obama as a means

of stirring up enthusiasm for their campaigns. Even a Republican congressman, Lee Terry of Ne-braska, used Obama in print mail-ings asking “Obama-Terry voter, anyone?” (both he and Obama won in the district). In an email to The Hill, Marty Kady, a deputy editor for Politico, said the freshmen have Obama to thank for their election.

For this reason alone, Obama should find plenty of allies on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, many of the newcomers seem to be ideo-logically closer to Obama than to their districts. It remains to be seen if they can hold their newly won seats when Obama is not at the top at the ticket. Still, Kady says, “freshmen rarely break away from their party leaders en masse.” Bar-ring some major scandal or crisis, Obama can expect strong support from a Congress whose Democratic majorities are reinforced by mem-bers who are ideologically close to Obama and have him to thank for their election.

Clayton Thomas is a sophomore ma-joring in political science and history.

Mark Udall (D-CO): Five-term congressman Mark Udall won the seat vacated by Republican Wayne Allard, beating his opponent, Bob Schaffer, by over ten points in this formerly red state. Notably, Udall voted against the Iraq war and has since advocated a phased withdrawal of US troops.

Anh Cao (R-LA): Perhaps the most unexpected face in the 111th Congress, Cao beat nine-term incumbent William Jefferson in a special election. Cao’s seat is now the most Democrat district to be represented by a Republican. Cao’s campaign focused on ethics re-form (Jefferson was indicted on 16 counts of corrup-tion) and coastal restoration.

Tom Perriello (D-VA): Perriello pulled off one of the biggest upsets of the election cycle, defeating six-term incumbent Virgil Goode by 727 votes in a district John McCain won by several points. Perriello worked abroad for human-rights groups in Liberia, Darfur, and Kosovo. He is also a strong gun rights advocate.

Walter Minnick (D-ID): Minnick is another freshman from a heavily Republican district. Minnick’s victory over single-term incumbent Bill Sali came as some-thing of a surprise, though Minnick’s values are very much in line with those of his conservative Western district. Minnick is a supporter of natural resource de-velopment.

New kids in townFresh faces in Washington could bring change

March 2009 7

Domestic

There was a time when energy came cheap and no one knew the damage being inflicted on Mother Nature and her inhabitants.

Today, a more thorough under-standing of the effects of energy consumption in the world has proven that there are no easy or perfect solutions to energy issues. Nuclear power is considered dangerous by many, hydroelectric power dams rivers, and fossil fuels pollute, require importation from unstable nations, involve ripping the tops off mountains in Ken-tucky and are creating a genre of commercials about “clean coal.” According to the Sierra Club, clean coal, which uses technology to try and produce cleaner energy, is better than traditional coal processing, but there is no truly “clean” coal.

The good news is that a host of other energy sources are being cultivated—everything from al-gae to decomposing sewage. And relatively clean energy sources that have already been tapped, like wind, are expanding. In some counties, and soon domestically, wind tur-bines are actually sited on oceans to limit impact on people.

Market forces are also encouraging people to clean up their acts. Car-bon trading sllows the buying and selling of carbon emission reduc-tions. For example, if one company can take a certain amount of carbon out of the air, and a factory down the road needs to reduce some car-bon to meet a regulation, then these companies can reach an agreement.

Thousands of parties reaching such agreements make up the Chicago Climate Exchange and various carbon-merchants selling carbon reductions in an effort to reduce global warming.

It may seem complicated. Ulti-mately, one of the simplest solutions is to simply use less energy, which corresponds with less carbon in the air and reduced need for energy production. Using less energy can be as simple as turning off the lights when a room is vacant.

As Michael Vandenbergh, Jack Barkenbus, and Jonathan Gilligan of Vanderbilt University noted in “Individual Carbon Emissions: The Low-Hanging Fruit,” savings from seven simple things everyone could be doing “are the equivalent of removing 26 million automobiles

from the road or eliminating the need for 54 large power plants.” Such activities include reducing standby power usage, using CFL bulbs, adjusting thermostats and keeping tires inflated.

Working on these issues, as well as other aspects of sustainability, is UNC-Chapel Hill’s Sustain-ability Office. They are responsi-ble for the installations of water-conserving toilets and stickers by lights switches reminding people to turn off the lights.

“We’ve actually been able to re-duce the energy consumption per square foot by about 12 percent since 2003,” said Brian Cain, Research and Outreach Manager for the office.

But UNC-CH, which is pledging to achieve climate neutrality, also has a commission looking into renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass.

The group is “basically trying to look at every possible technology we know of and asking `Is it pos-sible at Carolina?’” said Dr. Daniel Arneman, a specialist in the De-partment of Energy Services.

Sustainability can occur through daily, small-scale efforts to reduce one’s impact on the environment. More information is available at sustainability.unc.edu.

John Derrick is a third year in the UNC School of Law.

Clearing the airSustainability seems the simple solution

8 The Hill

Domestic

What is a sociopath? Most might say a violent yet charming criminal who preys on the weak, but what about a cunning businessman who robs the gullible? What if that same businessman stole $50 billion from individuals and charities via a Ponzi scheme, then joked about his ac-complishment to his son? Such was the case with Bernard Madoff. The American Psychiatric Association’s criteria for diagnosing a person with antisocial personality disorder include deceitfulness, disregard for others’ rights and a lack of remorse for having stolen. Some would argue that Madoff showed a lack of respect for his victims’ rights by perpetuat-ing his scheme. Furthermore, the fact that he joked about his achievement could indicate a lack of remorse. Of course, only a mental health pro-fessional can make that diagnosis. Regardless of Madoff ’s psychologi-cal health, he defrauded individuals and charities out of billions of dol-lars and has added fuel to the debate over governmental oversight of eco-nomic activity.

A Ponzi scheme is any fraud in which the operator uses money from new clients to pay previous ones. The operator tells his original clients that this payment is a return on their in-vestment. Because this return is al-ways positive, these clients keep re-investing. Madoff made his scheme believable by demonstrating consis-tent small gains in lieu of large, sus-picious ones. Madoff also limited his clientele, relying on word-of-mouth communication within his social networks. The small number of vic-tims prevented his scheme from suf-fering too much growth, a problem for most Ponzi schemes. The scheme was aided by the theoretical nature of investing. Madoff did not have to provide checks to each client, but merely needed to indicate that their investments were making money.

Madoff told his clients that their in-vestments were turning a profit de-spite the downturn in the economy. While some investors were suspi-cious, they remained silent, confused by Madoff ’s convoluted strategy. In an email to The Hill, UNC econom-

ics professor Dr. Michael Salemi explains, “Communications from Madoff about investments were dif-ficult to understand. Many decided to overlook their lack of understand-ing because the returns kept com-ing.” Madoff`s victims now face the task of picking up the pieces. Salemi believes that while it’s not the gov-ernment’s role to “make Madoff ’s victims whole,” it should not ig-nore them. He emphasizes that the government must strike a balance between scrutinizing the claims of investment plans and requiring in-vestors to keep an eye on their own money.

This is the job of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a regula-tory agency dedicated to monitor-ing, among other things, investment firms. The outgoing SEC chairman, Christopher Cox, admits that his agency made a mistake in not fol-lowing up on previous cases involv-ing Madoff, including a claim calling into question Madoff ’s confusing investment strategy. What does this mean for incoming Chairwoman Mary Schapiro? She will have the task of cleaning up the mess left behind by the Madoff scandal. This includes instituting new policies for overseeing investment firms, as well

as handling possible lawsuits from Madoff ’s victims. Whoever en-

vies her job should have their head examined.

Andre Durham is a senior majoring in psychology.

How Madoff made offAnd what must be done to prevent future schemes

March 2009 9

Domestic

A contradictory contractGreenbridge fails to meet own goalsIn the face of an ongoing economic crisis matched with universal calls for more sustainable sources of en-ergy, developments that incorporate both of these premises would be ide-al. This ideal stream of development seems to have materialized in the bold new housing that will come to Chapel Hill, properly named Green-bridge Development. These environ-mentally sustainable units will utilize “Greenbridge Technology,” which means that the energy consumed by basic utilities will be reduced by 50 percent, according to the U.S. De-partment of Energy. The units will range in price from $300,000 to over one million dollars. The ingenuity of this new wave of housing based on the idea of environmental sustain-ability is compromised, however, by the way in which the execution of this vision could contrast its own purpose.

The primary recipients of this short-coming are the residents of the Cha-pel Hill Northside community. This community existed prior to recon-struction and has a long history with the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill. Many of the current residents of this community have ancestors that literally built the cam-pus. Northside also has an enduring legacy of self-preservation through gardening and other sustainable uses of the environment; however, it has also dealt with ongoing unemploy-ment and past criminal activity.

So what does this all mean for the University, and what is its role? The University is invested in the devel-opment of environmentally friendly techniques. The vice chairman of the

Board of Visitors at the UNC-CH Environmen-tal Program, Tim Toben, is also the leading part-ner of Greenbridge. This direct connection be-tween the University and Greenbridge provides a large basis for contention and mistrust from North-side.

The way in which Green-bridge has established it-self in Northside is also controversial and has added to enduring com-munity mistrust. Since Northside has been rezoned as a conservation district, Greenbridge, according to UNC-CH Communications Pro-fessor Della Pollock, had to obtain a Special Use Permit by which it could continue to develop on such a massive scale. In order to obtain the permit, Greenbridge gathered letters of support from local com-munity leaders. Reverend Harrison, Pastor Nixon and Delores Bailey of Empowerment Inc., wrote letters of support for what they believed was general community improvement. This was supposed to have included, according to Pollock, “job training,” “financial literacy classes” and “on site jobs.” Not only did none of these ever come to pass, but this directly violates the social equity that Green-bridge has stated as one of its goals.

Many are concerned about what has been termed, according to Pollock, the “Greenbridge effect.” This specif-ically means the displacement of an array of independently owned and culturally diverse businesses by the supplemental development provided

for the future residents of Green-bridge. Factors such as questionable realty practices, increasing property taxes, and general increases in the cost of living are contributing to the “Greenbridge effect” which has so vehemently angered many elements of the Northside community.

There have been public relations campaigns on the part of Green-bridge to gain the support of the elders of the Northside community, as well as outspoken community ac-tivists. These campaigns have largely been rendered ineffective by the per-ceptions and questionable policies brought about by Greenbridge de-velopment.

A complicated mix of good inten-tions, decades of mistrust, feelings of resentment and negligence combined to create the unstable mix of people, property and history that character-izes the current status of Northside. Will the outcome of this endeavor translate into viable progress for all or upward mobility at the expense of others? Only time will tell.

Ismaail Qaiyim is a first year.

10 The Hill

Domestic

Two weeks ago, over one million people united at the Capitol for what was all-but-titled a corona-tion. The tone of press coverage was resoundingly hopeful—a dream realized. However, the historic na-ture of Barack Obama’s presidency is not the sole reason eyes across the world were so steadily fixed on his inauguration. Over the past eight years, in the U.S. and abroad, the executive branch often seemed reduced to but a single actor- the president.

President Obama’s selection of ca-pable and colorful cabinet members is setting a very different scene. He has planted himself firmly on the shoulders of academic, social and political titans ready to build the bridge between where the country currently is and the America he has promised.

“The leadership challenge is to cre-ate a culture that embraces real dia-logue … so that all sides of an issue can be explored and ideally a best decision reached,” says Assistant Professor Ricardo S. Morse of the UNC-Chapel Hill School of Gov-ernment.

The American people have also cast their ballots: a recent Washington-Post/ABC poll reports 76 percent voter approval of the Obama cabi-net policy. Central to that policy will be the secretaries of state, de-fense and the treasury.

Hillary Clinton, as an experienced moderate, boasts the sort of dip-lomatic competence necessary to rebuild global ties. Although obvi-

Washington’s major playersWhat Obama’s cabinet picks mean for his presidency

ously anxious to pursue international items, evidenced by the recent con-voy to Zimbabwe, Clinton has been criticized for overlooking some very pertinent local concerns: NAFTA, Columbian drug trade and Venezu-elan relations.

Interestingly, Obama’s appointment of Robert Gates, who served as sec-retary of defense in the second the Bush Administration, received min-imal outcry. Contrary to the recent voter mandate for “change,” Gates’ retainment provides a prescription of patience regarding U.S. involve-ment in the Middle East.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also large strains on the Ameri-can economy, but they certainly are not the only stressful factors. Faced with what Obama described as “the worse financial crisis in a century,” the president’s appointment of Tim-othy Geithner to treasury secretary is surprising. Geithner has already served in the Treasury under three presidents, so this appointment does not exactly illustrate the progres-sive economic measures Obama promised. However, as the most recent president of the Federal Re-serve Bank of New York, Geithner’s ground zero experience should prove invaluable.

While those items may be press-ing, Obama’s cabinet is just as deftly designed to wrestle with a much broader agenda. A balance between national energy needs and global climate conservation must be struck, and at the helm of Obama’s energy team is Nobel-prize winning physi-cist Steven Chu. His record exempli-

fies strong advocacy for sustainable energy practices. Holding a seat in the Copenhagen Climate Council, a world-wide partnership between the business and scientific communities to reach sustainable energy use, Chu carries with him international sup-port and understanding. However, the nuclear technology renaissance his agenda calls for will be con-fronted by significant infrastructure, workforce and security challenges.

Working closely with Chu will be Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson. Jack-son already pledged a non-partisan, forward-looking approach to run-ning the EPA, confidently asserting that “science must be the backbone of what the EPA does.” This fore-casts a strategy that will turn away from partisan political agendas and candidly confront the global climate challenges of tomorrow.

Raymond L. LaHood, Secretary of Transportation, has been tapped to deliver Obama’s promise to “rebuild America’s roads and bridges.” Al-though this is no easy task, as a ca-reer politician, LaHood has shown his shoulders broad enough to bear that burden. Six years on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and service as Chief Planner for the Bi-State Metro-politan Planning Commission have prepared the seventh-term Illinois Congressman to revamp and renew some of this nation’s most heavily trafficked highways, bridges and air-ports.

With the system of education dras-tically overburdened and underfund-

March 2009 11

Domestic

Washington’s major playersWhat Obama’s cabinet picks mean for his presidency

On Dec. 1, 2008, then-President-elect Barack Obama named New York Senator Hillary Clinton as his choice for secretary of state. That was the beginning of a rumor-filled, highly charged debate over who would take Clinton’s seat in the Senate. For weeks following President Obama’s announcement, the presumed favorite was Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John F. Kennedy. Daily blogosphere comments lampooned the choice, and hardly a day went by without some story appearing about Kenne-dy’s experience—or lack thereof. In the end, New York Governor David Patterson appointed Representative Kirsten Gillibrand to Clinton’s seat.

Gillibrand grew up in Albany, N.Y. Her parents both had legal back-grounds; her father was a Republi-can lobbyist, and her mother was an attorney. Gillibrand graduated from Dartmouth College and received her law degree from UCLA. Dur-ing the Clinton Administration she was special counsel to the secretary of housing and urban development, Andrew Cuomo. Cuomo’s name was floated as another possible replacement for Clinton. Gillibrand practiced law in both the public and private spheres, including a stint representing Phillip Morris.

Gillibrand entered the political arena in 2006 when she defeated Republican incumbent John E. Sweeney to represent New York’s 20th congressional district. Gilli-brand has since served on four dif-ferent committees in the House and easily won her 2008 re-election bid. She was praised for her constituent

services, but many wonder if she can transfer that goodwill to the en-tire state. In an e-mail to The Hill, UNC-Chapel Hill professor Ferrel Guillory writes, “What’s critical is that K. Gillibrand has shifted from representing a congressional district to representing an entire state.”

Immigration is a top issue for many New Yorkers. Gillibrand op-poses amnesty and non-emergency taxpayer benefits for illegal im-migrants. In 2008, she opposed then-Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s attempt to provide illegal immigrants with drivers’ licenses. Gillibrand is unusually conservative on gun control. She has a 100 percent ap-proval rating by the National Rifle Association, a serious black mark for many constituents. Recently, Gillibrand said that she would sup-port gun control “but also protect our hunters’ rights.” She is closer to the Democratic mainstream when it comes to gay marriage. Prior to her appointment, Gillibrand only supported civil unions; but on the morning of her appointment, she switched her stance and gave her full support to gay marriage.

Only time will tell how she will fare in the Senate. If her record is any indication, New Yorkers will find Sen. Gillibrand an ardent advo-cate for women’s rights and for the rights of those in LGBT communi-ties. She is expected to reexamine her views on immigration and gun control. If she does, it may seem as though Clinton never left.

Brittany Murphy is a sophomore ma-joring in English.

Blue dog DemocratNew York’s new senator is a rare breed

ed, swift action should be expected from Arne Duncan, secretary of education. Like many other cabinet positions, the problems he faces are multi-faceted; a suitable education seems to be the basis for future pros-perity and national security. Despite never having worked as an educator himself, as CEO of Chicago Public Schools the past seven years, Dun-can promoted progressive, holistic education policies which have been heralded for maximizing the value of the teacher.

Obama’s presidency and his appoint-ments have also revealed the role of race in politics. While managing not to push an explicit diversity agenda, he has put together the most histori-cally diverse cabinet the nation has seen. Notably, he did so while focus-ing on “the background and the abil-ity of the person,” as Brookings In-stitute Analyst Charles Jones noted.

The cabinet also represents a consis-tent blend of Ivy League academics, political moderates and life-long practitioners. Along with Obama, they enjoy broad national support, which certainly makes their ambi-tious agenda much more credible.

Michael Young is a third year in a joint-degree graduate program, study-ing public administration and law.

12 The Hill

Cover

As more Americans face the reality that their country’s economy is no better off than it was eight years ago, change is no longer seen as an object of hope. It is a demand for enlightened leadership. This demand is perhaps rooted in two sources of political frustration: a collapse in economic prosperity and a war which, according to a March 2008 Georgetown University study, has in fact derailed America’s cred-ibility on the international stage. However, President Obama is presented with the opportunity to lay new groundwork through his response to the international effects of the financial crisis. Within the context of integrated markets, the viability of U.S. economic recovery must be reconciled with the reality

of global interdependence. At the same time, such interdependence imparts a renewed role for U.S. leadership, particularly in the devel-opment of international regulatory institutions to check an increasingly global financial industry.

Anup Shah of Global Issues Maga-zine writes that “the initial culprit is the spread of mortgage backed securities as products offered by transnational financial institutions” such as AIG and Lehman Broth-ers. Once the value of these securi-ties collapsed as loan default rates soared, foreign investors involved in mortgage related financial assets and derivatives went broke. Ac-cording to Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report of November

2008, the Euro area lost $1.12 tril-lion from these financial products by October. In response, Shah sug-gests that the risk aversion strategy of surviving lending institutions fueled a “secondary culprit whose bull’s eye was on developing coun-tries.”

The credit freeze in the Western financial bloc undermined develop-ing and emerging markets because it shut off capital flows. A Jan. 8 article in The Economist reported that growth in emerging markets is projected to fall by 3 percent as export led economies suffer from wavering global demand. The sustainability of these markets, in other words, is threatened as pro-duction and employment contract

The weight of the worldObama’s role in the global economy

March 2009 13

Cover

at an alarming rate. An Oct. 31, 2008 World Bank report warns that emerging markets and poorer countries face humanitarian issues as “the poverty alleviation process staggers.” The report suggests that employment growth, namely from 2002-2007, mobilized rural popula-tions in poorer countries by provid-ing a sustainable means of living. At the same time, public sector projects in infrastructure and clean water movements showed unexpected promise. However, foreign capital shortages now force this process of development, which many poorer nations have benefited from, to contrast in response to the loss in profitability of private sectors.

The indiscriminate spread of subprime mortgage failures in the U.S. to recessions across the world paints a picture of interdependence, especially between developing and developed countries. New York Times columnist Paul Krugman praised the U.K.’s initiative to bailout foreign banks operating within its borders. He argues that although nationalists may liken it to the U.S. supplying rescue funds to Japanese automakers Toyota or Honda, it is inconsequential insofar as these companies are operating plants in the U.S. Therefore, while Obama and Congress look inwards to stimulate domestic economic growth, any path to prosperity will require progress at the international level.

Although international institutions exist, like the International Mon-etary Fund, which works to rescue emerging markets, they fail to en-compass the need for coordination between developed and developing countries. Roger Altman of Foreign Affairs writes that the economic in-terests of developed and developing nations have long been divergent,

a debate which he suggests came to a climax during international environmental agreements such as the Tokyo Protocol. However, the volatility of capital flows creates a common interest between both groups for stable financial systems, which can sustain reliable global trade levels. Joseph Stiglitz, Chief Economist at the World Bank, argues that such an agency would be particularly useful in fostering

transparency about the quality of credit instruments. He suggests that the dissemination of such informa-tion would have deterred foreign investors from engaging in risky subprime mortgage backed as-sets, thereby insulating the world economy against the effects of the financial crisis. Worldwide reces-sions tend to foster isolationist eco-nomic policies, as collective wisdom may dictate a “country first” strategy.

Stiglitz identifies this pattern as a matter of mistrust manifested in the problem of asymmetric information.

However, the need for international coordination of domestic bailout packages and a common interest in financial regulation provide the opportunity for the U.S. to re-gain credibility at the global stage. Although the G-7 and G-20 have issued statements referring to co-ordinating fiscal policy moves, such as cutting interest rates, there have been no binding agreements. UNC-Chapel Hill economics professor Richard Froyen suggests that such an outcome is unlikely particularly because financial institutions fear that regulation will place them at a competitive disadvantage. In turn, the Obama administration has the opportunity to restructure global economic relations in a way which fosters cooperation towards building an international regulatory scheme. At the same time, the administra-tion has a chance to reinvigorate the international effort for poverty alleviation by reshaping its foreign policy to incorporate the interests of poorer nations in sustainable economic development.

The business of transforming change into viable policy solu-tions may not be realized during Obama’s first term. However, U.S. leadership in an international ef-fort to streamline the regulation of financial activity can be a starting point in restructuring the global im-age of the U.S. and turning around the economy. As the international economic system appears to dete-riorate into a state of mistrust and uncertainty, the story of change has barely begun.

Yash Shah is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science.

14 The Hill

Cover

January marked the 18th year since the U.S., along with a U.N. coalition force of 33 nations, entered Kuwait with the objective of expelling Iraqi troops. While the events of Opera-tion Desert Storm may seem a generation ago, the reality is that the U.S. has returned with-out an exit strategy.

Since the Vietnam War the U.S. military has undergone multiple reorganizations in order to improve efficiency while cutting back on spending. The two greatest changes that occurred following this war include the abandonment of the Selective Service System mandatory draft in 1973 and the creation of the Total Force Policy by General Creighton Abrams. The Total Force Policy combined the U.S. Army, the Army Reserve and Army National Guard. The policy was intended to prevent the president from sending one component of the army to war without the support of the others.

The all-volunteer army of the 1980s forced the military to deal with lower conscription rates—through the use of technology. Following the complete success of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 the military began the “digitization” process of every branch of the military. Navy Adm. Arthur Cebrowski and Air Force Capt. John Garstka wrote in the January 1998 issue of naval journal Proceedings, “Nations make war the same way they make their wealth. Computer networks and the efficient flow of information would turn America’s chain saw of a war machine into a scalpel.”

The idea is to create a combined information system that allows pilots, colonels and soldiers to see the same mission-critical informa-tion. Cebrowski said that “network-

centric” battles enable fewer civilian casualties, creating a more ethical approach to warfare.

Fighting a technological battle against an enemy that is communi-cating and operating with the most basic forms of equipment has a major problem—imperceptibility.

Currently, General David Petraeus is serving as commander of the U.S. Central Command. He is in charge of U.S. operations within 20 coun-tries including Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. Through conversations with the very people he had once ordered terminated, General Petra-eus has slowly gained the support

of Sunni warriors that have grown weary of their Taliban-like ideology.

General Petraeus’ success has al-ready begun to spread to other areas of U.S. operation. This past Decem-ber, the general recommended dou-bling the number of troops within

Afghanistan. In a speech given on Dec. 9, 2008 at the American Stud-ies Center in Rome, Petreaus stated, “The only way to [ensure safety] is to live with the people. Once they feel secure they will tell you where the weapons and explosives are.”

But the military may be reaching a point of exhaustion.

“There will be no peace dividend for several years,” said history profes-sor Joseph Glatthaar. “Who knows what the long-term repercussions will be for promoting majors to lieutenant colonels at the rate of 98 percent, or the huge loss of lieuten-ants and captains?”

The battle for “hearts and minds” is echoed in the efforts of Sergeant Joe Colabuno in Iraq whose job it is to appeal to local Arab culture through “talk.” His tools are Photoshop, a loudspeaker and radio broadcasts he mixes in SonicStage to air locally in Iraq. “I find the right people to shape, and they shape the rest,” said Colabuno in a Wired Magazine article entitled “How Technology Almost Lost the War.”

The greatest question that remains is how the U.S. military will be re-organized after the Iraq War. The decisions made

by U.S. leaders leading up to the departure from Iraq will prove the most critical in deciding the future of the military.

Hunter Ellis is a senior majoring in journalism.

War 3.0The latest version of American military

“Nations make war the same way they make their wealth. Computer networks and the efficient flow of information would turn America’s chain saw of a war machine into a scalpel.”

“The only way to [ensure safety] is to live with the people. Once they feel secure they will tell you where the weapons and explosives are.”

March 2009 15

Cover

Was Israel dishing out Hammu-rabi-style justice? Was it fighting a necessary battle to ensure the future security of a Jewish state? Perhaps Israel merely sought to bloody Hamas’ nose to deter them from further violence. Or was Israel just bullying its weaker neighbor to strengthen its position at the negotiating table? These are all relevant questions when considering the legitimacy of Israel’s military operation in Gaza, according to Just War Doctrine.

Israel’s concerns over Gazan rockets are merited; even absent deaths they are attacks on sovereign Israeli soil. But a war is only considered “just” if it has both a legitimate cause for conflict and the conduct of the war is appropriately proportionate to the aims sought. Hamas’ rockets have caused about a dozen deaths. Nonetheless, Israel’s response has been overwhelming, and 1,300 Palestinians have died, including civilians, according to the World Health Organization. Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which Israel is a signatory, the death of civilians is not forbidden. The only neces-sary justification is that there is an important enough objective to justify the loss of life. Is there such a strategic justification for a response that appears excessive? Opinions are extremely divided.

Dr. Crescenzi, Associate Profes-sor of Political Science at UNC-Chapel Hill, suggests that the war was intended to weaken and expose Hamas, placing Israel in a stronger position in the upcoming rounds of peace negotiation under President Obama. Any short-term fallout is

likely to be swept under the rug in favor of a more conciliatory tone as the bargaining process is restarted. An example is provided by the 2006 Lebanese War, in which Hezbol-lah was able to survive and thrive and now stands to gain legitimacy in upcoming Lebanese elections. In contrast, Hamas now seems weak and ineffective, only managing to fire some rudimentary rockets in response to Israel’s onslaught. It is necessary to note that Hamas’ guid-ing ideology includes a commit-ment to the destruction of Israel. As long as they maintain such a hard-line stance on Israel’s sovereignty, they cannot constructively engage in a lasting peace process.

In a recent Op-Ed in The New York Times, Muammar al-Qaddafi, the leader of Libya, points out the common heritages of Israeli Jews and Arabs—both have legitimate historical claims to the lands of the former British Mandate of Pales-tine. Hamas represents, therefore, a strong obstruction to peace in its re-fusal to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; whether the weakening of this extremist group is a justifiable war aim is still, however, up for debate.

Crescenzi states that if Hamas could be transformed into a more moderate organization, then Israel’s attacks could not be strategically justified but neither Crescenzi nor Israel find that eventuality likely.

In the course of the war, at least half of the Palestinian deaths were non-military. Yet some contend responsibility for the numerous civilian deaths in Gaza is not Israel’s fault. Hamas regularly operates out of locations likely to cause extensive

civilian casualties. It is difficult to conduct a war in which one side intentionally works to ride public opinion, generating media specta-cles out of the grisly business of war.

While there is doubt whether Israel waged a just war, Dr. Spinner-Ha-lev, Eminent Professor of Political Ethics at UNC-CH, suggests there is no such doubt over Hamas. Every rocket fired at Israeli civilians is a violation of Just War Doctrine, says Spinner-Halev; the fact that they have not caused large scale death does not change the reality that each rocket was intended to do so. Southern Israel does not lack for military targets, yet civilian centers such as Sderot were chosen in their stead. Israel’s lopsided capability advantage meant that they were able to choose targets with much greater care. However, in hitting these targets, collateral damage was often unavoidable. Did they under-value the lives of civilians? Possibly, but it is incredibly difficult to make a conclusive judgment. Propor-tionality is an easy question on the margin: a warlord killing thousands of innocents to quell an uprising is clearly unacceptable, but what if 20 civilians die in an explosion killing an important military commander?

As Crescenzi says, “There are really no good guys left.” Except, perhaps, “the civilians, the refugees: [they] don’t really want this violence.” These are the people whom Just War Doctrine seeks to protect: not the weak, but the innocent. And they will only be safe when Israel and its neighbors can compromise.

Drew Dimmery is a junior majoring in international studies.

Just war or just a war?

16 The Hill

Cover

The days of one-eyed buccaneers and maritime swashbucklers have faded. Yet curious mixtures of political discord, poverty and the lure of riches have often resulted in modern piracy epidemics. One such case occurred in the late 1990s when a financial crisis in Asia drew multitudes to desperate and ille-gal ends. This emergent instability was brutally potent in encouraging maritime piracy in Indonesia and nearby countries.

The times have changed however; between 2003 and 2008, Indonesia saw a 75 percent decrease in report-

ed piracy. But piracy has not disap-peared. In 2008, a remarkable 111 occurrences of piracy in the Gulf of Aden and off the coast of Somalia were reported to the International Maritime Bureau—a 200 percent increase from 2007.

If a financial crisis in Thailand in-centivized piracy in Southeast Asia, what explains the exploding levels of piracy near Somalia? The answer is multifaceted.

Deprived of a stable and opera-tional government for nearly 20 years, the Somali peoples have been tormented by violence, poverty and domestic turmoil for years. The collapse of the fishing industry and a war with neighboring Ethiopia only worsened the economic gloom. Meanwhile, small arms have pro-liferated on black markets and can be bought very inexpensively. Partly in response to these circumstances, residents of regions such as Punt-land, an incredibly poor, partly-autonomous state in northeast Somalia, have taken to piracy.

In the Gulf of Aden, maritime pi-racy can pay off. The average ransom for a captured vessel is roughly one million dollars.

Modern technology and improved strategy are crucially responsible for the unprecedented successes for pirates in the last year. Rudimentary tools, such as machetes and pistols, have been substituted with AK-47 rifles, M-16 rifles and rocket pro-pelled grenades. Moreover, pirates have increasingly taken advantage of the range provided by “mother ships,” vessels captured by pirates and then used to launch operations farther from the coast. The 2008 capture of an oil tanker carrying 2 million barrels of oil testifyied to the skills, technology and tactics of modern piracy.

Recent piracy raised insurance pric-es and made shipping more difficult. In the Gulf of Aden, shippers may divert around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa. The resulting loss of time may increase the prices of exports of oil and goods from the Middle East and Asia. While these

consequences are limited, the short-term effect will be magnified by the current economic crisis.

If the global community wants to preserve free shipping through the gulf, it will have to expend ad-ditional resources in tackling the problem of piracy in the Gulf of Aden. As the U.S. moves forward with Combined Task Force 151, the European Union tackles the challenges of piracy with Operation Atlanta. Their efforts are continu-ing, and are joined by many other nations, including China, a country otherwise notoriously reluctant to intervene in the affairs of other nations. An international presence may offer some promise of deter-rence. Still, according to Dr. Joseph Caddell, who teaches the History of Sea Power at UNC-CH, it is ex-traordinarily difficult to identify and pursue pirates when they are not engaged in the act of piracy itself.

While the short-term options may be limited, the convergence of shared objectives—defeating piracy and protecting international trade—may offer nations unique opportu-nities to strengthen the mechanisms of engagement. For example, as low-level logistics and concerns, such as fueling, have to be addressed in a gulf increasingly monitored by international forces, a natural op-portunity to cooperate with Iran’s navy might arise. However, no such hopes have been manifested.

Ultimately, to adequately deal with piracy in the Gulf of Aden, virtually all experts say that a viable political solution must be found for Somalia.

Krishna Kollu is a first year.

Present-day piracy

March 2009 17

Cover

Diana Gómez’s father is dead. Or at least he is probably dead.

Three years ago, Gómez’s father joined the ranks of innumer-able Colombian “desaparecidos,” the disappeared, and presumably murdered, civilians caught in a conflict that has lasted over 40 years. Besides not knowing what has become of their loved ones, the families of the disappeared usually do not know who is responsible for the crime. Behind the disappear-ance of Gómez’s father could stand a leftist guerilla group like the ELN (National Liberation Army) or the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia), from which politician Ingrid Betancourt and fourteen other hostages were res-cued last year. Responsibility could also lie with the violent, right-wing paramilitary forces that have often been tied to the Colombian govern-ment by watchdog groups such as Amnesty International. There are reasons to believe that the paramili-tary groups were responsible for the disappearance of Gómez’s father. In any case, they are now targeting her.

According to a letter sent to Ms. Gómez in March 2008, the para-military group Águilas Negras views her and the social justice organi-zations with which she is heavily involved—for example, Boys and Girls for Memory and Against Impunity—as part of the opposing guerilla forces. For this they will be killed “one by one,” according to the letter, to “leave no loose ends.”

Such frightening human rights abuses have been noticed in the U.S. In regards to one issue in particular, the pending U.S.-Colombia Free

Trade Agreement, human rights discussions have flourished.

A free trade agreement between the two countries could help solve the human rights crisis in Colombia. According to the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, the stipulations of an agreement re-lating to transparency and processes of appeal in trade issues would spill over and improve the way in which human rights issues are handled. The Office of the U.S. Trade Rep-resentative argues that a free trade agreement would bring “economic alternatives to violence” and could “strengthen peace” in the region.

Many Democrats in Congress, along with organizations like Hu-man Rights Watch, are skeptical of a free trade agreement’s ability to lower the number of deaths and dis-appearances in Colombia. They ar-gue that progress should be evident first; the trade agreement should be an incentive for Colombia to improve, not a tool in and of itself for that end. The Human Rights Watch, for instance, recently argued that Congress’ current refusal to ratify the agreement is probably the only reason why Colombia has “taken even the limited steps it has to address the issue.” Free trade benefits for Columbia seem unmer-ited as the innocent are still being killed and the guilty continue to go unpunished?

Such a question makes one criti-cal assumption that activists like Gómez are quick to point out. Whether or not the agreement should be used as an impetus or a reward for change depends on the idea that the trade agreement would

bring economic improvements to Colombia. Gómez agrees that a working free trade agreement would bring good jobs and positive change to Colombia and its human rights crisis, an argument along the lines of that of the Carnegie Council. At the same time, she maintains that as long as the U.S. holds certain pro-tections for its own producers, “free trade” is not free, nor is it help-ful. Gómez argues that, instead of debating the most beneficial time to implement the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, Congress should address and adjust the content of the agreement itself.

According to the official U.S. sum-mary of the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement, ratification of the agreement would grant U.S. firms access to all types of Colombian markets, from telecommunica-tions to agriculture. The problem in this arrangement is similar to that which has stalled the World Trade Organization’s Doha Round: highly developed countries like the U.S. continue to subsidize and protect their own agricultural production and other domestic industries, while lesser developed countries feel pressure to liberalize trade and do away with similar protections. This, Gómez argues, should be the focal point of the debates surround-ing the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Regardless of good intentions, a trade agreement that harms Colombian producers will not bring the stability and prosper-ity needed to work towards peace in the region.

Caroline Guerra is a sophomore ma-joring in political science and interna-tional studies.

What trade could do for Columbia

18 The Hill

Technology

Just over fifty years ago the United States Congress authorized the cre-ation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. For the next two decades, NASA played a pivotal role in American defense strategy as it developed space flight and missile technology in the great “Space Race” with the Soviet Union. Of course, the administration’s most memorable accomplishment in-volved putting man on the Moon.

Now, a generation after the collapse of communism, NASA is far from the minds of most Americans. While it continues to actively participate in research toward national defense, the agency’s visibility is significantly diminished. Furthermore, many of-ficials have been alarmed in recent

years with NASA’s tendency to ex-ceed its budget. Among those ex-pressing concern is President Barack Obama, whose campaign promise to “go through the federal budget line by line” to cut unnecessary programs appears to have found a victim in NASA’s Constellation Project.

The program, authorized by Con-gress in 2004, involves completing the International Space Station and retiring the space shuttle. In addi-

tion, it calls for constructing a new spaceflight system with the intent of sending astronauts back to the moon and, eventually, the planet Mars. In November 2007, Obama released an $18 billion spending package on education, which he would pay for by delaying Constellation five years. Justifying the suspension, Obama said, “We’re not going to have the engineers and the scientists to con-tinue space exploration if we don’t have kids who are able to read, write and compute.” According to NASA, there is already a four-year gap be-tween the 2010 retirement of the space shuttle and the launching of the Ares I, the next generation space vehicle. A five-year delay would leave the United States without its own space flight capabilities for nearly a

decade. After Obama’s election, his transition team raised the cheap-er possibility of con-ducting the planned mission using exist-ing technology, rather than an entirely new system. Mike Griffin, then administrator of NASA, responded that his agency’s job was “to produce technical solutions to achieve

space policy goals enunciated from above. If agency management can-not be trusted to do that, they should be replaced.” Obama did just that, naming retired Air Force Gen. Scott Gration as Griffin’s successor in ear-ly January.

Not everyone is convinced that Con-stellation should go forward at all. Dr. Alex Roland, an expert on space policy at Duke University, views the project as wasteful.

“The Constellation program should not be funded as presently con-ceived, no matter what one intended to do with the savings,” said Roland, because it “remains trapped in the `Von Braun Paradigm,’ the belief that American space activity should be directed toward a manned mis-sion to Mars. No compelling ratio-nale for sending humans to Mars has yet been established that could pos-sibly justify the cost and risk.”

Still, Griffin’s defense of the agency’s autonomy in technical decisions pit-ted against Obama’s determination to cut spending precedes a larger debate regarding federal finances. During a time in American his-tory beset by financial crises, rising unemployment, two foreign wars and burgeoning budget deficits, one wonders whether billions of dollars should continue to be channeled annually toward space exploration. Historically, NASA has not compet-ed for tax dollars with sensitive areas like education, but with government agencies tightening their belts all across the country, the game is now every agency for itself.

“President Obama seems genuinely committed to increasing science funding,” said Roland, “even though budgets will necessarily be tight for some time to come.” However, Ro-land said that Constellation should not be a focus in NASA’s immediate future. At any rate, the debate shows that in these hard times even Hous-ton is hurting financially. For now, it seems, the future of space explora-tion remains uncertain.

Ryan Collins is a sophomore majoring in economics and political science.

NASA’s fight for funding

March 2009 19

Technology

The first tech presidentBy the end of his eight-year term, former President Bill Clinton had sent a total of two emails: the first a test, the second a message to as-tronaut John Glenn on the space shuttle Discovery. President Barack Obama is likely to have sent more emails than that in the first hour af-ter his inauguration. Renowned for his frequent BlackBerry use and his grassroots, online-based campaign-ing, Obama has been hailed as the first “tech president.” Technology-based changes at the executive level have the potential for major ramifi-cations not only in the tech sphere, but in everything from healthcare to energy to government itself.

Despite broad adoption by the pub-lic, the Internet was not taken seri-ously as a campaign tool until recent years. Howard Dean became a ma-jor player in the 2004 presidential race with the money raised through his online network of donors, and Congressman Ron Paul became an Internet sensation in his bid for the 2008 Republican nomination, at one point raising over four million dol-lars online in a single day. The latest presidential campaign marked a clear convergence of politics and the Web, with Barack Obama and Republi-can candidate John McCain trading barbs on YouTube and Facebook, in addition to more traditional media outlets like CNN. With the money he raised online, Obama was able to forego public financing and outspend McCain. At the same time, McCain was able to remain competitive even with limited funds by emphasizing Internet-based spending over tradi-tional media.

Announcing his candidacy for the presidency in early 2007, Obama

proclaimed his desire to be among “the generation that reshapes our economy to compete in the digital age.” On the official White House web site, Obama speaks of “the immense transformative power of technology and in-novation and how they can improve the lives of Ameri-cans.” His agenda as president gives weight to this rhetoric. A major part of his health care plan is the implementation of electronic health care records, making it possible for doctors, nurses, hospitals and patients to stay on the same page and avoid costly miscommunica-tion. The energy gains Obama hopes for depend on scientific and techno-logical innovation in both the de-velopment of new energies and the enhancement of existing ones. And in appointing the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer to lead an in-teragency effort to increase govern-mental efficiency, Obama has shown he is serious about using technology to better integrate the various ele-ments of government.

For all Obama’s emphasis on change through technology, the White House and each of the myriad gov-ernment bureaucracies have their own systems and traditions, mean-ing that any change that occurs may come slowly. Raleigh-based software company Red Hat proposes open source software as the solution to many of the technological and cost-related hurdles faced by the new ad-ministration. “Government agencies can experience dramatic cost savings through utilizing open source tech-nologies,” a spokesperson for the company told The Hill. “With the

Obama administration’s promise for an open and transparent government, open source technologies provide an impressive means to accomplish this goal.”

At noon on January 20, 2009-be-fore Obama had even been sworn into office-Whitehouse.gov, the of-ficial website of the White House, had been transformed into a sleek, modern site promising accessibility and accountability. Users are able to review all non-emergency legisla-tion before it is signed, and the site features the president’s weekly You-Tube video addresses and an official White House blog. If Obama’s plans pan out, the collaborative nature of the Internet and the social networks that he used to such effect during the campaign will now be used as tools to advance the democratic pro-cess, keeping voters informed and engaged in America’s affairs. John Glenn would be proud.

Ryan Kane is a senior majoring in po-litical science.

20 The Hill

Opinion

One of the most noticeable effects of the global economic crisis has been the

hot debate about bailouts in the U.S. Controversial as October’s Wall Street bailout was, the bailout of the au-tomobile industry proved an even harder sell.

Opponents of further aid beyond the original emergency loans have claimed that it is unnecessary and that the automakers’ woes stem from their own bad business practices. What many fail to realize, however, is that continued assistance of the Detroit Big Three is just as important as the bailout of Wall Street, and that without it, America’s prospects for better economic times will be considerably dimmer.

While the consensus seems to have been that the U.S. economy could not sur-vive without a Wall Street bailout, the same could be argued regarding the automobile industry.

According to figures provided by The New York Times, nearly 3 million American jobs are provided by the car companies and their suppliers; the failure of any of the Big Three would prove devastating for many of these workers. Unemployment has become a huge strain on our country’s resources in recent months, both through increased demand for unemployment benefits and from its adverse effects on consumer spending. Can we really afford to put 2 percent of the nation’s workforce at risk? If there were suddenly 3 million more unem-ployed workers in the United States, the effect on the national economy would be devastating, particularly in states in the Midwest that are at the heart of the auto-mobile industry.

In a recent study conducted by the Center for Au-tomotive Research, it was determined that if the Big Three were to cease operations, it would result in a $398.2 billion loss in personal income over the first three years alone. Our already severely weakened economy cannot afford such a loss in consumer spending power; to sup-port the automotive industry is not only to support these

3 million workers, but to support the rest of the country’s companies that rely on these workers’ consumption.

Furthermore, the auto industry’s woes cannot be entirely blamed on its production of uncompetitive products, as some would like to claim. While it is clear that automakers need to do serious work to remain a competitive market force, they have also been hurt by

the credit crunch. The difficulty of obtaining loans from banks has meant that millions of Americans have been unable to purchase cars. This crisis has clearly affected carmakers—with people tightening their belts, a new car is not high on their priority list.

If we have bailed out the very banking institutions whose subprime lending has been a large factor in the current economic crisis, how can we refuse to aid a vital industry that is being so painfully affected by that crisis? Certain institutions, such as Fannie Mae and

Freddie Mac, have been deemed “too big to fail,” and the American automobile industry is one that should fall into that category. These companies have been key contributors to the prosperity America has enjoyed over the past 60 years; to abandon them in their time of need would do nothing so much as hinder our return to that same prosperity.

President Obama has spoken of the long road of challenges that face the American people today. If any of the Big Three were to fail, the road would lengthen even further. Distasteful as further large-scale government in-tervention may be to some, continued assistance for this crucial American industry is a key step towards meeting those challenges.

Martha Waters is a sophomore majoring in history.

Martha Waters

from theLeft

Big three are too big to fail

March 2009 21

Opinion

For the past few months, America’s three largest auto companies-Ford, General Motors and Chrysler-have lobbied Washington for a financial bailout in order to prevent their collapse. The “Big 3” argued that their companies are too big to be allowed to fail, that their collapse would severely wound an already weakened American economy. In December, President Bush gave the automakers a lifeline, issuing an executive order loaning General Motors and Chrysler a combined $17 billion.

For many important reasons, a further bailout of the American auto industry is the wrong approach. Although it would hurt the American economy in the short term, these companies should be allowed to fail, as these poorly managed companies will only en-counter more trouble in the future and re-quire further government aid.

Bailing out the American car industry would set a dangerous precedent for other American industries struggling to survive in the current recession. Instead of trying to pursue innovation and discover new ways to survive and succeed in the current economic climate, struggling industries might instead come to expect and rely on government aid for survival. Only a few weeks after the auto industry received federal loans, the American steel industry has asked for $1 trillion in loans, arguing their collapse would be a terrible blow to the American economy. Even after receiving a $13 billion loan from the government, General Motors has said that its business survival strategy for the new year is to obtain another $4-5 billion in government loans, expecting the newly-elected Democrats to be more sym-pathetic to their plight.

Ford, Chrysler and General Motors are not, as they have incessantly claimed, too big to fail. In recent years, these poorly run companies have become a burden on the American economy. For the past few years, these compa-nies have fallen behind foreign automakers in both auto innovation and quality. Even General Motors has ad-mitted as much, apologizing in a recent print advertise-

ment to American consumers for producing vehicles below industry standards with lackluster designs and for focus-ing too much on the production of trucks and SUVs. Until the recent near-demise of the American banking system, America’s carmakers received unwavering sup-port from America’s banks and lenders, despite their lack

of innovation and quality. This was a waste of money, as it starved smaller and more innova-tive firms in America of badly needed capital. As banks were always willing to lend to the Big 3, America’s automakers were content to avoid the serious restructuring required to compete with foreign automakers including Toyota and Honda. The government bailout is a waste of money for the same reasons, as it diverts badly needed capital to failing auto companies who will only come to depend on future federal bailouts in order to survive.

Every year, Consumer Reports releases two impor-tant lists for the auto industry: the ten best and eleven worst cars of the year. This past year, only one American car was among the ten best, while nine out the eleven worst cars were produced by America’s Big 3. This list is further proof that America’s Big 3 automakers are not worth bailing out. Over the past few years, they have continued to produce cars inferior in quality and inno-vation to foreign competitors and are now in dire straits because of their incompetence. Ford, Chrysler and Gen-eral Motors are failing for the most part due to the fact they produce cars and trucks inferior in quality to their competitors’.

Government capital should not be wasted on sav-ing companies that have doomed themselves because of mismanagement and poor quality. These companies should be forced to declare bankruptcy and let more ef-ficient and innovative companies take their place.

Michael Parker is a junior majoring in political science and history.

Michael Parker

from theright

Incompetence cannot be ignored

22 The Hill

The Last Word

“The meritocracy is inexorably turn-ing into a matriarchy … men are becoming ever more marginalized, while women are taking over the commanding heights of wealth and power,” reads the editorial “Lexing-ton: the Triumph of Feminism” in the Sept. 11, 2008, print issue of The Economist. The editorial’s author cites the higher rates of violent crime rates and be-havioral drug prescriptions among males as symptoms of men’s margin-alization, juxtaposing this with the accomplishments of women like the female heads of MIT, Harvard and Princeton. In this light, you may be tempted to conclude that the open-ing statement is indeed reasonable.

Some sociologists in the emerging field of masculinity theory associ-ate this sentiment with the “crisis of patriarchy.” This crisis of patriarchy is mainstream male society’s subcon-scious fear in the face of weakening male monopolization of broad or-ganizational power. In other words, men have traditionally wielded so-cial and political power. Now that some people have begun to demand a redistribution of that power, soci-ety responds by overreacting. Sound paranoid?

The “Lexington” author would have you believe that women are winning the “gender wars” because of higher rates of women receiving undergrad-uate degrees and the emergence of Sarah Palin as an idiosyncratic “ful-fillment of the feminist dream.”

This opinion is delusional.

First, women are not achieving economic equality through equal education. Equal education means nothing if institutionalized sexism

in the workplace leads to unequal compensation - and it does. Many people tout the statistic that the “woman’s dollar” has risen from 66 cents to 78 cents in the last three de-cades. However, this is solely based on the incomes of Americans who work full-time, year round. Because more than half of employed women work part-time, a more accurate sta-tistic must account for all men and women in the labor force, part-time and full-time. In this more complete context we see that women consis-tently make only 66 cents to every dollar earned by a man.

We must recognize the danger of confusing acknowledgment of the progress we have made with compla-cency in the face of further improve-

ment. With sociologists like Allan G. Johnson pointing out that the wage gap between men and women

of equal educational qualifications increases as the level of education increases, there is undeniably room for improvement.

Professor Sherryl Kleinman of the UNC-Chapel Hill Department of Sociology illuminates the structural manifestation of the wage gap: the gendered, hierarchical division of the labor force. To put it simply, doctors are men and nurses are women, and so on. This division correlates directly with the relationship between gen-der and perceived power. As Klein-man explains, “You’re not just born into a particular body that we call male or female. You are born into a social and e c o n o m i c category of either more powerful or less powerful people: men or women.” Understanding gender as power al-lows us to examine recent political events more critically.

Palin may seem like old news, but for people like the “Lexington” author, she sym-bolized feminist triumph. This

misunderstanding of her role as a female token (as opposed to an ac-complished female politician) makes

The fight against feminism

By Anqi Li

The wage gap between men and women of equal education increases as the level of education increases.

Women consistently make only 66 cents to every dollar earned by a man.

Women are struggling against a patriarchal backlash

March 2009 23

The Last Word

Want to have the last word? Send your guest column (750-800 words, please) to thehillpr@unc.edu, or sound off on our discussion board at http://studentorgs.unc.edu/thehill.The Hill

The Last Word on

her worth a second look. Her nomi-nation to the Republican presiden-tial ticket represents a rare instance in which her gender as a female in the “male” arena of politics worked to her professional advantage, if only for a while. Her gender performance as an attrac-tive woman and mother, who coincidentally enjoyed “male” pursuits like hunt-ing, created an identity that appealed to established mechanisms of masculine approval. In effect, she completed a gender perfor-mance readily identifiable as tradi-tionally female and nonthreatening to conventional male dominance, while simultaneously advertising that she could be “one of the guys.”

This ingenious combination explains the volatile responses Palin provoked in the recent presidential election.

We can draw one primary, fright-ening conclusion about the signifi-

cance of Palin’s recent visibility. That visibility, like the misleading statis-tics on male and female educational qualification, masks the persistence of patriarchal social structures while

providing the basis for false, panicked claims of “emerging matriarchy.” Pa-lin’s visibility and these misleading statistics reflect a patriarchal back-lash against further progress toward gender equity.

Anqi Li is a sophomore ma-joring in journalism.“You’re not just born into a

particular body that we call male or female. You are born into a social and economic category of either more powerful or less powerful people: men or women.”

WORK FOR THE HILL!

Like to blog? Want to be an editor?

email thehillpr@unc.edu

Want to see your ad here?

E-mail thehillpr@unc.edu

Reasonable prices, thousands of readers