March 28, 2011: Representative Ron Paul, often controversial Libertarian, spoke in NC State’s McKimmon Center to a packed auditorium. The 2008 presidential candidate spoke on a variety of issues, from US military actions in Libya to the current financial crisis.

Rep. Paul was hosted by NC State’s Young Americans for Liberty club, who have also been spearheading a “Visualizing the Debt” campaign to bring awareness about the actual size of the national debt. Fiscal responsibility is a topic dear to Rep. Paul. A large portion of his talk focused on the financial crisis in America. He said the financial crisis was predictable, since a downturn is evidence of the market trying to fix its mistakes. “But what do they do in Washington?” he asked. “Spend more! It’s like you have cancer, and they give you another cancer. It won’t get better!”

America’s financial problems don’t just stem from within the country, Paul says. “Our financial problems are linked to our foreign policy: the [American] empire is too big.” Rep. Paul has historically opposed all US intervention in foreign affairs, calling America’s current operations in the Middle East inconsistent and hypocritical.

In his solution for when the United States should go to war, Paul explained the Christian “Just War” theory. He urged that to avoid “too many careless wars,” America should only go to war under the principles of this theory: proper authority, defensive action only, feasible victory, and a peaceful goal. His own addition to the requirements brought a standing ovation: “We as a nation should never go to war based on lies told to us by our government.”

As a self-proclaimed champion of liberty, Rep. Paul is irritated by the by the breakdown of liberty into separate categories of “personal” and “economic” liberty. He argues that if Americans truly defend and champion liberty, they should accept total liberties. “We’ve lost our confidence in the marketplace,” he said. “Property ownership would make the market thrive.”

Speaking to a room full of college students, Paul was optimistic for the future. “If we expect change in our country, it’s going to be from young people like you.” His advice for those young activists: “If you do the right things, things can be changed.”

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/

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.

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

By Trent Serwetz

The latest nationwide hullabaloo over the alcoholic drink “Four Loko” provides a poignant reminder of how quick America is to point the finger. Four Loko, for those who are unfamiliar with the beverage, is a 12% ABV drink sold in 23.5 ounce cans which also packs a hefty dose of caffeine. It’s like super-concentrated Smirnoff Ice mixed with Red Bull. The drink is sold at grocery stores and 7-11’s and comes in a variety of fruity flavors.

Last week, New York called for a voluntary ban on Four Loko distribution “for the concerned parents among us.” Since then, numerous state legislatures have considered banning the drink for fear of its health consequences. North Carolina’s Governor Purdue has called for a voluntary ban of Four Loko until its healthiness can be investigated further. Since several college students have been hospitalized after drinking Four Loko to excess, a national frenzy has sprung up condemning this drink instead of the students themselves.

There are two distinct fears which have all conflated together to indict Four Loko:

1. Fruity alcoholic beverages are more likely to induce overdrinking
2. Alcohol and energy drinks are a dangerous mix

Fruity, but hardly dangerous

“Protect the children!” the outcry against this alcoholic drink has exclaimed. With Four Loko in the world, students have access to their favorite intoxicating substance in fruit punch, cranberry lemonade, even watermelon flavors. It sure sounds dangerous, doesn’t it? Regrettably, none of the individuals currently writing about the drink’s dangerous appeal to underage drinkers seem to have actually tasted the beverage. Four Loko tastes terrible. I would personally rather down a margarita or a half-and-half than this disgusting concoction any day.

For an underage drinker aiming to get wasted, Four Loko may have more appeal than a case of Busch Light. But it has the same ABV as a bottle of wine. You can buy André at the grocery store too, it comes in fruity flavors, and it’s just as disgustingly cheap. The problem with going after Four Loko is that it is not uniquely responsible. Many drinks are fruity and designed to cause rapid intoxication at the same time. Most of them taste a lot better than Four Loko and are available at your neighborhood Kroger.

For (presumably 21) college students, beverages are available at the ABC store that are both fruitier and more alcoholic. Bacardi sells a “strawberry daiquiri mixer” which consists of ready-to-drink half and half. It’s more concentrated than Four Loko, it tastes a lot better, and it’s in the neighborhood of $15 for a whole handle. Seagram’s makes a “gin and juice” mixer which masks the alcohol so well you can chug it right out of the fifth.

On one hand, we are singling out Four Loko while there are significantly tastier and more dangerous drinks available. On the other hand, we are blaming a beverage for what are entirely human errors. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people!

There is nothing more un-American than persecuting the Four Loko found in his or her hand.  If your car is hit by a guy going 95 in his Ferrari, you don’t blame the sports car for being too fast and maneuverable. You blame the driver for abusing the vehicle he legally purchased. Similarly, when a minor overdoses on Advil or some other household drug, you don’t condemn the pills for being inherently dangerous; you blame the poor choice on the child’s part and the adults who should have been better supervisors.

And, if minors are buying these things with fake IDs, we need to crack down on the 7-11’s that are taking them and the people that made the IDs. Nothing is going to be solved by blaming the Four Loko.

Alcohol, energy…not a good combination

The other putative justification for victimizing Four Loko is the drink’s built-in combination of alcohol and caffeine. Alcohol is a depressant, caffeine is a stimulant, and the combination allows students to drink potentially dangerous amounts of liquor before losing consciousness. This is not new information. Mixing alcohol and energy drinks, especially on college campuses, has been a highly scrutinized and increasingly popular practice since before I came to Duke.

There is no simple solution to this. College kids are not going to stop mixing alcohol and caffeine simply because Four Loko is taken off the shelves. In fact, Four Loko is probably safer than the alternatives. Ever chased Jager shots with Red Bull, which is readily available to over- and underage students alike? Such a combination will lead to intoxication much more efficiently than languishing through 24 ounces (two thirds of a liter!) of Four Loko.

If the goal is truly to get really wasted, there are numerous better and more readily available methods than the newly popular Four Loko. Sketchy punch laced with Everclear is available at many section parties. This is the reality of college life. What is going to be accomplished by violating Phusion Projects’ constitutional right to sell Four Loko? Didn’t we already try this during Prohibition?

Catharsis. Lawmakers can point the finger at this drink and act as if banning it will solve the woes of college drinking. If we just outlaw Four Loko, they think, kids will stop mixing alcohol with caffeine. If we just ban fruity drinks, minors will stop being hospitalized for alcohol poisoning. If we just cancel tailgate, college students will stop drinking at 9 in the morning to pre-game the day’s football festivities. This way, we can sweep under the rug the total inability of law enforcement to prevent the use of fake IDs. And the store clerks who routinely turn a blind eye in order to make the sale. And the dozens of students hospitalized every year after LDOC.

If we just ban Four Loko, the world will be a better place. In our dreams.

Edit: Nov 18, 2010. Phuzion Products, the company that makes Four Loko, has issued a statement indicating their intent to remove the caffeine, guarana, and taurine from their products, despite the company’s acute awareness that their beverage is being singled out among many others.

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).

In ancient times, warriors fought within meters of their opposition, feeling the sweat and blood of their human enemies. In the modern age, rifles, bombs, and artillery increasingly distanced the human from his/her target, moving the soldier farther and farther away from the gaze of the dead. Today, hundreds can be killed with the push of a button and the deployment of an unmanned orbital missile.

The ever-growing distance between the killer and the killed is not rendered exclusively as physical distance. It is a distance from the human on the other side which some warn will give drone controllers a “Playstation” mentality . But the inhumanity of drone killings goes beyond empathic distance as well. Where did drones come from? They are a response to the economic concerns of waging modern warfare; drones are to expensive air force pilots what the assembly line is to hand-made industry. Mass produced death . What are the consequences of drone strikes? “Collateral damage,” as human lives are now being called. War is no longer about man and his target, the object of his murderous intent. In this day and age, other humans who happen to be near the target are rendered insignificant, regardless of their (non)combative status. At every level, drones are emblematic of the subjugation of the human to the demands of the economic and the political. Crucially, human deaths are not the telos of these new technologies, they are mere logistical side constraints.

Figured through this anti-humanist rhetoric, we cannot help but understand drone killings as one tactic deployed in the context of the strategic oppression of the global South. The relationship of Western “modernity” to the ethnic other has always been one of violence. Superior mechanization characterizes the American relation to alterity. New technologies concretize new methods of establishing US global hegemony, figured in the post-colonial context not as (intrusive) terretorialization but as (defensive) deterrence. The atom bomb over Hiroshima: don’t mess with America, or accept the gruesome consequences. What, as Mark asks, is the effect of such characteristic subjugation on our perception abroad? How can other nations not see us as the bully in the sandbox with the biggest stick, when the lives of non-citizens and even some US natives are seen as collateral?

Significantly, our own political foundation is undermined by the deployment of drone strikes. One guilty target is terminated at the expense of those civilians nearby. With no opportunity to demonstrate his/her innocence in a court of law. And at the expense of innocent human lives, if necessary. Isn’t that fundamentally the sacrifice of the one for the many, the preeminence of the group over the individual? Doesn’t the voluntary use of drone weaponry contradict the liberal rhetoric of individual rights and “innocent until proven guilty?” When we locate accountability for wartime murder in the possession of an unmanned craft, don’t we reify the collectivist ideology we seek to oppose? Doesn’t killing Pakistanis through a computer screen in Nevada impart a certain expendability to human life in the same way that crashing a plane into a building does?

This is not to demolish the specific political and social context in which drone warfare has emerged. Mark reminds us that the battle against terrorism is a kind of arms race in which the side that outguns the other will win. The legality is questionable to me, since assassination is illegal under US law, but for the time being drone strikes seem legal enough. Even if we have located a legal loophole in which to fit drone strikes, I am dubious that it is in the interest of due process for this power to reside not only with the armed forces but also with the CIA. One can justifiably fear a future in which unaccountable government bureaucracies launch surgical strikes when there is insufficient evidence to take formal military action. Regrettably, that future is now.

Thus, the object of my post is not to downplay the practical concerns facing the US military today, as Urja discusses. Rather, I want to question, as Mark does, “the attitude we have in our discourse and our military operations towards drones and the deaths they cause, the way we count them.” I do not, however, see these as mere concerns affecting the use of drone weaponry.

I think drone weaponry has serious implications for the way we imagine ourselves as political subjects, the value we assign to human life, and our understanding of the relationship of the US to the international community. As things now stand, drones are a site for unprecedented mechanization of the human (as controller, as incidental victim, as the object of military force) and thus the unprecedented dehumanization of the US citizen and ethnic other alike. We should be skeptical of the sacrificial rhetoric of drone advocates in the government, as this rhetoric is simultaneously a locus of anti-Americanism. It is not a matter of logistics: we can (and will) refine drone weaponry to an exquisite science. That doesn’t change the fact that drones represent humans using robots to kill other humans, and whoever is trampled in the process be damned.

Military drones are undoubtedly here to stay, regardless of whether they can be redeemed as a method of relationality between the US and the global South. Reconciling drone weaponry with the demands of liberalism and due process, as daunting a task as it is, is only half the battle. The issue is not to imagine a way to exterminate people in a more sanitary, efficient way. Significantly, we need to rethink our military objectives, what the cost of those objectives are, and what importance human life is going to have as we become increasingly decentered from the technological world. Only with concurrent ideological upheaval will drones ever be an acceptable way for one human to impose his/her will on another.

Part Three in a discussion between ACE members on the use of drones in U.S. warfare. Part two, written by the Columbia Political Review’s Mark Hay, can be found here. Part one, written by the Penn Political Review’s Urja Mittal, can be found here.

The hot-button issue of illegal immigration has bubbled to the top once again over the summer. The SB1070 law from Arizona has sparked politicians into taking another stab at the immigration problem. But what’s it going to take for true immigration reform this time around?

States like Arizona have it the hardest being on the border when it comes to illegal immigration. The flow of illegal immigrants contributes to drug and violence related crime, and also puts stress on services such as hospitals and the public school system. They are a burden on the taxpayers and they can take away jobs from citizens. The people in Arizona are desperate for solutions to the immigration problem, especially with the murder of Arizona rancher Robert Krentz by a suspected Mexican drug trafficker.

With the federal government lacking solutions that get to the heart of the problem, Arizona lawmakers took the matter into their own hands. The now infamous Arizona law SB1070 was passed in response, including key provisions such as making illegal immigration a state crime and allowing officers to check immigration status. The officers would only be able to check the status during a lawful stop for another offense. Once officers make the stop, they must additionally have reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. Whether the law would actually be effective is up for debate, especially since the aforementioned provisions were blocked by a federal judge for now.

President Obama and the Justice department filed this lawsuit with Arizona based on the potential of racial discrimination and overstepping the already existing federal law. This is politics at its finest however, because the law specifically bans racial profiling and compliments the existing federal law (it is less strict in fact). It is merely a maneuver to please the constituents who are opposed to enforcing the laws.

It would seem the real reason for attacking Arizona policy is that Obama and many Democrats want comprehensive immigration reform first. Arizona senator Jon Kyl heard it first hand when he spoke with the president on the issue. Obama said if the borders were secured, there would be no reason for Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform. The “comprehensive” policy would most likely involve giving amnesty to the illegal immigrants already here. In other words, they want to make it easier to become a citizen, and then maybe talk about enforcing the border as an afterthought. That’s already been tried with the amnesty legislation of 1986. It failed because it didn’t attack the heart of the problem – unsecure borders.

If true immigration reform is to happen, it must be looked at as an issue of safety before all else. With the little enforcement we have on the borders, it creates an incentive for criminals and terrorists to access our country. It is a huge source for the transport of illegal drugs as well. If politicians truly care about homeland security, they will do everything to close off our border. People do not like the extra tax burden illegal immigrants place, but it is primarily a problem of protecting Americans.
Politicians who have emphasized securing the border are already starting to see the benefit. Jan Brewer, the governor of Arizona, took a stand for securing the borders and signed the SB 1070 law. Since then, she has gained favor with Arizonans and easily won her primary election. John McCain also handily won his primary after a strong shift to the right on immigration policy. In the polls, Arizonans supported the law with over 60%, and a majority of Americans supported it as well. It is an issue that Americans are fed up with and they want to see action. Republicans might be divided on ways to implement immigration reform, but they all need to agree on securing the borders first and foremost. It is the desire of the people, and Republicans would be wise to continue the push.

To their credit, President Obama and congress have been taking action on the issue. Arizona is now starting to receive their share of 500 of 1,200 National Guard troops ordered by Obama to patrol the southern border. Just recently, Obama signed an immigration spending bill with bipartisan support. The measure will pay for 1500 more border agents among other security provisions. Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain continue to fight for the border saying that the new law doesn’t do as much as it should. It is a step in the right direction, but there is still much to be done before stopping the flow of illegal immigration.

In the meantime, states should continue to pass legislation to secure their borders. It reflects the desire of the people and it sends a message to Washington to act. Immigration advocates will still be pushing for easier access to America, but conservatives should stay on track by implementing practical reforms such as troop deployment, surveillance, and physical walls. Once we can prevent illegal immigrants from coming across the borders, the rest will fall into place. With the source of the problem cut off, congress can take a fresh look at reforming immigration policy for those who are already here. Who knows, Republicans might even be open to talk about streamlining access to America.

In August 2005, Americans were reeling from the worst environmental catastrophe in recent memory, and begging for help. The state and local governments were overwhelmed and unprepared for the magnitude of what had to be done. Historic New Orleans was devastated as many pointed the finger of blame at President Bush, calling his response slow and inefficient. Five years later, the country seems to be suffering from a case of déjà vu. An environmental disaster, compounded with mismanagement at the federal level, is crippling the Gulf coast and leaving many Americans wondering who to blame.

The BP oil spill began as an opportunity for President Obama to demonstrate his administration’s superiority over the “disastrous” policymakers of the Bush era. But the oil spill quickly became another example of the federal government’s inefficiency and ineptitude. Decisions made by President Obama concerning clean-up, recovery, and even his own attention to the area are completely contradictory to Louisiana’s best interests.

Immediately after the April 20th explosion and resulting oil spill, the United States government received several offers of clean-up assistance from other countries. A spokesman from the Dutch embassy, Floris Van Hovell, said in an interview with Voice of America that his country stood ready and waiting to aid the United States. But an antiquated law from the protectionist era prohibits foreign ships and crews from working in American waters. The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, was designed to protect American maritime industry. Yet, as the crisis in Louisiana worsened, President Obama allowed the destruction to continue by not issuing a waiver of the act.

Waivers of the Jones Act are not uncommon. In 2006, a private company was granted a waiver of the Jones Act for shipping purposes. Despite accusations of not giving enough support to the Gulf, President Bush issued a waiver of the Jones Act after Hurricane Katrina, calling upon American allies in a time of need. However, President Obama saw no need to cry for help, preferring to wait until American ships and crews were ready to tackle the situation.

Obama’s hesitance to waive the act may have been due to his relationship with labor unions. Rather than use the advanced equipment possessed by other countries, Obama encouraged American crews to take the lead on cleanup. He seemed to disregard the fact that these crews would need weeks of training before they could begin cleanup. Skimmers in the Persian Gulf built especially for these disasters sit idle as Obama’s unions operate less capable equipment.

Ironically, Obama’s environmental policy may also be to blame for his failure to call upon foreign aid. Some Dutch vessels, for example, suck up oily water, extract most of the oil, then return the water to the ocean, nearly oil-free. However, the EPA and U.S. regulators claim that this water is not clean enough: in order to be returned to the Gulf of Mexico, water must be 99.9985% pure. It is perhaps on the basis of this absurd standard that President Obama has refused to waive the Jones Act, despite the wishes of his constituents.

In spite of this federal blunder, a full economic recovery for both Louisiana and its oil industry could have been possible. But President Obama’s obsession with advancing his environmental policy, no matter the costs, has made growth improbable. After the spill, Obama passed an offshore drilling moratorium, to the pleasure of environmentalists and concerned Americans. Among those opposing the moratorium, however, was the surprising coalition of shrimpers and fishers. These workers recognize the necessity of drilling to Louisiana’s coastline, and described the close relationship between the oil and seafood industries. 60% of polled individuals from the affected counties opposed Obama’s moratorium, and three quarters said that drilling should return at its original level.

The moratorium, though repealed, is still in de facto effect as uncertainty remains about the oil industry’s future. As drilling rigs evacuate the Gulf Coast for friendlier waters, Louisianans feel certain that this will cripple their economy. Before the spill, a proposed bill would ensure that royalties from offshore drilling went to aid Louisiana infrastructure and coastal restoration. However, with the future of offshore drilling uncertain, the money Louisiana needs to protect its coast against future accidents may be nowhere to be found.

Slowly but surely, the finger of blame is turning to President Obama for his mishandling of this disastrous oil spill. His refusal to immediately begin clean-up and his continued pressure to halt offshore drilling are destined to turn an environmental disaster into an economic catastrophe.