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.

The executive board of The Gothic Guardian met on April 22 to elect Trent Serwetz the publication’s new Editor-in-Chief. The 2009-2010 editor, Lingfeng Li, stepped down in accordance with the Guardian‘s new one-year term limit for editors-in-chief.

Serwetz served as the magazine’s Production Editor this year and was the editor of his high school newspaper. He has also worked at Duke’s Multimedia Project Studio as a media consultant specializing in InDesign and Photoshop for the past three years.

During his tenure as editor, Serwetz hopes to expand the magazine’s presence on and off campus. “By increasing our number of print issues and committing to timeliness in both online and print media, we’re going to get noticed,” he said.

The executive board decided to implement a one-year term limit policy for editors-in-chief in an effort to improve leadership transitions and better spread institutional knowledge among staff members. The new policy will also allow dedicated staff members to rise to leadership positions more quickly.

The new, formal executive board led by Serwetz consists of the executive editor, production editor, and publicity director. The managing editor position, which has existed since the publication’s inception, was replaced with the publicity director position as the magazine seeks to improve its campus presence next year.

“I really think through good reporting and better publicity, better advertising, we can build on the magazine’s growing reputation,” Serwetz said.

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.

A grad student at Duke recently published a story on Salon.com documenting his experience living in a van to better afford tuition.  An interesting read for anyone that needs a break from studying during finals week!

http://www.salon.com/life/pinched/2009/12/06/living_in_a_van/index.html

By Lingfeng Li

Whoever said that Sarah Palin’s star was on the decline?

Apparently 1500 people showed up to Palin’s first book tour stop in Michigan — at 7 a.m. [Free Press]  The book is also #1 on Amazon right now, though admittedly at a 50% discount.

The New York Times also has a renewed interest in Palin.  Check out yet another article on her Election 2008 wardrobe.

White House Communications Anita Dunn’s (who is stepping down at the end of the month) recent attacks on Fox News for being the “communications arm of the Republican Party” have only helped fuel more conversation about mass media and its liberal/conservative slants.

Well, here is a report that claims Fox News is indeed fair and balanced.  Apparently, Fox is harsh on Obama during the election season last year, but the controversial network treated McCain with almost equal numbers of negative comments.  And now that Obama has been in power for some time and the “presidential honeymoon” is over, other networks have joined Fox with their negative evaluations of the president.  It even seems possible that Fox is more fair and balanced than its competitors because it is harsh towards everyone, not just Republicans.