When I first started writing for The Gothic Guardian as a freshman, I was full of story ideas and eager to help define the modern young conservative. But, after three years of writing mostly about fiscal policies and economics, I must acknowledge the challenges of keeping up with both news and politics.

I am apparently not unique among young Americans, many of whom also wrestle with political and news media fatigue. In a Gallup poll from March 2010, only 20 percent of Americans aged 18 to 29 were “very enthusiastic” about the fall midterm elections, compared with 44 percent in the age group who were “not enthusiastic.”¹ Young Americans are also more likely to be disinterested in the news, politics-related or not. In a study by the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard titled “Young People and News,” researchers found that 45 percent of young adults (aged 18-30) more or less did not read newspapers or Internet-based news.²

Maybe the culprit is the disconnect between the scope of these issues and events and the young people themselves. It seems that students struggle when we are forced to consider these issues outside of the classroom, where we are able to write long essays about public policy and political science. In the real world, when I consider writing about the federal debt ceiling it is much easier to get frustrated because ultimately my voice is only one of the many.

But the thing is, though it can be difficult to change the debt ceiling (although anything is possible!) it is still entirely possible to make a difference. Even if our aim is always to make a bigger impact (as opposed to a smaller one) on the world, the key to doing so is usually to start at the local level. When Duke students help with tsunami relief efforts, for example, it is often by collecting donations locally. When we help campaign for politicians, we usually do it by raising awareness in our local area. Even college writers for a publication like The Gothic Guardian are encouraged to focus on campus and Durham issues and events, because it is in the local niche where we can add something new to the conversation. The best solution to fighting apathy on a national scale is to fight it in our local communities and at our universities.

Duke students, while not be able to run for office or lobby in Washington, D.C. yet, can still get involved in the policy decisions taking place around them. According to recent Duke Student Government survey results, 45.8 percent of Duke students had no opinion with regards to the statement “DSG effectively represents me.”³ According to The Chronicle, voter turnout in this year’s DSG executive election was 49.2 percent, which is a significant increase over turnout from past years, but nevertheless a number that can be further improved on.⁴ The data suggests that nearly half of Duke students are probably not sufficiently involved in student government or do not have enough information on DSG initiatives to form a constructive opinion of the organization.

This is a huge problem, because DSG represents the link between the students and the administrators and also functions as a primary way for students to make a difference at Duke. If we’re living up to Duke’s reputation for possessing dynamic students, then the percentage of students who simply don’t feel strongly about their student government needs to decline significantly.

Duke students are known for getting involved. Whether it’s with a political campus political group or Duke Partnership for Service or even Investment Club, there are numerous ways that students can learn more about the world around them and make a difference. Students have vast resources at their disposal to carry out their plans — they just have to take the time and have the initiative to actually make something happen.

The point is: there are no limitations on what young Americans can accomplish. When we get tired of writing political opinions, we can try our hand at community service or cultural group projects. If we feel dissatisfaction about our dining policies, we can run for DSG office. If we are uncomfortable with gender relations, we can go to talks and forums. And if we simply have too many midterms to worry about, we can at least vote in DSG elections every April.

References
1 Newport, Frank. “Dems Hold Slight Advantage in 2010 Election Preferences.” Gallup. 9 March 2010.
2 Report prepared by Patterson, Thomas. “Young People and News.” Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. 2007.
3 DSG Survey Commission. “DSG Survey Commission 2011 Final Report.” Duke Student Government. 30 March 2011.
4 Tanaka, Sanette. “Schork elected next DSG president.” The Chronicle. 7 April 2011.

As a wave of new Republican lawmakers enters the legislative experience, we look back on a decade of important but misguided legislation. Hopefully these newly elected delegates will avoid some of the missteps made mostly by their conservative predecessors.

1. Iraq Resolution. The war in Iraq has been, in the eyes of most, a huge debacle for the United States. Not only were no weapons of mass destruction found, thus invalidating the government’s rationale for invasion, but thousands of American lives were lost and billions upon billions of tax dollars spent. In a recent interview with Dateline NBC, Bush defended his decision to Matt Lauer. He says that he trusted the intelligence reports that claimed Iraq did indeed have weapons of mass destruction and believed his first obligation was to protect the U.S. But good intentions are no excuse for what was ultimately very bad decision-making.

2. Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, “USA Patriot Act.” Signed into legislation in October 2001, only a month after the Sep. 11 attacks, by President Bush, the Patriot Act gave the government the authority to wiretap phone lines, delve into financial and medical records, and violate privacy rites in numerous other ways. The bill has been heavily criticized for violation of civil rights, but is nevertheless still in effect as President Obama extended parts of the bill in 2010.

3. Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act. In a decidedly un-Republican move, President Bush extended the Medicare program to include prescription drugs as an entitlement benefit. The bill was highly contested in the House, where some controversy arose over Republican leadership coercing dissenting party members into changing their votes and supporting the legislation. The voting records in both the House and Senate are also surprising in that the vast majority of the bill’s supporters were Republicans (204-25 for House Republicans vs. 16-189 for their House Democrats). Considering that, in just the first 10 years of administration, the changes will cost taxpayers an additional $500 billion, shouldn’t Republicans have voted in a manner that better befits their fiscally conservative roots?

4. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010. The health care bill, more often known as the “universal health care” initiative, represents the government’s intrusion into the private health care. The eventual consequences of the legislation are still unknown, but it radically restructures the insurance business and will ultimately require everyone to purchase insurance. The bill can have an especially large impact on young adults, the demographic group with the highest uninsured rate . Young adults often choose to not buy health insurance because they have relatively few health concerns, but will be forced to either obtain insurance or pay a hefty tax under the new policy.

5. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. While No Child Left Behind received widespread, bi-partisan support when President Bush first introduced it, the legislation is now often viewed as an ineffective policy that detracts from education rather than adds to it. No Child Left Behind was supposed to raise education standards as well as school accountability by administering tests towards the end of each academic year. The intent of the bill is good, but realistically, the standardized testing has caused numerous problems: from teachers teaching to the test, to time wasted preparing for the tests instead of actually learning, to the reduction of arts and music programs.

Trivia: Ron Paul voted against all five of these bills.

Watch out, Ben Bernanke.

Ron Paul, the 2008 Presidential candidate and Texas Congressman (and Duke Med grad), may become the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy and Technology on the House Financial Services Committee.  For Paul who has long advocated for the dissolution of the Federal Reserve, leading the committee responsible for overseeing the Fed, along with U.S. financial policies, represents a golden opportunity.

Here are three good questions concerning Ron Paul and the Fed for the next year:

Why does Ron Paul want to dissolve the Federal Reserve?  Paul, a strong supporter of Austrian economics, believes that the Federal Reserve destabilizes the natural business cycle. Austrian economics has strong ties with laissez-faire and the free-market and, perhaps not so coincidentally, is often associated with Libertarian political candidates.

Most recently, Paul spoke out against the Fed’s decision to buy $600 billion worth of Treasuries in an effort to lower interest rates.[i] Theoretically, if the Federal Reserve decides to buy Treasuries, the increased demand for Treasuries will cause the price to rise and the yield to fall, and interest rates will be kept low as more capital is injected.[ii] Paul argues that the Fed’s actions, part of a strategy generally termed “quantitative easing,” will eventually lead to a total devaluation of the dollar.[iii] If the Federal Reserves continues to put more dollars into circulation by buying bonds, existing dollars are devalued because the supply of dollars is now greater.[iv]

Paul has been a longtime supporter of the gold standard and would like the U.S. government to move away from fiat money, government issued money that has no intrinsic value, and return to the gold standard.  The merits of returning to the gold standard have been heavily debated: it is true that money backed by gold is more difficult to manipulate (one would not be able to simply print more money because the quantity of gold remains constant).  But, the lack of flexibility in the finite supply of gold keeps the supply of money rigid and can lead to depressions and deflation.[v]

What he has done in the past regarding the Fed? Paul submitted legislation to the House that proposed increased oversight of the Fed in 2009.  The bill, titled “Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009” and part of a wider “Audit the Fed” initiative backed by Paul, gained significant support and had 319 co-sponsors, and was ultimately passed by the House.  However, by the time voting took place, the bill had been revised, with much of the original intent phased out.  As a result, Paul actually voted against the legislation.[vi] So while Paul has demonstrated the ability to introduce new ideas and draw attention to them, he may not have the mainstream support necessary to see these ideas carried out.

What does Paul want to do if he becomes an overseer of the Fed? Increased transparency remains Paul’s primary goal if he were to gain oversight of the Federal Reserve. [vii] Increased transparency means that the Fed’s financial transactions and dealings with private corporations and institutional investors would become public information.  Some have argued that the Fed needs to remain independent from Congress because a relationship between the two bodies could lead to political influences on important financial decisions that should be non-partisan.[viii] On the other hand, it has also been argued that lack of oversight has allowed the Fed to spend irresponsibly and given Fed chairman Bernanke too much power.

We’ll have to wait until the next term of Congress to see how this plays out.

[ii] http://seekingalpha.com/article/235002-how-qe-works

[iii] http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-05-16/ron-paul-on-austrian-economics-vs-keynesian-economics/

[iv] http://seekingalpha.com/article/234666-9-reasons-why-quantitative-easing-is-bad-for-the-u-s-economy

[v] http://seekingalpha.com/article/132166-gold-standard-and-the-definition-of-price-stability

[vi] http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/12/11/qa-ron-paul-explains-why-he-cant-vote-for-his-own-fed-audit/

[vii] http://www.cnbc.com/id/40013227/

[viii] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/23/AR2009072303004.html

Both Democratic incumbent David Price and his Republican challenger, BJ Lawson, attended the Chamber of Commerce’s town-hall styled forum in early September. The candidates largely focused on the economy and the role of government in business during the debate.

While both candidates performed adequately, Lawson seemed noticeably more comfortable and concise with his opening and closing statements, and in his responses to questions. On multiple occasions, Price implied that Lawson was relying on “sound bytes” and “buzz words,” rather than actually delivering a thoughtful reply. But while Lawson did capitalize on some clichés, his overall message was better organized and more coherent. He offered some real goals for what could be his first term in Congress and, time and time again, called Price out for contradicting his promises with his actions (i.e. arguing against bailouts while voting for them).

While Lawson remained respectful of Price – acknowledging Price as a “good man” and recognizing his 22 years of public service – he was also aggressive as he painted Price as another government bureaucrat following party leadership and eschewing independent thought. Lawson claimed that Price voted more times with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi than any other Congressman.

In his opening statement, Lawson criticized dependence on career politicians “addicted to the smell of marble,” a statement clearly directed at Price, who Lawson also said had spent his life divided between ivory towers and marble halls. In his closing statement, Lawson also said that while Price has great plans for Washington to help the average American, he has not been able to enact these plans in the 20-plus years that he has been in Congress.

Criticism of Price aside, Lawson also offered very concise, intelligent summaries of his platform. He tirelessly defended the Constitution and argued against overzealous government involvement. A Duke graduate, self-made entrepreneur, and Wake County parent, his words about the importance of small business, community building, localized education seemed heartfelt and genuine.

Price, too, demonstrated moments of sincerity during the segment. At the beginning of his speech, he listed legislative accomplishments that affected the North Carolina 4th District, the fruits of some hard years in Washington. In the middle of the debate, after Lawson’s argument about his votes for bailout, Price gave a very straightforward, honest rebuttal. “Well I tell you that there are bailouts I didn’t like. That doesn’t mean I had the luxury of pretending that I could stand above it all [and] just let the financial collapse occur,” he said.

For a second, it became important to remember that a career in Congress is complex, and even an idealistic newcomer as savvy and successful as Lawson may find it difficult to translate campaign promises into real and effective legislation.

But it’s a difficult task to find a person who has met BJ Lawson and not been thoroughly impressed by both his intellect and gritty optimism. At this treacherous time in politics, when so much is at stake, Congress needs a new voice.

The full debate is available on Youtube, courtesy of the LawsonforCongress campaign (part 1 here).

Vanity Fair recently published an 8-page scathing feature on Sarah Palin.  In it, Palin is portrayed as a duplicitous, self-serving politician/self-marketer.  The reporter provides examples of Palin’s temper (one anecdote describes Palin’s fights with husband Todd as violent, the two tossing canned food items at each other with such intensity that their stainless steel refrigerator was damaged), and explores the controversial relationship between Palin and groups like SarahPAC and Conservatives4Palin.  Palin is also described as an all-around mean-spirited lady, yelling at campaign volunteers and refusing to thank the kitchen staff at an event.  Her speaking engagements, apparently, must come with deluxe hotel accommodations.

It seems that Vanity Fair is a tough crowd for Palin, as they also recently published an article dissecting Palin’s wardrobe expenses from her 2008 VP campaign.  That article alleges that Palin used campaign funds for personal purchases — clothes for daughter Bristol, etc. — and expensed them to the campaign.

As we look forward to the 2010 elections, The Gothic Guardian sat down with BJ Lawson, a Republican candidate for the United States Congress representing North Carolina, for an interview.Our interview with Frank Roche, Lawson’s opponent in the Republican primary, can be found here.

“I’m not trying to fit into anyone’s box, in terms of labels,” William “BJ” Lawson says.

At age 36, Lawson, a Republican Congressional candidate for North Carolina’s fourth district, has already fit and outgrown many labels. He has been an engineer, a doctor, an entrepreneur, and now again a potential congressman (he ran in 2008 as well). His political leanings are similarly difficult to pin down – having been deemed progressive, Republican, libertarian, Lawson prefers to simply cite the United States Constitution as his platform.

Accurate, concise labels, appear difficult to find for this particular political candidate.

This is not to say that Lawson is arbitrarily running for the GOP nomination. He has considered himself a Republican his entire life – reading the National Review at a young age, listening to Rush Limbaugh, and even supporting the George H.W. Bush campaign. Many of his political beliefs align safely within Republican party lines: for example Lawson, like most of his conservative peers, is pro-life and against gun control. He supports a smaller government and reduced bureaucracy.

But for each stance that colors within the lines, there is also a thoughtfully articulated idea that challenges standard-issue Republican beliefs. These are not the outlandish suggestions of a radical, but the product of a thoughtful political evolution that took place over the last 10 years.

For example, Lawson is vehemently against the existence of the Federal Reserve, a major point of contention between him and his opponent in the Republican primary, Frank Roche. While his stance deviates significantly from that of his party, Lawson defends his belief with plenty of factual evidence and intelligent rhetoric.

Lawson claims that the Federal Reserve fits the mold of a Marxist organization and has helped provoke inflation since its inception in 1913. “Plank number five [of the Marxist “ten commandments”] is centralization of the control of money and credit in the hands of the state,” Lawson says. “That’s it. That’s the federal reserve.”

Using a simple example of purchasing milk, Lawson described the lack of flexibility and free market in the Federal Reserve “monopoly” system. He says that, under a commodity purchasing system analogous to that of the Federal Reserve, all Americans would be forced to buy their milk from the Federal Reserve at a price solely determined by the Federal Reserve itself. If you want chocolate milk and the Fed only sells vanilla, Lawson says, then you just cannot have chocolate milk.

Instead, Lawson advocates for a system that promotes free market currency options. “There’s nothing wrong with the Federal Reserve note as a currency … but it shouldn’t have a monopoly. Just like the post office still exists, even in the age of Federal Express and UPS,” he says.

It is because of his belief in a less monopolistic currency system that Lawson supported the Plenty, a community currency coupon intended to encourage Pittsboro, NC consumers to purchase local goods. Roche, Lawson’s Republican rival, was critical of Lawson’s belief in competing currencies. Lawson counters that the plenty is really a means of promoting grassroots prosperity and local self-sustainability. “The idea behind the plenty was simply to recognize that at a very basic level we need to have communities who are able to sustain themselves in certain areas,” he says.

Even Lawson’s more conventional political positions seem to be a product of research and careful consideration. He is against affirmative action because he believes that Americans should be protected by government policy as individuals, not groups. By following “systems of counting noses and doling out special favors based on things like affirmative action,” Lawson believes that the U.S. is taking “a step towards collectivism.”

Lawson’s own history with gun control policy best illustrates his commitment to adapting his views to a consistent, logical framework. As a child, Lawson says that he was not raised around guns, and as a medical resident, grew increasingly wary of guns as he personally watched gunshot victims brought into the emergency room. “You’d just see bullets in places where they’re not supposed to be,” Lawson says.

But after the Virginia Tech shooting, Lawson says his perspective changed. He argues that had a campus bystander been able to successfully shoot down the gunman, the end results would have been less catastrophic. A means for self-defense, Lawson believes, is critical to the preservation of individual freedom and protection against tyranny.

“If you do not honor an individual’s right to self defense, with firearms being … the fundamental equalizer between people of different physical strength, you’ve paved yourself a nice downhill path to tyranny pretty quickly,” Lawson says.

Lawson’s open mindedness has allowed him to form opinions that go beyond cookie-cutter arguments, especially on controversial issues such as gay marriage. Lawson believes that marriage should be outside of government jurisdiction altogether and, consequently, that gay marriage is permissible because it is not the government’s place to dictate a social principle like marriage.

But Lawson goes further. He recognizes the necessity of government involvement in a domain like marriage for practical reasons (taxes must take family structure into account, etc.) and argues that the government should simply create a more accommodating legal framework for families and partnership. He says the necessity for such a legal framework extends beyond gay marriage and would also affect partnerships such as those between unmarried, elderly siblings caring for one another.

“We need bigger churches, we need better, stronger families, we need more individual liberties and the way you do that isn’t by growing government to make it define more things,” Lawson says. “It’s by saying you know what, you’re right, this isn’t a government issue.”

Lawson’s willingness to make innovative, controversial proposals separates him from many other Republican politicians, including Roche. Roche previously said in an interview with The Gothic Guardian that he did not consider Lawson to be a Republican and believed that Lawson should be running on a more progressive party’s ticket.

Lawson, too, cites a number of crucial differences between Roche and himself. On a basic level, Lawson believes that he has more experience in working with people and observing economics through an individual, personal lens as an entrepreneur and doctor.

He also rejects Roche’s criticism about his place in the Republican Party and any claims that his progressive social views will hurt his ability to win the Republican base. In Lawson’s view, these are merely arguments that inhibit actual discourse about important issues. “As soon as someone starts to label me a Republican, conservative, progressive, libertarian, whatever … as soon as we rely on labels, instead of actually talking about the issues … it really shortcuts the dialogue,” he says.

He believes that he has the grassroots support and media presence to challenge and beat David Price. Lawson initially dropped out of the 2010 race because he questioned his ability to win against Price, but has since reevaluated his position. After seeing Price vote in favor of the health care bill last December, Lawson decided that it was time to reenter the race.

He is hoping to build on the relationships first formed in his 2008 run, when he received 36 percent of the vote. Lawson reasons that, without the wave of Obama-support Price had in 2008, his campaign will have a much higher likelihood of success. With the roughly 150,000 votes he received, Lawson believes that he would have earned 45 to 47 percent of the vote had it not been for the Obama factor. “We have a chance, and we can do that because the dynamics for voter turnout are gonna be lot different in 2010 than they were in 2008,” he says.

Unlike many other Republican candidates in traditionally Democrat districts (Price has been in office for two decades now), Lawson may also have the financial backing needed to pose a serious challenge. While the fourth district Republican candidate raised only $50,000 in 2006, Lawson was able to raise $600,000 in 2008. Aided by endorsements from traditional conservatives like Ron Paul, in poured the donations in small increments, each one averaging around $100. This year, Lawson hopes to raise over a million.

Should he win, Lawson seems determined to restore constitutional order to Congress. He routinely carries pocket-sized copies of the Constitution to hand to potential voters (he gave each of us interviewers a copy) and gave out 50,000 of these copies the last time he ran for office.

He says that if Americans want real change, even the ones “who are progressive and who [were] just weeping on election night in tears of joy,” they should simply return to the Constitution. That kind of change will not include auto-industry or big bank bailouts, or the continued military presence in countries like Afghanistan. It will also not include approving votes for initiatives like the Patriot Act, for which Price voted in favor.

“Let’s get beyond the fact that the constitution was written and put into place by imperfect human beings in a social environment that left a lot to be desired in terms of equal rights for every American individual. And let’s look back to the philosophy upon which our nation was founded and that is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for every human being,” he says.

Not content to merely spend money it doesn’t have, our government wants you to join in the spending too.

The health care reform bill, recently passed in both the House and Senate, will require all Americans to buy insurance, even if they would rather spend their money on other ventures.  The bill is especially pertinent to young adults, who have the highest uninsured rates of any age group.

Based on Census Bureau data covering 2006-2007, there are roughly 19 million young adults adults (aged 18-34) without insurance number, about 41 percent of the total 47 million Americans without insurance.  When the new legislation is enforced, all these young adults, who are most likely to be healthy of all age groups, will be required to purchase health insurance or face government fines.

It is not difficult to figure out why young adults would be forced to obtain insurance.  With regulations being placed on insurance companies to end discrimination based on prior medical conditions and to lower premiums for the elderly, increased expenditures and lost revenue must be made up somehow.

Young adults tend to incur fewer costs for insurance providers, and can be used to effectively subsidize care for older Americans, who are more likely to need expensive medical care.

While there is nothing wrong with the young helping to support the elderly, it would be a blatant violation of freedoms to force Americans to buy any product to ensures that this happens.  Liberty is an integral part of American values and should guarantee Americans the maximum amount of individual freedom possible without condoning active trespasses of others’ rights.  For the government to stipulate how Americans must spend their disposable income is an overstep of its power and reeks of socialism.

The government has no authority to dictate how its citizens should spend their income, just as it has no authority to force its citizens to be charitable.

The issue here is not that universal health care will add meaningfully to some lives, it is that the same program will significantly restrict others.  While every American should aim to contribute charitably to society, there is no constitutional mandate or legal requirement that states they must do so.  Each individual should be credited with a moral conscience and allowed to judge whether or not they can afford to contribute to others’ well-being.

For the government to assume it understand each household’s finances (it can’t even balance its own checkbook!) and needs best is ideologically problematic, shows too little respect for freedom and liberty, and can affect many Americans negatively.

Restrictions on income can especially affect young adults, who may believe it more advantageous to allocate their funds to small businesses, investments, or savings.  But on principle, even if they were to choose to buy a new TV or car with money otherwise devoted to health insurance, it should be their prerogative to spend their money in whatever way they so choose.

Common sense aside, there is also nothing in the constitution that gives Congress the power to require all Americans to buy insurance.  However, there is a great deal of precedent set against these new regulations, including United States v. Lopez, which questioned the Gun-Free Zone Act of 1990 and whether the government could regulate gun possession near schools on the basis of interstate commerce.  The United States Supreme Court eventually concluded that the Act was unconstitutional, effectively blocking Congressional attempts to use interstate commerce as an excuse to unreasonably expand its power.

That Congress would go so far as to disrespect the Constitution should raise alarm among American voters.  As noble a cause as universal health care is, its implementation insults some of the basic principles on which this country was founded. The choice to obtain health insurance, or not, should remain a private one, a system that best allows for individual responsibility and liberty.

Young Americans have serious cause to be concerned about health care reform legislation, which is too careless with their rights.  This is the not the first time the government has sought to spend the wealth of future generations (see: $12 trillion national debt), and health care reform will set a dangerous precedent for continuing this trend in the future.

• Top Democrats drop out of 2010 election races
  Dorgan (D-ND), Dodd out (D-CT) (Politico)
  Democratic majority still looks safe (Politico)
  CO Governor Bill Ritter (D) drops out (WSJ), CO Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will not run for Governor (Washington Post)
• NJ State Senate rejects gay marriage proposal in a 20-14 vote.  The bill’s supporters had hoped it would be passed before Governor Corzine left office.  (NY Times)
• Improvements in security policies ordered after attempted terrorist attack Christmas Day (NY Times), summary of security review available here (WSJ)
• Republicans put hold on TSA nominee Erroll Southers, who has previously accessed confidential database files without license.  There were also concerns that Southers would support TSA unionization.  (Washington Post)
• EPA proposes tougher regulations on smog, could cost industries $19-$90 billion. (WSJ)
• Unemployment is at 10 percent, with 85,000 more jobs lost in December.  (Politico)
• Senate majority leader Harry Reid (D-NV) apologized for comments relating to Barack Obama’s race, not planning to step down or resign.  (Politico)

Happy New Year’s everyone!  Now that it’s another year and another decade, take some time to recap on the biggest events in recent history.

• 10 Biggest Political Scandals of the Past Decade (NY Post)
• Biggest Political Winners and Losers of 2009 (USA Today)
• Biggest Political Disappointments of 2009 (Huffington Post) … talk about the liberal media slant…
• Top 5 Outrageous Political Videos of 2009 (Politics Daily)
• Most Read Stories of 2009 (Wall Street Journal)
• Top 9 Political Flubs of 2009 (ABC News)
• Top 40 Political Quotes of 2009 (Fox4kc)
• TIME’s Person of the Year: Ben Bernanke
• Frank Rich’s Person of the Year: Tiger Woods (NY Times)
• Dave Barry (Miami Herald)

Here’s another article related to the Duke Lacrosse incident and the need for more universities to follow due process in cases related to sexual assault.

Amanda Auerbach, a contributor for The Gothic Guardian, also wrote about sexual assault at Duke in our first issue for 2009-2010.