On the global stage, no action goes without a significant reaction. Revolts in Tunisia and cries for democracy in Egypt have set off a chain reaction of protests, reforms, and unrest. As is common in American foreign policy, experts identify these reactions under the rubric of “Domino Theory: the idea that sudden change in the leadership of one nation can set off a chain reaction in its neighbors, transforming an entire region.”¹ President Eisenhower originally coined the term in reference to Indochina, claiming that if one country fell to communism, others would quickly follow.

More recently, the Domino Theory has been utilized as an explanation for the growth of democracy. President Bush hoped for a democracy domino effect in the Middle East after the invasion of Iraq, for example, much to the ridicule of the media and his political opponents. But in light of recent events in the Middle East, it appears President Bush’s may yet be fulfilled:if the Middle East is, in fact, a series of dominoes, it appears that Iraq was the first to fall.

In the present moment, as many as nine Middle Eastern countries are pushing away from autocratic regimes towards freer, more democratic governance. But to blame or credit the domino effect seems to minimize the importance of free and individual choice: are countries becoming democratic only because their neighbors are as well? Or are citizens under autocratic regimes seeing real changes and freedoms in their neighbors, and desiring that for themselves?

Winston Churchill once famously said, “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Since the ancient Republics, it has often been thought that power distributed amongst all people is safer, better, and freer than power confined only to a minority. Politically, it has become a powerful strategy to preach about the freedoms guaranteed by democracy. Americans may not agree on many things, but most believe strongly in the individual liberties that democracy has secured.

When it comes to other countries, however, the true hypocrisy of our faith in democracy is apparent. Americans call for democracy throughout the world, but continue to support autocratic rulers that preserve our economic interests. Especially in the contentious oil-rich regions of the Middle East, politicians would rather have an America-friendly dictator than a democracy of extremists who oppose US interests.

As such, the calls for democracy in the Middle East show us that it is time to practice what we preach. These countries are not simply dominoes falling out of control: they are communities of individuals crying for freedom. To trivialize the desire for freedom by reducing it to a mere force of gravity lessens everything that America stands for. That individuals in the Middle East have chosen to fight for their freedoms, though they may be contrary to American economic interests, is commendable. The United States should congratulate and welcome these new democracies, bearing in mind only the peoples’ best interests, and not our own games to play.

References
1 Tanenhaus, Sam. “The World: From Vietnam to Iraq: The Rise and Fall and Rise of the Domino Theory.” The New York Times, 23 March 2003.

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.

A year after the Health Care Reform Act code named “Obamacare” was written into law, its incendiary effects continue to rage on. Much of the right-wing gripe over the law has focused on the unconstitutionality of government mandates to buy health insurance. But the more important issue, from my perspective, is the system’s failure to support and create incentives for the most crucial components in the delivery of health care: doctors.

Doctors face a slew of financial and administrative obstacles today that prevent them from providing the best possible treatment for their patients. Because the incentives provided for doctors under the health care reform law are drastically misaligned, unless more focus is placed on the issue we will be facing a shortage of 62,000 doctors by 2015, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. This massive projected shortage is only four years away. As Medicaid programs expand under the recent health care reform, only a finite number of doctors will be able to treat everyone, and this will lead to lower quality of care.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there is currently a shortage of 16,000 primary doctors.¹ One of the driving factors of this shortage is the high cost of medical school, ranging from $120,000 to $150,000 on average.² In order to pay off their scholastic debts, doctors have an incentive to go into high-paying specialties, instead of primary care. Although Obamacare allegedly recognizes the need for more primary care physicians and includes funding for scholarships and loan forgiveness, it ignores a key part of the problem. Crucially, med students who hope to become practicing physicians must undergo a “residency” period. Residency is a stage of graduate medical training in which students or “residents” practice under fully licensed doctors in hospitals and clinics in order to get in-depth training in a specific branch of medicine. Currently, there is cap on residency funding, which means that the law’s efforts to increase the number of medical students via subsidy is useless, since there is a bottleneck in another part of the process to becoming a practicing physician.

Another way the current government strategy is punishing doctors is through Medicare payment cuts. Medicare is a federal program that provides health insurance to 45 million Americans ages 65 and older. Medicare, along with Medicaid, which provides health insurance to people with low-income and resources, are both inefficient and unwieldy programs. Both programs have very low reimbursement rates to physicians, and in January of next year, an additional 30 percent physician payment cut will be instituted. Counterproductively, this gives physicians further incentives to stop accepting Medicare patients or to drop existing ones.

One of the main goals of the health care reform law was to target rising health care costs. Physicians today face the threat of multi-million dollar malpractice lawsuits. There has been no cap on the amount of damages that can be paid out to plaintiffs, and, as a result, physicians practice “defensive medicine:” they order more expensive tests and procedures because they must operate based on liability rather than need. According to industry experts, defensive medicine counts for about 10 percent of health care costs or $100 billion annually. Not only does the law do nothing to reduce this financial burden on physicians, it very often ties their hands in seeking the best treatment for their patients.

While Medicare and other government programs have failed, private health plans continue to innovate new payment systems. Private plans have incentives to compete for better doctors for their networks, and thus they have provide financial incentives in order to achieve better health outcomes. In a report by PriceWaterhouse Cooper, 8 out of the 10 largest community health plans in the country had implemented performance-based pay for doctors.³ In Pennsylvania, the Geisinger Health System has created a “warranty” program for heart surgery; they charge a flat fee for the heart surgery and an additional 90 days of follow-up treatment.⁴ If there is anything that goes wrong after the surgery, the responsibility is on them. Currently, the incentives for quality elsewhere are misaligned. If a physician makes a mistake the first time, they get paid more for the services incurred by a repeat visit. Conversely, these private plans are innovating strategies to cut down on costs while improving the quality of medical treatment.

It is important to acknowledge that not all of the issues of the health care system can be solved by moving it into the private market. A very large segment of our population is uninsured, which both the right and left should acknowledge as a large problem. However, redistributing the incomes of physicians to increase bureaucracies and the already inefficient and unwieldy government health programs is not the answer. There needs to be a realignment of incentives in order to increase the number of primary care doctors in our country, adequately reimburse current doctors for quality care, and untie doctors’ hands so that they can do their jobs.

References
1 Kirch, Darrell G. “How to Fix the Doctor Shortage.” Wall Street Journal. Jan. 4, 2010.
2 Kavilanz, Parija. “Doctors: 5 gripes about the health law.” CNNmoney.com. April 21, 2010.
3 Gottlieb, Scott. “How Obamacare Will Affect Your doctor.” Wall Street Journal. May 12, 2009.
4 Abelson, Reed. “In a Bid for Better Care, Surgery with a Warranty.” The New York Times. May 17, 2007.

APRIL 8 – Congressional leaders have only hours remaining to pass a new budget or face an impending government shutdown. With this swollen leverage, Republicans have the President’s party by the proverbial chestnuts. Facing the crisis of a government shutdown, Congress has a singular opportunity to restore the conservative dream of American “sanity,” passing the most comprehensive budget cuts in recent history.

So what do they do with all this power? Undermining the overriding goal of limiting government spending as much as possible, Republicans instead consent to a virtually unchanged budget proposal which cuts a meager $38 billion next year.¹ Rather than sticking to their guns and holding the Dems to a major spending cut, Congressional Republicans throw their entire leverage into withholding federal funding from “Planned Parenthood and other groups that provide abortions.”²

So congrats, Republicans. Revive the “War Against Women,” fight the good fight.³ Withhold federal spending from the rape victims and the shameless women who, for no better reason than a broken condom, seek family planning assistance. Certainly, the last thing the party should do in this situation is to take a hard stand for budget reform on a significant, national scale, one that will affect millions of Americans. Personal freedom and fiscal responsibility aren’t part of our core ideology or anything, right?

In the face of this gross mishandling, we should not rationalize our representatives’ failures by embarrassingly embellishing the difficulty of the task before them: “only YOU can prevent government spending, congressman.” People do not realize is how easy it is to balance the budget. Try playing around with one of the free simulators like balancethebudget.com. Our fiscal problems are not due to unfeasibility, but simply because of chronically misplaced priorities. Congress absolutely has the ability to balance the budget, but they fail to do so because our representatives cannot agree on where to cut spending, and are flat out unwilling to cut federal funding from the greatest subsidized institutions. Consequently, Friday night should have been a shining opportunity for the Republican party, a moment when they finally had the leverage to get things done.

So why the big letdown? Clearly, social conservatives have the party’s crown jewels in an even stronger vice grip than the Republicans’ traction with the nation as a whole. Friday’s budget legislation should be a wakeup call all of us who identify as conservative. The issue is not about whether or not one agrees with abortion, its legality, or its continued usage. Rather, the issue at stake here is that time and time again, Republicans have a big opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and instead forfeit their own goals in favor of trivial, mindless social conservatism. Rarely have I felt so strongly that to be conservative and to be a Republican are not the same thing. Six months from now, when we face the same debt we always have and the abortions are trickling to a halt, maybe the party will get its priorities straight. After all, there’s always next time…

References
1 Hulse, Carl. “Budget Deal to Cut $38 Billion Averts Shutdown.” The New York Times, 8 April 2011.
2 Herszenhorn, David M. and Cooper, Helene. “Concessions and Tension, Then a Deal.” The New York Times, 9 April 2011.
3 Cesca, Bob. “The Republican War Against Women.” Huffington Post, 10 February 2011.

With the advent of the 112th Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives will see a Republican majority for the first time since 2006. These newly elected conservatives represent constituencies who were angered by perceived failures of the Obama administration and Democrats at large.
After years of bemoaning the Democratic establishment, this new wave of conservative leaders is under immense pressure to perform. Here, then, are some key items of legislation to keep an eye on.

John Boehner had barely raised his oversized gavel before the Republicans of the House successfully voted for the repeal of the health-care law. The vote has been widely dismissed as a symbolic measure, because it is unlikely that any repeal will pass through the Democratic Senate (and subsequently not be vetoed by the President). But it was the House’s first, quick demonstration of goodwill toward constituents, especially to the growing number of Tea Party supporters. And though this initial flat-out repeal will go nowhere, it is possible that smaller and more piece-meal amendments to the health-care law will take shape in the future.

Republicans will also aim to reduce the deficit and revitalize the economy. These efforts will take multiple forms, but the main war will be fought over reducing both taxation and expenditures.

Kenneth Rogerson, a professor at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, states, “They will try hard to keep [raising] taxes off the table. [For Republicans], the revenue raising will come from cutting spending,” rather than increasing taxes and maintaining current spending levels. The fight over taxation has already begun with the compromise to extend the Bush tax cuts at the cost ofextending unemployment benefits. Expect to see legislation calling for further reductions in areas such as the capital gains tax and the corporate tax rate, in an effort to stimulate the private market.

Cutting expenditures, however, will be a different and more difficult goal to work toward. “They want to cut spending, but the issue is cutting spending where? This is a big deal for them. They need debt control, deficit control,” says Rogerson.

Republican attempts to cut spending will likely be more hype than substance, as any Republican legislation will call for a freeze to all nondefense discretionary expenditures until 2014. As the current military expenditures comprise over half of all federal discretionary spending, freezes on nondefense discretionary spending will be more lip-service to the budget-reduction cause than anything else.

There has also been considerable talk about job creation, although the mechanism for this remains vague. Since freezes in discretionary spending may offer little in the way of direct relief to struggling business-owners, Republicans will need to devise new strategies to create jobs that present viable alternatives to the Democratic stimulus plan. As it is, there hasn’t been much in the way of a concrete job creation plan.

And while the House Republicans have yet to explain the implementation of their key talking points, the party has already stated its desire for an investigation of the Obama administration. Primary areas for investigation include the debate over the legitimacy of global warming, economic stimulus expenses, and the Obama Administration’s handling of the BP oil spill.

“They’ve made a promise to provide a better check on white house initiatives and a promise is to pay more attention to what the white house proposes,” says Rogerson. “They can do their investigations and cause some great PR headaches for Obama administration.”

All of these efforts, however, will have to contend with a still-Democratic Senate and a Democratic President. Whatever the Republicans wish to accomplish will have to be tempered by that knowledge. Regardless of the outcome, it will be interesting to watchjust how the Republicans of the House and Senate handle this forced bipartisanship and whether they are able to accomplish any of their goals within these constraints.

References:
Anande, Rady. “More than 50% of US Government Spending Goes to the Military.”
Global Research. April 25, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18852.
“GOP Solution For America.” http://www.gop.gov/solutions.

image courtesy of http://gal.darkervision.com

Pope Benedict XV recently approved the use of condoms in cases where their primary purpose is to decrease the risk of AIDS. This is an unusual relaxation of the absolute ban on contraceptives that the Catholic Church has had for decades. Perhaps the Pope is starting to realize that condoms can prove useful, if not necessarily for the right reasons. In the face of this theological dilemma it may be fruitful to ask: what would Jesus say about the matter?

The Pope’s decision is based on preventing partners from transmitting AIDS, most notably in places like Africa, where the disease is a prevalent problem. He also said that their use may be justified in specific cases, such as preventing infection from male prostitutes.i The Vatican has to be careful with the message they are sending with this new policy. In order to be consistent with their other prescriptions, they must continue to stress abstinence as the most important tool in combating issues of this nature. The pope even acknowledged this when he said that condoms are not a “real or moral solution” for combating AIDS.

From a biblical perspective, one prevailing stance is that contraceptives can be used as long as they are for the right reasons. Though it can be hard to answer “What would Jesus do?” for modern situations, a holistic approach to an issue can be based on the bible. There are no conclusive verses in the bible that specifically ban the use of contraceptives. That being said, a closer look reveals that humans are instructed in Genesis 1:28 to be “fruitful and multiply.” Also, Psalm 124:3-5 is one of many verses that speak of children as a blessing from God: “Children are a heritage from the Lord, offspring a reward from him. Like arrows in the hands of a warrior are children born in one’s youth. Blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them.” These verses show how child bearing is something to be used to honor God.

Since there are no specific verses condemning the use of contraceptives, the aforementioned verses can be seen as a limiting factor on contraceptive use. People using contraceptives should always use them with the intent of honoring God, and his gift of children. People who feel they are not ready to take care of a family, or need to focus on other aspects of life may choose to use contraception. For situations like these, it would seem Jesus would deem it acceptable. However, when contraceptives are used in a selfish manner, such as avoiding the consequences of pregnancy in order to have promiscuous sex, it can be seen as an inappropriate usage. In other words, the bible offers no definitive answer on the subject of contraception, leaving room for interpretation.

Coming back to the Pope’s reasoning: he was correct in allowing contraceptive use for partners who are trying to stop the spread of diseases such as AIDS. It is an unselfish method of curbing the disease’s effects. Outside of marriage however, the Pope should stick to a stance of abstinence only, since that is the biblical teaching on premarital sex. The Pope’s actions seem like a first step for allowing some use of contraceptives but not all of the reasoning seems valid in light of what Jesus would do. In addition to that, rules on contraceptives from the Vatican still remain unnecessarily inflexible because there are people who do use them with good intentions.

Though it still remains hard to say exactly “what Jesus would do,” the Pope is making progress on contraceptive policy for stopping AIDS, as long as it places abstinence first. There are also strong social conservative arguments for positive uses of contraception that the Pope has yet to acknowledge. Regardless, the Pope is heading in the right direction– though he must be careful along the way.

References

i Wynne-Jones, Jonathan. “Pope approves use of condoms in fight against Aids.” The Telegraph, 20 November 2010. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

The average age of Republican congressmen and women is markedly lower than the average age of their Democratic counterparts. As a recent Wall Street Journal article pointed out, Republicans are significantly younger: 54.9 (R) and 60.2 (D) in the House, and 61.4 and 63.1 respectively in the Senate.1

While the age gap in the Senate is not especially remarkable, the over-five-year difference in the House is unusual, with the age divide normally hovering around two years. And not only is this gap strange, it also reverses the age roles that the parties have historically taken.

The Democratic Party has historically been and continues to be favored by younger voters. However, since the 2008 election, the gap between young Democrat and young Republican voters has narrowed.2

In 2008, 30% of Millennials (people born between the late 1970s and early 2000s) identified as Republican/leaning Republican compared to 62% for Democrat/leaning Democrat.3 Now, just two years later, the numbers have shifted to 36% and 56% respectively. While once there was a 32% margin between the parties among young voters, the gap has now shrunk to 20%.4

Interestingly, the numbers for active participants in the electoral debate are skewed largely in favor of Republicans, even amongst younger voters. For the under-30 crowd, only 27% of Democrat/leaning Democrat voters say that they’re giving much thought to the elections compared to 39% of Republican/leaning Republican under-30 voters. These numbers are a drastic change from 2006 where the respective groups were 47% and 31%.

The cause for this apparent shift is largely up for speculation. Undoubtedly, dissatisfaction with the economy plays a role. While Millennials remain the most optimistic about the economic situation, they too have felt the pain of a 10% unemployment rate. The recent surge in younger voters and younger congressmen could reasonably be explained by youthful impatience with Democratic policies that failed to produce results as fast as expected.5

Another potential contributor: the technology curve. Although frequently caricatured as slow to embrace change, the Republican Party has been far quicker than its counterpart to embrace the newest technological media. For example, the National Republican Party has produced 320 twitter posts in the past six months.6 Compare this to the National Democratic Party: 0. To this day, there is not even a twitter account for the National Democratic Party. Furthermore, more Republican congressmen have active accounts on twitter than their Democratic counterparts.7

Whatever the reason, the Republican party, both in Congress and in its voters, seems youthful and fresh in 2011.

References
1 Seib, Gerald F. “In With the New—and Young—Republicans.” Wall Street Journal. January 6, 2011. http://online.wsj.com/
2 “Lagging Youth Enthusiasm Could Hurt Democrats in 2010.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. October 7, 2010. http://pewresearch.org/
3 “Lagging Youth Enthusiasm,” Ibid.
4 Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 http://twitter.com/RepublicanGOP
7 “Who’s Winning the Twitter Wars?” Newsweek, December 8, 2009. http://www.newsweek.com/

Despite international sanctions, North Korea continues down the same threatening path regarding its nuclear program. Last November, American nuclear scientist and Stanford professor Siefried S. Hecker visited North Korea where officials showed him a large new facility they had secretly built to enrich uranium.i

The facility, which did not exist when inspectors visited the country in April 2009, is indicative of North Korea’s increasing military aggression. The country is in the midst of a leadership transition from Kim Jong-il to his son Kim Jong-un, who is the grandson of the founder of the country. The new leadership is trying to become more militaristic and to establish itself as one of the world’s nuclear powers.

Last month, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said that “North Korea is becoming a direct threat to the U.S.” due to the fact that it will develop an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) within five years.ii North Korea tested its first nuclear devices in 2006, in violation of previous U.N. Security Council sanctions established to punish the country for its continuing enlargement of its nuclear program. They have continually proven unwilling to cooperate with the international community. In April 2009, for example, North Korea ousted U.S. and international inspectors from the country. The country’s 2009 Taepodong 2 test flight fell short of its expected range, but still traveled far enough to hit Hawaii.

In other words, North Korea has maintained a consistently belligerent stance and seems unwilling to back down in the near future. In March 2010, the South Korean government blamed a North Korean torpedo for the explosion and subsequent sinking of a South Korean warship. The explosion claimed the lives of 46 sailors. The United Nations Security Council voted to condemn the sinking of the warship but elected not to place the blame on North Korea, due to resistance from China. Later, in November 2010, North Korea shelled a South Korean island after it claimed that South Korea had fired first. The South claimed that they had engaged in an artillery test, but that it had not been directed toward the North.i

As this credible threat looms larger, the Obama administration continues to cower in the corner. According to the 2010 U.S. Ballistic Missile Defense Review, U.S. missile defense capabilities “exist in numbers that are only modest in view of the expanding regional missile threat.”iii Thus, the government has allowed North Korea to gain the upper hand. In the March 2010 warship attack and November 2010 shelling, the U.S. and South Korea could not respond with adequate force because they feared the possibility of the escalation of conflict.

The Obama administration needs to take concrete measures to secure our country and invest in technology. Allegedly, new talks on North Korea will be initiated when Chinese President Hu Jintao makes a state visit to the U.S. from Jan. 18-21.iv Hopefully these talks will be more successful than the stalled six-nation which in 2005 produced an agreement for North Korea to dismantle its nuclear programs in exchange for economic aid and diplomatic concessions. South Korea has shown resistance to engaging in more talks with North Korea, saying that the neighboring country has repeatedly shown aggression followed by a request for talks and economic aid. Obama hopes to convince China, North Korea’s largest political and economic supporter, to take a harder line against the rogue country. China in turn claims that its influence over North Korea is limited and it fears that withdrawal of aid from the nation will result in a collapse that will destabilize the entire region.iv

Against this bleak landscape, it is crucial that the U.S. enlists help from the international community in order to ensure that North Korea’s threat is contained. Japan has made many technological advances in missile defense strategies and the Obama administration should be utilizing these further. Additionally, the administration should push South Korea to join in a comprehensive regional missile defense network along with Japan and the U.S. Limited sanctions and negotiations have not worked with North Korea in the past, and therefore, the U.S. needs to change its strategy in dealing with the unpredictable country. The U.S. should refuse to accept China’s hollow excuses for backing North Korea politically and financially. And if China refuses to take a harder line and withdraw all financial support to the rogue country, the U.S. must be willing to send its own troops to the region to ensure our country’s security.

i The New York Times. countriesandterritories/northkorea/index.html>
ii Wall Street Journal.
iii Ballistic Missile Defense Review. < http://www.defense.gov/bmdr/ >
iv Washington Post.

By Hihn D Tran

Authoritarian regimes across the Middle East are atremble as popular revolution threatens to engulf a second country in the space of two months. Following the fall of the Ben Ali government in Tunisia, hundreds of thousands of Egyptians have converged on major cities such as Cairo and Alexandria to protest a longstanding list of political and economic grievances that include an entrenched police state, one-party rule, endemic unemployment, and rising food inflation. Though current President Hosni Mubarak has been in control for nearly 30 years, at the head of a formidable security apparatus and with backing from the West, he, today, announced that he would not seek re-election in September—though it is doubtful his concession will placate the millions who oppose his rule.

The surprisingly rapidity with which revolution has swept the Arab world can be attributed, in part, to a revolution in social media. Starting in Tunisia and spreading to Egypt, protests are now appearing in Yemen, Jordan, and Syria, organized and publicized by individuals though Facebook, Twitter, and SMS, reminiscent of the abortive Green Revolution in Iran. While technology alone cannot cause the fall of a government, it can help catalyze idealistic students, disaffected intellectuals, and an angry, oppressed population into action by allowing them to organize and exchange ideas online. The relative ubiquity and accessibility of social media also acts as a constraint on government action, forcing them to put on a balancing act when deploying force against largely unarmed civilians. Even Iran, a reviled pariah state, resorted to plainclothes basij to intimidate protestors during the summer of 2009, aware that the eyes of the world were watching.

However, while new social media certainly has a role to play in keeping governments accountable to the people, one must keep in mind its weaknesses. While its spread has been pervasive amongst the youthful Generation Y, many older people have yet to overcome the digital divide. This gap also exists between countries; while Tunisia, Egypt, and Jordan have relatively broad middle classes who have access to the Internet and cell phones, poorer countries like Yemen remain relatively isolated from the Information Revolution. In other cases, the government can strangle the flow of information in and out of the country; Mubarak’s government shut down Internet and cell phone service in an attempt to undermine protestors, while countries like Iran, Syria, and most famously, China, censor and control what goes on online.

The role of traditional, conventional media cannot be overlooked either. Qatar-based Al-Jazeera has received widespread acclaim for its 24/7 coverage of the events in Egypt, broadcasting scenes of “protestors bowing their heads against the water cannons; bearded young men in T-shirts and old women in head scarves holding the same signs, hours of silence preceding Tuesday’s mass demonstrations, the Egyptian national anthem rising in the dark from Cairo and Alexandria as millions sat and stood and refused to leave until their president stepped down,” even as the government raced to suppress these images.

While it would be overstatement to say that social media single-handedly provided protestors with the tools necessary to organize a revolution, it did provide a very real, tangible way for people to communicate with each other, and the outside world.

As the winds of change begin to blow through the Middle East, the United States and its allies must reassess their relationship with the region. Pro-Western states like Jordan and Saudi Arabia might not be so stable if Hosni Mubarak, and his vaunted grip on the police and military, is giving way to popular revolution. Meanwhile, they must also deal with the aftermath of Tunisia and Egypt. The new government in Tunis has yet to consolidate its legitimacy or restore order to the country while Mohamed El-Baradei is only just emerging as the frontrunner to succeed Mr. Mubarak.

Tyler Clementi, a student at Rutgers University, took his own life when pressure from cyberbullying overwhelmed him in September. Megan Meier, a teenager from Missouri, committed suicide after being cyberbullied by a friend’s mother through a fake MySpace account. Duke’s Karen Owen thought her satirical “senior thesis” would be safe in the inboxes of her friends.

Even Rui Dai, a sophomore at Duke University, was ridiculed when she wrote a Chronicle opinion article on the “Engineered Happiness” of Pratt students.

Technological advances like the Internet are usually viewed as positive steps in mankind’s growth. But there has been some concern regarding the Internet’s effect on society. Instances of incivility have become more apparent as expanding technology provides new outlets for expression, especially as email and YouTube have allowed information to go “viral” in just a few hours. Anonymous websites like CollegeACB are home to vulgar and offensive comments that college students post about their classmates, Greek life, and sexual activities. Even websites that are not anonymous, like MySpace and Facebook, provide opportunities for harassment and rudeness.
Emily Post, the “Mistress of Manners,” once explained that “nearly all the faults or mistakes in conversation are caused by not thinking.[i]…‘Try to do and say those things only which will be agreeable to others’.” In face to face interactions, Post’s rules of etiquette still seem to apply. However, with the expansion of the Internet and the anonymity it grants its users, civility and manners have been on a rapid decline, leading people to wonder, in the words of Wall Street Journal columnist L. Gordon Crovitz: “Is Internet civility an oxymoron?”[ii]

The Anonymous Murderer of Manners

When Rui Dai argued that Pratt students were happier than Trinity students because they had less freedom, she experienced an almost immediate backlash. Twenty-eight comments were posted on Dai’s September 8 article[iii], each with its own scathing analysis of the column’s flaws. Dai was told that she “severely underestimate[s] the ambition that fuels many” Pratt students, she has “absolutely no idea what” she is talking about, and that her column constitutes a blatant “insult to Pratt, Trinity, Duke” and especially herself. The overwhelmingly negative comments were mostly anonymous.

However, the barrier of the Internet still separated Dai from those disagreeing with her. In face to face encounters, Dai’s readers were not nearly as critical. “Everyone thought [the article] was reasonable, and they kind of agreed with me. When I explained myself, and [the Pratt students] reflected on their engineering experience, they weren’t as angry as the comments made them out to be… I didn’t get anything nasty face to face.”
The Chronicle’s anonymous comment section is far from an anomaly: most websites allow authors to respond to blogs, posts, and articles anonymously. There are even gossip websites, such as CollegeACB and the now extinct Juicy Campus, that encourage anonymous postings. Dan Zak, a staff writer from The Washington Post, wrote in a September article: “If you’re anonymous and immune from repercussions, then you’re more likely to act inappropriately.”[iv]

Bullying 2.0

This loss of manners can be seen in more places than the Comments section of the Chronicle website. Though society may not be less civil today than in previous generations, Dr. P.M. Forni of Johns Hopkins University’s Civility Project told The Washington Post that “There is plenty of evidence that we are dealing with lots of rudeness.”[v] Rudeness seems to be a polite term, however. The recent suicides of Tyler Clementi, Megan Meier, and other young people draw attention to a new phenomenon: cyberbullying.

In a recent study by the Cyberbullying Research Center, cyberbullying victims were almost twice as likely to have attempted suicide compared to youth who had not experienced cyberbullying.[vi] Cyberbullying, however, is not only limited to anonymously bullying others. The spread of information without regard to its confidentiality can be just as harmful as direct bullying. Karen Owen’s PowerPoint presentation on her sexual exploits instantly became an Internet phenomenon. The harmful nature of the presentation’s contents was disregarded, as it was forwarded to multitudes of college students and eventually websites like Deadspin and Jezebel. The men described by Owen are victims not only of cyberbullying, but of incivility.

The Restart Button

Though the online community lacks civility, some individuals and groups are taking a stand to re-introduce manners. Organizations like “STOMP Out Bullying” have adapted their platforms to include cyberbullying. Rutgers University recently started “Project Civility,” an initiative aimed at “creating a more charitable campus culture.”[vii]

Duke is also taking steps to hit the restart button on Internet civility. The Duke Online Discourse Project is searching for research proposals related to “Civic Discourse and the Public Sphere in the Age of the Internet.” Students have also been standing up against incivility, both online and on campus. Students recently participated in a campaign to wear purple on October 20^th in support of the LGBT teens like Tyler Clementi, who have committed suicide. A recent CollegeACB post told readers: “This site is so [expletive] worthless.” Though just as vulgar as the posts around it, the comment reflects the negative feelings of some Duke students toward the site.

People outside of college campuses are also coming out against Internet incivility. Powerful Internet figures like Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales and renowned blogger David Weinberger have united to create a set of guidelines that will “shape online discussion and debate”[viii]. One of the guidelines recommends that “bloggers consider banning anonymous comments left by visitors to their pages”. Wales explains that while anonymous comments may be acceptable in some places, names and accountability should be encouraged in others.

These solutions seem feasible in fighting Internet civility. Hitting the restart button on Internet manners may be the only way for society to move forward more effectively. Online civil discourse based on respect will lead to a more productive Internet culture.

[ii]Crovitz, L. Gordon. “Is Internet Civility an Oxymoron?” The Wall Street Journal. April 19, 2010.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704246804575190632247184538.html

[iii] Dai, Rui. “Engineered Happiness”, The Chronicle. September 8, 2010. http://dukechronicle.com/article/engineered-happiness

[iv] Zak, Dan and P.M. Forni. “The Civility War”. The Washington Post. September 22, 2008. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/09/19/DI2008091902516.html

[v] Ibid

[vi] Hinduja, Sameer and Patchin, Justin W. “Cyberbullying Research Summary: Cyberbullying and Suicide.” Cyberbullying Research Center. 2010. http://www.cyberbullying.us/cyberbullying_and_suicide_research_fact_sheet.pdf

[vii] Rutgers University. “Project Civility”. http://projectcivility.rutgers.edu/

[viii] See endnote iii.