The HillChapel Hill

Political Review

Vol. 13 Issue 2

POLITICS OF MASS SHOOTINGS 5

TECHNOLOGY’S WEB 8

EUROSKEPTICISM SPREADS 13

2

From the Editors

We are frequently told that we live in an intercon-nected world, and we experience these connections on a daily basis. Technology allows us to communicate with friends around the world cheaply and easily,

global news travels rapidly through social media and online news outlets, and the products we use every-day often come from overseas. But these connections have also exposed cracks in largely open and peaceful

post-Cold War world. In our November issue, we examine the future of these trends through the lens of “East” vs. “West” (page 9) and other perspectives. As

always, we welcome your comments and engagement. Jon Buchleiter & Brendan Cooley

Mission StatementThe Hill is the University of North Carolina’s only nonpartisan student political review. Our aim is to

provide the university community with a presentation of both neutral and balanced analysis of political ideas,

events and trends. We publish both print issues and maintain a website composed of in-depth feature sto-ries, opinion columns, and plenty of accessible content designed to engage the campus in political discussion.

Nonpartisan ExplainedThe Hill is a medium for analysis of current affairs. Its primary mission is to analyze current events, trends, and phenomena happening within North Carolina,

across the United States, and around the world. While it reserves some space for opinion and commentary, almost all work for The Hill avoids prescribing public policy solutions or advancing any ideology. Its articles are primarily concerned with explaining and contex-tualizing current affairs, rather than engaging in pub-lic policy debates. However, The Hill also accepts that

its writers will bring their own unique experiences and viewpoints to their work, and encourages its writers to write colorful, engaging, and even controversial pieces while protecting the magazine’s reputation as a source

of reasoned and well-researched analysis.

Vol. 13 Issue 2

The HillChapel Hill

Political Review

EDITORS-IN-CHIEFJon Buchleiter, Brendan Cooley

ONLINE MANAGING EDITORNikki Mandell

INTERNATIONAL EDITORCarol Abken

NATIONAL EDITORRichard Zheng

STATE & LOCAL EDITORDain Clare

ONLINE EDITORSEthan Robertson, Nicholas Yetman, Emily Foster

DESIGN EDITORMary Burke

ASSISTANT DESIGN EDITORTyler Vahan

TREASURERTess Landon

HEAD OF MARKETINGBrian Braytenbah

MARKETING STAFFRussell Davis, Ethan Robert-son

STAFF WRITERSGrayson Berger, Camille Bossut, Brian Braytenbah, Elizabeth Brown, Nicholas James Coukoulis, Giulia Curcelli, David Farrow, Adriana Golindano, Jamie Huffman, Cori Johnson, Tess Landon, Sarah Lunenfeld, Conor Lynch, Ian McLin, Alex Montgomery, Katlyn Moseley, Hinal Patel, Sumeet Patwardhan, David Pingree, Samantha Sabin, Alexander Schober, Brian Shields, David Snedecor, Jessica Stone, Avani Uppalapati, Jennifer Waldkirch, Eishante Wilkes, Alfre Wimberley, Savannah Wooten, Matt Wotus

COLUMNISTS/BLOGGERSBrian Bartholomew, Camille Bossut, Derrick Flakoll, Allie Higgins, Robert McCauley, Nancy Smith, Zachary Wil-liams

ART STAFFRini Bahethi, Karishma Lalchandani, Jennifer Wald-kirch, David Wright

DESIGN STAFFGiulia Curcelli, Julia Meder

The Hill - Chapel Hill Political Review3514E Frank Porter Graham Student Union

Chapel Hill, NC 27514thehillpr@gmail.com

This publication was paid for in part by Student Activities Fees at a cost of approximately $2.00 per copy

Cover art by Jon Buchleiter

Send us your commentsAs part of our mission to promote political discussion on campus we welcome your comments and thoughts.

Send us an email at thehillpr@gmail.com - no more than 250 words, please include your name, year and major for

students or name and department for professors.

FACULTY ADVISORFerrel Guillory

Table of Contents

Mediating or meddling?Water wars?European fissuresMuted MaduroA new hope?

State

International

456678

1112131415

1616

Around the Nation — FrackingOn Point — Politics of mass shootingsBalancing act?Rules of the RoadTexas Turns BlueAll tied up

Smarter about sex?Concealed carry concerns

3

Cover 9 East & West

Photo by: Cole McCauley

Perspectives 1717181919

Book Review — Out of OrderSpotlight — Christy LambdenHoly hallsBeware the gerrymanderACA vs Obamacare

National

4

Fracking has become an incresaingly controversial issue as technologies such as horizontal drilling have opened up new shale formations for extraction.

Proponents believe methane is a more efficient and cleaner energy source than coal. “Methane gives you much more en-ergy per unit of CO2 produced than coal,

North CarolinaThe North Carolina legislature legalized fracking more than a year ago and has instituted some of the strictest regula-tions for drillers in the nation. Today Mining and energy commissioners in the state are arguing that the restrictions are excessive and unnecessary.

OhioIn Ohio, state officials have begun to propose regulations that would store chemi-cal-laced water in designated “lagoon-like” sites. Environ-mental groups are concerned that these new sites will contaminate ground water and local streams.

TexasTexas has historically support-ed hydraulic fracturing and continues to have some of the most relaxed drilling regula-tions in the country. However, a few counties have raised concerns that fracking is depriving water from drought areas.

North DakotaNorth Dakota’s economy has experienced very low unemployment over the past few years, partly due to the explosion of fracking within the state. Both Democrats and Republicans in the state legislature oppose any federal regulation on fracking.

Illustration by: Mary Burke

Around the NationStates vary in approaches to regulating fracking

David Pingree, Staff Writer

National

since methane is CH4 whereas coal is entirely C,” said Allen Glazner, professor in the geology departmnent. “However, methane is a much more effective green-house gas than carbon dioxide.”

Critics also argue that fracking and increased drilling contaminates local drinking sources; however, there is limit-

ed objective data on the issue. “One side says ‘no problem’, the

other produces inflammatory documen-taries saying ‘of course there is!’” Glazner said. “It would be nice to have some real data.”

Here are four states who have im-plemented specific fracking policies:

5

On Point

Political divisions persist over addressing mass shootings

Brian Braytenbah, Staff Writer

National

Photo Courtesy of Tim Evanson

The mass shooting and murder of 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary last December brought gun violence to center stage in American politics. In the aftermath, some state gov-ernments, including New York, enacted new laws increasing gun regulations while some states, such as North Carolina, passed legislation relaxing regulations. In Washington, Congress has not passed any new legislation concerning purchasing guns. However, as a recent Forbes article points out, President Obama has issued 23 gun-related executive orders. Other shootings, such as the one at Washington Navy Yard, continue to bring attention to gun control. The issue is complex, and untangling arguments and opinions sur-rounding it is a difficult task. As a nation, our feelings regarding how to address gun violence are clearly drifting apart.

The public is sharply divided on the causes of shootings. Many consider violent video games and inadequate mental health services to be the primary causes. Others feel legal loopholes and availability of mil-itary-grade weapons are the true causes. A Pew Research Center poll after Sandy Hook shows about half of Americans think mass shootings “reflect broader problems in society,” while half feels they are “isolated acts of troubled individuals.” Despite record numbers of mass shootings over recent years, America seem no closer to finding answers.

Another contested issue in the gun debate is the process for purchasing a firearm. Proponents of stricter gun laws

claim that loopholes exist in the cur-rent laws when it comes to purchasing guns. Federal law mandates licensed gun retailers conduct background checks on purchasers to ensure the buyers are not criminals or mentally ill. Buyers must complete a Firearms Transaction Record form, and sellers must keep a record of all gun purchases. However, until recently, this did not apply to transactions at gun shows or online. In response, President Obama issued an executive order requir-ing background checks for online and gun show purchases. Some opponents feel the President has overstepped his bounds and is infringing on Second Amendment rights of citizens.

Besides debating laws surrounding purchases, citizens also debate where gun owners should be able to carry their weapons. This debate recently intensified in North Carolina where the General Assembly passed a bill that was signed into law by Governor Pat McCrory relax-ing restrictions for concealed handgun permits. The law allows permit holders to bring firearms into bars, and store weapons in cars’ glove compartments on

University campuses. Numerous groups are concerned over these policies. Police chiefs from numerous state universities opposed the law worrying about campus safety and residents are also concerned about having guns around alcohol, although the law does prohibits those car-rying guns from drinking.

Another major question after Sandy Hook was how to protect schoolchildren. National Rifle Association (NRA) exec-utive director Wayne LaPierre proposed placing armed security guards at every school. The NRA also proposed arming administrators and teachers. They rea-soned these individuals would respond faster than waiting for police. Critics claim putting more guns in schools is counter-active to promoting a violence-free setting and point out an armed guard was sta-tioned at Columbine High School during the 1999 mass shooting but was unable to stop the gunmen.

Tackling the issues of violence and security in society will be difficult without consensus. Unless Americans are able find common ground there will be limited progress on reducing gun violence.

6

National

a driverless vehicle accident occurs. The motivation behind Dial’s new bill was concern from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the auto industry’s main trade group. The primary concern revolves around auto-maker liability. Nevada wasn’t the only state Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spoke out in. Florida recent-ly amended state legislation to exempt the original car maker from fault if an accident occurred, a provision sought by the Alliance. They also made a claim in California for similar provisions to be made, but were denied.

Ultimately, autonomous vehicles won’t be released for a few years, so the need for regulation and liability laws is not urgent. However, manufacturers and busi-ness’ influence on legislation should be addressed. This issue should focus on safety and not be dominated by business interests.

What used to be Star Trek fantasy is now a tangible possibility. Driverless cars could be appear on roads within the next few decades. In fact, all cars manufactured today have many driverless features such as anti-lock brakes and stability control – increasing efficiency by reducing human error and enhancing the overall safety. The idea of autonomous cars incorporates ben-efits of current features, but on a grander scale. Companies like Google want to revo-lutionize the world of road-transportation. Experts hope to minimize emissions and maximize safety. Yet, complex technologies

bring liabilities and the complex task of assigning those liabilities. No longer will accidents be a matter of determining the driver at fault; rather, it introduces more factors into the accountability equation.

Currently, 18 states are toying with legis-lation regarding autonomous driving laws, but only California, Florida, and Nevada have passed measures. Nevada has even licensed Google, Audi, and Continental AG to test them on public roads according to DMV director Troy Dillard. Furthermore, Nevada Representative Jeff Dial intro-duced a new bill concerning liability when

Balancing act?

Monetary policy emerges as dominant form of economic stimulus

Grayson Berger, Staff Writer

Rules of the roadStates begin to develop legislation concern-ing driverless vehicles

Tess Landon, Staff Writer

The 2008 economic recession has driven the United States to focus on fiscal and monetary policy to aid recovery. Throughout U.S. history both fiscal and monetary policy have evolved to play an integral part in shaping the U.S. recovery.

Fiscal policy refers to government taxing and spending in different sectors. Monetary policy is the process by which a government agency controls the money supply to influence the economy, usually through interest rates.

Different policies have beenfavored at different times. Keynesian fiscal policies became popular following the Second World War. Keynesian econom-ics favors the government spending more money than it receives in revenue in or-

der to stimulate economic activity during economic downturns. Higher transfer rates from government to average citizens is designed to increase spending when a recession or depression occurs in the economy. As the country became more conscientious of this deficit, the United States shifted towards supply-side fiscal policy under President Reagan. This method of fiscal policy involves the government lowering taxes and regu-lation in order to promote economic growth. After Reagan’s administration, fiscal policy became a mixture between the two and monetary policy began playing a larger role in the American economy.

The Federal Reserve determines

monetary policy on a national level mainly through adjusting interest rates. The Federal Reserve typically attempts to either lower or raise the federal funds rate, the rate banks charge each other for short-term loans, to influence the availability of funds in the market. As a result, the money supply determined by the Federal Reserve is key to the activity of the American economy.

Combining the two methods has resulted in a balance keeping the economy afloat. During the economic crisis, the Federal Reserve lowered the federal funds rate to nearly zero yet these measures fell short. Leading to successive rounds of quantitative easing to increase investment. Richard Froyen, professor of macroeconomic theory and monetary policy, indicates he believes “As the econ-omy recovers and interest rates return to more normal levels, alleviating the zero bound problem, monetary policy will likely regain primacy in stabilization poli-cy.” Monetary policy is already playing an increasing role in guiding the economy.

National

The Republican Party faces its first real challenge holding onto the Texas governor’s mansion in two decades. Amidst the traditionally conservative Texas political climate, Democratic gubernatorial hope-ful Wendy Davis’ emergence has many questioning the fu-ture political climate of the GOP strong-hold.

Republican gu-bernatorial nominee Greg Abbott, Texas’ current Attorney General, enters the race with definitive advantages over Davis. For example, Abbott’s campaign funds are reported to be around the $20 million mark while Davis enters with $1 million. Furthermore, Davis’ memorable summer filibuster against anti-abortion Texas legislation will likely be used against her by the Abbott camp in efforts to mobilize Texas’ robust pro-life constituency. According to the Pew Research Cen-ter, South Central states such as Texas still prefer abortion to be illegal in all or most cases to legal in all or most cases 52% to 40%. All of these statis-tics seem to support Abbott’s success, but other factors in Texas’ political climate will ensure it to be one of the first hard-fought gubernatorial races in decades.

One factor threatening to crack the GOP stronghold is the growth of urban cities in Texas. According to a 2012 Pew Research Center report, 39% of the population of large cities surveyed identify as Democrats

compared to 21% as Republicans. Only 27% of citizens in rural areas identify as Democrats while roughly 31% identify as Republican. Sim-ply put, urban areas in Texas over-whelmingly vote Democratic. The US Census Bureau 2013 Report estimates Texas as having eight of the fifteen fastest-growing American cities and towns. With this substantial increase in Texan urban-dwellers comes the

increase in Texas Democrats. The number of self-identified Democrat Texan voters has increased from about 34% of the electorate in 1990 to just under half of the electorate in 2012, according to a study conducted by the University of Texas at Austin. Thus, Davis and Texan Democrats in general will surely benefit from the continued growth of cities.

A growing number of Hispanic and Latino voters in Texas are also reshaping the state’s political scene. A

2011 report by the Pew Research His-panic Trends Proj-ect shows Hispan-ics make up 38% of Texas’ population. This population is projected to surpass the size of the non-Hispanic white population in Texas over the next ten years. Histor-ically, the Demo-cratic Party garners much of the His-panic populations support. Texas’ continued increase in this crucial and thriving constitu-ency has the power to start shifting Texas from a deep red state to a con-tested one.

Despite these factors, changing

demographics likely won’t push Texas towards proud liberalism anytime soon. The GOP will undoubtedly ramp up its efforts to win over urban-ites and Hispanics through strategic redistricting and targeted recruiting. As University of North Carolina Political Science Professor Michael Lienesch put it, “Texas is moving in [a moderate] direction, but it’s got a long way to go.”

7

Texas turns blue

Demographic shifts threaten historicalRepublican stronghold

Sarah Lunenfeld, Staff Writer

Illustration by: David Wright

8

National

All tied up

Technology and spread of social media both pull us together, push us apart

Guilia Curcelli, Staff Writer

By the minute, the world becomes more interconnected. The International Telecommunication Union reports that 2.7 billion people are online as of 2013. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s Center for Social Media, more people join Facebook every second than there are infants born. The power of social media to affect both culture and politics, positively and negatively, is undeniable; it can both drive us apart and bring us together.

Social media, although social in nature, also creates many problems for the current generation of digital natives. Specifically, the anonymity of the Internet provides a platform that can enable cyber-

bullying. When masked by a keyboard, cyberbullies are not bound by traditional social conventions and are difficult to track. The Cyberbullying Research Center found that from 2007 to 2011 an average of 23.9 percent of middle- and high-school stu-dents reported experiencing cyberbullying in their lifetimes. The potential for the internet to harbor cyberbullies is a real and pressing problem.

Ironically, as online communication increases, some experts worry that social media and technology are also degrading face-to-face conversational skills. A 2013 study from Quantified Impression mea-sured that—while adults should optimally maintain eye contact for 60 to 70 percent of

a conversation—adults today fall between 30 and 60 percent. The study attributes this poor practice to mobile devices and the social acceptability of multitasking, including holding other conversations simultaneously through social media. Social media may also contribute to a deficient attention span. The American Psychological Association warns that overusing social media and technology can make adolescents more prone to psycho-logical disorders.

Even with the many dangers of over-using media, social networking has signif-icant benefits. Data from the Pew Internet and American Life Project concludes that users of social media are “half as likely to be socially isolated than the average American.” Pew’s analysis also determines that Facebook users “are much more politi-cally engaged than most people.” Although damaging in some regards, social media has positive impacts that far outweigh its darker side.

These pros and cons of social media also apply to politics, as technology and politics become increasingly intertwined. Social networks have gained an increased role in recent elections. The online plat-forms keep users informed of political news and bring together people of similar views. There are fears that voters may become complacent and apathetic, or believe inter-acting online is a suitable substitute for actual political participation. A University of Delaware study debunks this theory and assures that voters understand the differences between their varying actions. Behaviors like talking online about politics and putting up a lawn sign were seen as communication; the only behavior defined as participatory was voting in an election. Though communication and participation are important, the study asserts that under-standing the difference between the two is key to encouraging both.

In recent years, technology and social media have become increasingly impactful on everyday life; though they have their downsides, when used in moderation their effect on American culture and politics is predominantly positive in bringing people together.Illustration by: Rini Bahethi

National

While global economic ties deepen, conflict simmers in the East

Ethan Robertson, Online Editor

Over the past century, the once pred-atory relationship between the West and the East has evolved into an unprecedented exchange of trade and culture. China is the second largest trading partner for both the United States and the European Union. These economic ties flourish not just between the Western nations and China but also between the West and other Asian nations. Trade between the West and Japan has thrived since Japan’s recovery from WWII, and the West continues to invest in developing Asian nations like Vietnam and Brunei.

Cemil Aydin, associate professor of History at UNC-Chapel Hill, believes cultural connections are just as important in cultivating international relations as economic ones. Asian nations are adopting facets of Western fashion, speech and enter-tainment. According to Aydin, “Chinese schools already teach European history and the works of Western philosophers like Kant, Aristotle and Plato. In this sense, many Asian nations are actually more cos-mopolitan than the West.”

Despite these growing connections, relations between the East and West are far from perfect. Last summer, the European Union moved to place punitive tariffs on Chinese solar panel manufacturers for flooding the market with below cost equipment. The situation highlighted a broader crackdown on unfair low pricing by Chinese exporters.

Information revealed by Edward Snowden darkened U.S. relations with the East. The United States found itself on shaky ground trying to explain its con-demnation of China’s supposed attempts at hacking U.S. targets when the United States was allegedly hacking Chinese targets at the same time.

While the Western bloc is firmly estab-

lished as the European Union and North America, the concept of the “East” is an evolving term. According to Xi Chen, assis-tant professor of Political Science at UNC, the countries often thought of as the “East” do not share the same ties enjoyed by the United States and the European Union, and the group interest of Eastern nations “is not clear or consolidated at all.”

As China becomes more resolute in asserting its foreign policy, these dif-ferences mean that Eastern nations are experiencing a period of raised tensions, specifically in the East and South China Seas. In the East China Sea, a dispute between China and Japan over a group of uninhabited islands known to the Japanese as the Senkaku Islands and to the Chinese as the Diaoyu has become an international issue. Christopher Hughes, Professor of International Politics and Japanese Studies at the University of Warwick in the U.K., informed the BBC that this conflict is “the most serious for Sino-Japanese relations in the post-war period in terms of the risk of militarized conflict.”

In the South China Sea, China is infringing on the sovereign-ty claims of the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Brunei and Taiwan. At stake are potential oil and gas reserves, as well as rich fishing grounds. ASEAN, the Association of South East Asian Nations, asserts that China’s claim breaches the 200 nautical mile Exclusive Economic Zone that extends from each nation’s shore, with-in which they have exclusive rights to fishing, under sea min-ing, and mineral exploration.

Even as the East seems to be drifting apart, the West is working to

come together. The United States and the European Union have embarked on talks to develop the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) that would create the world’s largest free trade area. If talks succeed, the TTIP could cover more than 40 percent of world GDP.

Western companies continue to pour capital into mature markets like Japan and into rapidly developing markets in China, India and Southeast Asia. This pattern is becoming a two-way street; Japan has long held interests in the West, and China is advancing its Western economic interests as well. In addition to the billions of dol-lars of manufactured goods that come to the West from Chinese factories, Chinese companies and individuals are buying up Western real estate at a feverish pace.

It remains to be seen whether situ-ations like the solar tariffs and hacking allegations could usher in a decline in East-West relations. History has shown that economic ties are not a cure-all for conflict, but there is reason to hope that political and cultural connections together can keep the East and West from drifting apart.

Illustration by: Rini Bahethi

“America is not the world’s policeman,” spoke President Barack Obama in his nationwide address on September 10, 2013, “Terrible things happen across the globe and it is beyond our means to right every wrong. But when, with moderate effort and risk, we can stop children from being gassed to death,” he continues, “I believe we should act.”

This was President Obama’s final entreaty to the American public and members of Congress for support for potential U.S. military action in the ongoing conflict in Syria. The President spent much of the preceding month presenting pro-intervention arguments, deeming Syria’s chemical weapons usage a “crime against human-ity” and a “violation of the laws of war”.

This call to action places the nation in a position of global influence and responsibility. It presents Amer-ica as the possessor of both the tools and authority to resolve the dispute, whether or not military action is in accordance with international law or exacted with the permission of the United Nations Security Council.

President Obama’s words are reminiscent of Pres-ident Bill Clinton’s near-identical appeal for support in the United States’ intervention in the Balkan Conflict after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

“America cannot and must not be the world’s po-liceman. We cannot stop all war for all time but we can stop some wars,” argued Clinton. “There are times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace.”

In the following years, the United States went on to make a significant impact in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Although many argue that American aid came far too late to save a significant number of lives, the United States facilitated the signing of the Dayton peace accords between the warring nations and maintained a watchful presence along with the United Nations and NATO in the recovering, post-war nations.

In recent years, the United States has upheld a reputation for monitoring the global situation and at-tempting to maintain global hegemony. For better or for worse, the public and the international community fix expectant eyes on American policymakers during times of international crisis, particularly in situations where a state compromises or violates the human rights of its

own citizens. Furthermore, American political interests are key

to the international peacekeeping agenda, largely due to the fact that 28 percent of the annual United Nations peacekeeping budget, the largest sum paid by any one country, is paid by the United States. The financial and military strength that the United States holds in the Unit-ed Nations is the primary enforcer behind the warnings issued to violating states or organizations.

The American tendency for global policing places it at the head of the negotiation table when new crises arise. Much of the world has adopted the UN initiative “responsibility to protect,” in which citizens should be protected by the international community against atroci-ties committed by their own leaders.

Gareth Evans, co-chair of the International Com-mission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, gave a speech in 2006 addressing the shift in perspective. “What we have seen…is the emergence… of a new inter-national norm…the evolution away from ‘humanitarian intervention’ towards an embrace of the new concept ‘the responsibility to protect.’”

Part of this ideological shift is due to the advance-ment of technology and the speed at which news is re-layed. These two factors have sparked a deeper awareness of world events and humanitarian crises. Increasingly connected global citizens have pushed governments to intervene on the behalf of victims across the world be-cause of the information they receive through the media.

President Bill Clinton was strongly urged towards involvement in the Balkan Conflict when American cit-izens witnessed constant, nightmarish war reports in the media. The quick turnover times for breaking news and better documentation techniques created a greater sense of public accountability and increased public support for intervention.

However, this shift is not universal. There are many situations in which politicians and the American public alike choose not to address an international crisis. Lack of strategic value and not wanting to become entangled in costly engagements are large factors in choosing not to intervene, as was the case with the Clinton admin-istration’s decision to ignore the Rwandan genocide. In such cases, proponents of non-action state that while the brutality and disarray of other nations are tragic, the United States lacks the authority for “meddling” or “global policing.”

As a country with a large national debt and crip-plingly divided government, many will argue America must first put on its own oxygen mask before rushing to help others. So long as these domestic divisions and international skepticism persist, debate will accompany any potential humanitarian intervention.

11

Mediating or meddling?Syrian conflict thrusts debate over ‘responsibility to protect’ back into public focus

International

Savannah Wooten, Staff Writer

12

Water wars?

Carol Abken, International Editor

Water scarcity’s links to conflict uncertain

Although the media in recent years has featured grim predictions about the coming “water wars,” water scarci-ty does not necessarily lead to violent conflict or war. While water stress and scarcity can aggravate conflict and global environmental change will likely exacerbate problems caused by water scarcity, the impacts of scarcity on con-flict are often indirect and combined with other factors. Conflict arises from inequalities in water sharing; the dis-tribution of the water available is more relevant to the potential for conflict than the actual amount. Yet despite these challenges, international coop-eration over shared water resources is much more common than conflict, and the management of international water resources can even promote peaceful relations through the necessity of effec-tive interaction.

Beginning in the late 1980s, neo-Malthusian scholars have argued that there is a direct link between resource scarcity and violent conflict, and warned that the exponentially increasing population was fundamen-tally at odds with amount of resources available for survival. The consensus of most scholars today is that this direct linkage is not firmly supported, and that environmental impacts such as water scarcity on conflict are usually indirect and contained within multiple aspects. Neo-Malthusians underes-timate the power of institutions to mediate conflict, the potential of tech-nological innovation, and the ability of market mechanisms to account for scarcities. National and internation-al institutions can greatly reduce the probability of conflict both between and within states by facilitating agree-ments on water sharing.

The crisis of water scarcity is driven by increasing incidences of Western-style consumption in growing econo-mies, the expansion of water-intensive modern agriculture, population growth, and changing weather patterns due to climate change. Despite the issues of decreasing supply, water scarcity results from inequalities in distribution and power that can disproportionately disadvantage the poor. These imbal-ances do not directly lend themselves to conflict over resources, but they do heighten perceptions of inequality and can increase the risk of conflict from preexisting divisions. When conflict does arise, it is often due to disagree-ments about the cause of lessened water levels, whether over increased water usage of upstream users that withhold water from downstream users or to overall increases in demand on either side. Unregulated competition for water resources can instigate conflict interna-tionally or within state borders.

According to “Climate Change-Induced Water Scarcity: A Threat to Human Health” by Muhammad Zakar, Rubeena Zakar and Florian Fischer, 50 countries are at risk of fighting over shared water resources unless agree-ments are established to allocate water from reservoirs, rivers, and groundwa-ter. Yet despite these figures, conflict can be avoided with international coop-eration over shared water resources. Recent statistics from the Stockholm International Water Institute note that over the past 50 years, 70 percent of interactions over transboundary water basins have been cooperative, and only seven out of almost 2,000 interactions have involved violent conflict.

The successful management of shared water resources tends to ben-

efit all parties involved and is less costly than war. According to Dr. Amy Cooke, Lecturer and Director of Undergraduate Studies for the Curriculum for the Environment and Ecology, “water scarcity can be an insti-gator of conflict but also a great unifier because it is so essential to all people. A good negotiator can ensure that water continues to flow even if political rhetoric escalates against cooperation.” The ability of institutions and states to negotiate agreements remains vital to future interactions with increasing strained water supplies. This is partic-ularly important in the North African and Middle Eastern region, which contain some of the most water scarce nations in the world and in which competition between upstream-down-stream and rural-urban water users has potential for conflict.

Water Stress Index

1) Bahrain

2) Qatar

3) Kuwait

4) Saudi Arabia

5) Libya

6) Western Sahara (disputed)

7) Yemen

8) Israel

9) Djibouti

10) Jordan

Data from Maplecroft Global Risk Analytics

International

13

Just as Europe’s economic growth rates have suffered in recent years, so has the public’s perception of the Eu-ropean Union. Since 2007, trust in the European Union has fallen from 57 to 31 percent, and the number of Europe-ans who view the European Union in a positive light has dropped from 52 to 31 percent. Furthermore, only 42 percent of Europeans now believe that the EU is beneficial to their country’s interests.

The main reason for this startling loss of confidence in the European Union is the economic crisis from which Europe is still struggling to extricate itself. Meaningful economic growth remains elusive outside of Ger-many, which has led many Europeans to harbor doubts about the effectiveness

European fissures

Euroscepticism spreads across the continent

David Snedecor, Staff Writer

of the euro. Additionally, the numerous E.U.-funded bailouts of its insolvent countries have hurt the economic solidarity of the union by splitting its members into givers and takers. Regionalism is on the rise, and with it comes a whole host of grievances that were previously only voiced by a small minority, including complaints that the European Union is undemocratic, over-ly bureaucratic, and inevitably weakens its members’ sovereignty.

According to the European Coun-cil on Foreign Relations, this euro-scepticism “was once seen as a British disease, but it has now spread across the continent like a virus.” Over 40 percent of German, French, and Italian citizens now consider themselves eurosceptics,

and about 70 anti-E.U. political parties currently exist.

Euroscepticism can be broken down into two main levels: hard and soft. The former oppose the European Union’s existence as a matter of princi-ple, while the latter support its existence but question its policies. According to the Centre for European Studies, euroscepticism is a “highly heteroge-neous phenomenon” that cannot really be attributed to any particular location on the political spectrum. For instance, right-wing extremist and populist groups such as the French National Front and the Hungarian Jobbik are firm eurosceptics due to their hardline anti-elitist and anti-foreign positions. However, they are not the only type of extremists that protest integration as left-wing radicals such as the Commu-nist Party of Greece also oppose what they see as “the ruling bourgeoisie in Brussels.”

In its softer form, euroscepticism also exists in centrist groups, many of whom are essentially pro-integration but would like to see some serious reforms. The pan-European party Lib-ertas briefly rose to power a few years ago by protesting what they viewed as an overbearing and unaccountable elite who were ruining a noble experiment.

A large threat lies with the ev-er-skeptical United Kingdom. Public distrust of the European Union is at an all-time high of 75 percent, and the recent rise of the United Kingdom In-dependence Party makes a split with the European Union seem possible. Prime Minister David Cameron has even promised a referendum on the United Kingdom’s E.U. membership after the 2015 elections if his party retains power, a move which the vast majority of Brit-ons support.

Euroscepticism will likely endure as a major force in European politics until major reforms are enacted. For the foreseeable future, it seems as though the European Union will remain disunited.Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia

International

14

International

Venezuela has the potential to be one of the wealthiest countries in the world from its oil and tourism indus-tries, but lacks the political stability needed for greater growth and interna-tional acceptance as a credible power.

Prior to Chavez’s 15-year reign, the Venezuelan government was controlled by two major parties, the Acción Democrática and Copei, which came about after the Pérez Jiménez military dictatorship from 1952 to 1958. During the 1980s and 1990s, Venezuela was a rich country but the political realm was corrupted by amiguismo, the practice of exchanging favors for political loyalty.

According to Dr. Lars Schoultz, professor of Latin American politics at UNC-CH, Venezuelans were common-ly referred to as the “Dame dos” by Cubans in Miami, or the “give me twos.” These individuals would visit affluent Miami, enter jewelry stores and buy not one, but two of whatever they want-ed. Vast Venezuelan wealth was being spent abroad rather than supporting the Venezuelan economy. The country eventually felt these economic repercus-sions as the global oil market collapsed in the 1990s.

Hugo Chávez was a military gen-eral who claimed to represent popu-list interests. In 1992, Chávez led an attempted coup d’état against the Carlos Andrés Pérez presidency and the Dem-ocratic Action government. Inspired by the works of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Zedong, Chavez concluded that Venezuela would benefit from a leftist government. He was imprisoned for two years after his failed coup but started the socialist party the Fifth Republic Movement upon his release, and was elected to the presidency in 1998. Schoultz describes Chávez as an

incredibly charismatic leader whose elections gained massive support among the working class as a result of the health and education reforms he created among the poorer barrios in the country.

Before his death on March 5, 2013, Chávez passed the baton onto his vice president Nicolás Maduro, who won the April 2013 election. Unfortunately, Maduro’s charisma does not match that of his predecessor and his lack of military experience has lost him sup-port from the military. Chavez retained legitimacy as a politician from his military backing, yet Maduro has been unable to reign in inflation and is fac-ing opposition from the working class, the former Chavistas. According to Dr. Schoultz, Chávez under the current

economic circumstances would merely give a lengthy speech and convince the public that raising oil prices is the best option for the entire country. Maduro lacks the public support to pull off such a drastic economic stunt.

Maduro’s lack of charisma could be the downfall of the Chávez government, as this vital factor was Chavez’s most powerful tactic. Venezuelan currency is weak and inflating at a drastic enough rate to fail to satisfy the working class enough to support him through an-other election. Currently, Venezuela’s currency inflation rate is 45 percent, a dramatic increase from its 18 percent level at the end of 2012.

The government that has been reigning uncontested in Venezuela for 15 years may be reaching its end.

Photo Courtesy of Wikimedia

Muted Maduro

Venezuelan president lacks the presence of his predecessor

Adriana Golindano, Staff Writer

International

After 24 years of no direct po-litical contact, the United States and Iran signaled the potential start of a new era with a phone call between the two nations’ presidents. The 15-min-ute phone call is significant for its representation of the shifting policies of the new Iranian president, Hasan Rouhani. While Mr. Rouhani is adopt-ing a more conciliatory approach to interna-tional relations, hardline Islamist dissenters within the Iranian government could influence the success or failure of these open policies.

One of Rouhani’s main platform planks and continuing goals is to facilitate the lifting of international sanctions on Iran. In addition to the Rouhani-Obama phone call, Iran indicat-ed a desire to recon-cile with the West by inviting senior British officials to Rouhani’s inauguration. As the increased inflation and poverty created under former Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s tenure continues, Rouhani seeks a lessening of economic sanctions out of necessity for Iran’s economic well-be-ing.

Rouhani is concerned with internal pressures from the Revolutionary Guard, a hardline Islamist branch of the military who oppose increasing inter-actions with the West. While Rouhani’s election indicates the public’s demand

A new hope?

Rouhani attempts to chart new course for Iran

Avani Uppalapati, Staff Writer

for a different approach from the isolationism of the past, some powerful influences in the governing structure still oppose any softening of position in negotiations on the nuclear issue. Sohrab Behdad, professor of economics

at Denison University, stated that, “The situation in Iran about dealing with the United States is somewhat symmetrical to the US situation to dealing with Iran. Neither Iran nor the United States have total consensus in different factions about dealing with the other.”

Behdad believes that while there are strong dissenters within the gov-ernment itself, Rouhani has a window of opportunity in which he has Ayatol-lah Ali Khameini’s support to pursue

friendlier international relations. According to Behdad, if Rouhani can deliver a reduction in sanctions on Iran and mitigate the dissenting voices of more conservative Iranians during this window, he might be able to continue his strategy of compliance with the West in order to pursue his economic goals.

While some consider the Obama-Rouhani phone call as an indicator of change in Iran’s policies, others are skeptical of these changes

as merely a topical distraction to advance their nuclear pro-gram. Israeli President Benjamin Netanyahu urged Obama not to remove sanctions on Iran, stating, “…for Israel, the ultimate test of a future agreement with Iran is whether or not Iran dismantles its military nuclear program,” evincing an uncompromising ap-proach not unlike that of opposing factions in Iran.

According to Be-hdad, “The issue of Is-rael is very significant in Iran.” He states that Iran’s opposition to Israel could be likened to the strength of the United States’ support for it. While Israel

is a divisive issue between Iran and the West, the possibility of Rouhani’s skillful negotiation and acquiescence to some international demands could lead to a lessening of tensions in order to realize both a decreased Iranian nuclear threat and lessened economic sanctions on Iran. Despite the tense political atmosphere within Iran, Rouhani and other world leaders give reason for cau-tious optimism about Western-Iranian relations.

15

Illustration by: Karishma Lalchandani

16

North Carolina

Movement, said she believes that remov-ing abortion clinics from communities only increases the stigma surrounding terminating a pregnancy.

She also said the new legislation adds fear to teenagers who are already dealing with complex choices and situations.

“They’re being told that abortion pro-viders are dirty and unsafe, and clinics are being removed from communities. What are teens supposed to do? They can’t turn to their teachers with questions because those teachers may not be allowed to dis-cuss abortion.”

When it comes to sex education, Wilder said the General Assembly should be advocating for preventive care, such as the use of contraceptives.

“But that position would have to allow teens to have premarital sex, and there’s nothing the GOP dislikes more than that — So I guess their solution is to deny teens education, access and methods for prevention.”

On October 1, the most compre-hensive gun reform legislation passed in North Carolina since 1995 went into effect. Proponents of the legislation say that its primary purpose is to expand the rights of responsible concealed-carry permit holders who wish to exercise their second amendment rights while strength-ening the penalties on individuals who violate North Carolina’s gun laws.

The final bill, H 937, removes previ-ous restrictions on Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders. Individuals with a CHP can now carry their weapons into establishments that serve alcohol (as long as they do not consume it) or into venues that require tickets for admission.

Concealed weapons can now be taken onto any public school or university cam-pus as long as they are in a locked vehicle. Firearms are also allowed on greenways, playgrounds, public recreation areas, parades and funerals. CHP holders, how-ever, cannot bring their handguns into any establishment where the owner expressly forbids it. The legislation also strengthens the penalties for individuals who use a handgun while committing a felony and establishes a strict revocation period for individuals who receive a permit but later become ineligible for one.

The original bill passed in the House of Representatives included a provision that would repeal the purchase permit sys-

tem currently in place. Because gun control is such a divisive

issue, many on both sides are speaking out. Prior to the passage of the law, police chiefs from 17 public campuses lobbied lawmakers to exclude the provision allow-ing CHP holders to bring their weapons onto campus. Chapel Hill Police Chief Jeff McCracken is concerned that the law cre-ates more potential for accidental shoot-ings and suicide attempts and may encour-age violence against others. However, supporters of the legislation believe that the law removes unnecessary restrictions on responsible gun owners and will deter, rather than promote, violence. As Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, points out, “We’re talking about concealed carry permit holders. People…who’ve proven themselves sane, sober, and law abiding. Every time we’ve expanded it everybody has predicated wild-west sce-narios and shootings at traffic lights. It has never once occurred.”

Tighter restrictions for North Carolina abortion clinics are leaving the future of sex education in the state in question.

Senate Bill 353, which Gov. Pat McCrory signed into law late July and which went into affect on Oct. 1, impos-es more stringent facility regulations on abortion clinics, limits abortion coverage under county or town employee health insurance plans, prohibits abortion based on fetus’ sex and amends the Women’s Right to Know Act to require doctors to be present when the woman takes an initial abortion-inducing drug.

The bill also requires the Department of Health and Human Services to develop

regulations for abortion clinics similar to ambulatory surgical centers.

Along with this bill the General Assembly also passed legislation that says public schools must adhere to an absti-nence-only sex education curriculum.

Melissa Reed, vice president of public affairs at Planned Parenthood, said the restrictions will be detrimental in access to women’s health services — including can-cer screenings, STD testing and treatment, and access to contraceptives.

“If those facilities have to shut down, then those additional services will also go away,” she said.

UNC first-year Alice Wilder, who is a blogger for feminist organization SPARK

Concealed carry concernsState legistlature modifies gun laws, arouses strong sentiments among North Carolinians

Katlyn Moseley, Staff Writer

Smarter about sex?North Carolina moves to restrict abortion, alter sex education curricula

Samantha Sabin, Staff Writer

Perspectives

17

Sandra Day O’Connor, the first female justice on the Supreme Court, writes that her book, Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court, aims to “share a different side of the Supreme Court…the ‘out of order’ moments.” Using a fairly informal style interspersed with occasional wit and personal reflections, O’Connor makes her work accessible to any reader, regardless of prior constitutional or legal knowledge. She further helps the reader’s understand-ing by creating short chapters which each deal with a single topic – for example, circuit-riding or oral arguments. Each chapter focuses on tracing the evolution of the Court both as a governmental

institution and as a structure necessarily made by humans, a balance of the objective and the subjective.

This balance offers an introduction to the Supreme Court, detailing its major turning points, significant cases, noteworthy justices, and foundational guidelines. Continually emphasizing the Court’s “uncertain begin-nings,” O’Connor draws a stark contrast between today’s Court and the Court as it was initially envisioned and implemented. She also illustrates the importance of understanding the human figures and foibles involved in the Court’s evolution. Without her personal anecdotes, opin-ions, and observations, O’Connor’s work would not be the same.

However, even though some of these personal moments succeed in sharing the ‘out of order’ side, O’Connor ultimately falls short on her promise to humanize the Court’s history. The fundamental problem with her perspective is that she likes to “give speeches about history because it’s less dangerous than talking about the present” – this bias shows

throughout the book. O’Connor avoids men-tioning any possible im-provements in the current structure of the Court, though some might say this would be inappropri-ate in a historical text.

However, even her history is undermined when she does not address the dark side of the Court as a human institution – namely, the bitter battles

between justices on either side of the political fence, the absence of so-called ‘judiciary independence’ from the rest of the Beltway, and the lack of any serious discussion regarding gender and the Court. Moreover, O’Connor ignores her role as a swing vote in weighty cases such as Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000), and Bush v. Gore (2000). I would say that anyone trying to understand the general background of the Supreme Court would appreciate O’Con-nor’s book, but the truth is that this work fails to offer a candid insider’s view of the Court or a conclusion that adequately sums up its main points. Save your mon-ey—browse Wikipedia instead.

Book ReviewOut of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court

by Sandra Day O’Connor

Sumeet Patwardhan, Staff Writer

SpotlightStudent Body President Christy Lambden on his performance in office

Conor Lynch had an opportunity to sit down with Student Body Presi-dent Christy Lambden and discuss the issues he has faced in his first months in office. Lynch asked Lambden how successful he feels he has been in addressing key issues so far and also turned attention to current and future policies on which Lambden is working.

Lambden discussed the wide-

spread controversy over the proposed changes to the eight-week drop/add policy throughout the UNC system. He emphasizes the significance of mobilizing over 8,000 students in opposition to the policy but also ar-gued for cooperation with faculty and administrators on campus to present a united stance on the issue and suggest alternative to present before the Board

Conor Lynch, Staff Writer

of Governors. Another key issue discussed was

efforts to revise the sexual assault pol-icy on campus. This was a major issue confronting Lambden when he took office and continues to be an import-ant process as the University looks to improve policies concerning sexual assault. Lambden considers ensuring all students feel safe to be of utmost importance for Carolina.

To listen to the whole interview please check it out on our website. It is posted under the blogs section. Alternatively, visit our YouTube chan-nel—The Hill: Chapel Hill Political Review.

Perspectives

18

The Ivory Tower Holy halls

Controversy arises over establish-ment of religious residence halls on select campuses across the United States, our education col-umnists respond

Zach Williams Allie Higgins

While many UNC students interact with the Newman Student Center Parish on Pittsboro Street, those at Troy Uni-versity in Alabama can now live in a Christian dorm sponsored by the Newman Student Housing Fund.

The dorm, the Newman Center, differs from the over 300 student parishes across the country, because students both live and worship in this facility on Troy’s campus. Troy’s Christian dorm follows Texas A&M’s Newman residence hall established by the ministry this year on campus in Kingsville, Texas.

Where would an interest-group or religious housing option be without a little constitutional debate? The Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) has threatened to sue Troy University, claiming it violates the First Amendment’s Estab-lishment Clause. Although FFRF’s argument may clash with debates of freedom of assembly, the theme of religious isolation could damage the overall atmosphere Troy University harbors.

By establishing this separate community for a certain group of believers, Troy has segregated open debate and interaction. Isolation of any group inhibits the exchange of ideas and while these students living in the Newman Cen-ter residential dorm don’t have to stay locked behind bound doors reading the Bible, but isn’t it the nature of Christianity to spread God’s word? Even the president of the Newman Center Student Housing Fund noted in a New York Times article that the dorm is “definitely an evangelization opportunity.” Really, putting a homogenous group together will make outsiders more willing to come join?

Whatever religion people believe in, shouldn’t they want to live in a diverse and open environment that allows expres-sion of viewpoints but also exposes one to the beliefs of others? Debate swirls around cases of single-group dorms, such as the gender-neutral housing on campuses like UNC, but this religious dorm poses as a unique situation of questionable con-stitutionality and concerning separation of religious groups. Christian, Jewish, Muslim – let all religions live together to prevent religious discrimination, but more so, to encourage students to use college as a time to determine their own beliefs and understand the perspectives of others as well.

Troy University is drawing some scrutiny for being the latest in a small group of public universities to offer a Christian housing option. Joining the likes of the University of Illinois and Texas A&M Kingsville, the Alabama college has opened a “Newman Center”, a Catholic-sponsored residential commu-nity for students who want to live in a Christian environment. This new dorm is a response to demand from the Troy student body, with a larger proportion of dedicated Christian adher-ents than most campuses. Well-received within the university’s community, the religion-oriented dorm is nonetheless consid-ered unconstitutional by the Freedom From Religion Founda-tion (FFRF), which is threatening to sue the university on the basis that the Newman Center violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Although the dorm preferentially admits students who identify with and practice Christianity, it is unclear how the Center amounts to state-established religion. No meaningful opportunity is denied to non-Christians; the dorm does not detract from their ability to live on campus, reduce their ability to get an education, or coerce them in any way to identify with a certain religion. The FFRF has focused so narrowly on the fact religion is involved they have failed to grasp that another First Amendment right is at play here: freedom of assembly.

A substance-free residence with community service requirements, the Troy Christian community closely resembles the Living-Learning Communities that we have at UNC. LLCs are a not a perfect comparison, however, because they do not base membership on demographic qualities. The best analogy is between unisex dorms and Christian housing. Single-sex housing can be interpreted as gender-based discrimination, a violation of the 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws. It is not interpreted that way, however, because it is a purely voluntary segregation for a reasonable cause: relief from the distractions of the opposite sex. I believe Troy’s Christian housing serves a similar purpose. Those students choose to live with other devout Christians to avoid the prevalent alcoholism and religious indifference of the collegiate environment. Let them be.

Perspectives

“When you hear members talk candidly about their biggest victory, it wasn’t winning the House in 2010. It was winning the state legislatures in 2010.”

So says Robert Costa, the Adam Schefter of Republican politics, in an in-terview with The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein. This sentiment helps explain much

of the current dysfunction in Congress.Gerrymandering is famous for giving

partisan advantages in representation. In the 2012 House elections, Republicans gar-nered 1.6 million fewer votes, yet emerged with a majority of 234 seats to 201. As important as redistricting was in securing a Republican majority, it has proved equally influential in changing the balance of polit-ical pressures on the Republican caucus.

Recent data shows 65% of Amer-icans opposed using the shutdown as anti-Obamacare leverage while only 24% support it. When it comes to the debt ceiling, Americans prefered Obamacare be addressed separately from debt ceiling negotiations 65% to 31%. The GOP, act-ing on the wrong side of these numbers, is testing a new low of 28% favorability in the latest Gallup polling.

To many Republican representatives, none of that matters. These Congress-

men are bound to decisively conservative districts whose residents support using the shutdown and debt ceiling as polit-ical leverage. Rather than being forced by credible Democratic challengers to moderate their positions, the conservative concentrations mean many Republicans have been forced to the far right for fear of being “primaried” out of office.

Unrepresentative redistricting has cre-ated an environment where accountability to the general populace is divorced from the actions that these representatives take. The result, exemplified the shutdown and debt ceiling standoff, is extreme demands levied in pursuit of impossible goals.

At some point, hopefully sooner rather than later, general election calculus for Republican representatives will again become relevant. Until then, the nation and the GOP’s reputation both will con-tinue to suffer.

Healthcare: One of the biggest and nastiest monsters looming in America’s fu-ture. As the industry continues to expand, a number of questions have arisen. Who pays? Who is left out? Who gets the death panel? The two main options for the future of American healthcare are the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Obamacare.

You might be thinking, “Hey, I’ve heard a lot about both plans online and the nightly news, but it’s hard to dis-

tinguish them from one another and formulate an educated opinion.” Here at The Hill we’ve done extensive research to and found some basic differences:

It is clear Obamacare is not the answer for American healthcare chal-lenges. One man, interviewed by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jimmy Kimmel said, “I think that it’s nice that everyone can afford [Obamacare] and everyone should be able to afford it, but to force people to pay something and then to force doctors to make something…that’s kind of anti-American.” Obamacare’s anti-Amer-icanism is evident in its single-handed government shutdown for weeks on end.

Meanwhile, the ACA is already sav-ing lives, including Ms. M. Turner’s, who needed surgery to remove an intrauterine tumor, but was denied coverage for this “pre-existing condition.” Furthermore, because the ACA extends coverage to a younger demographic - those healthier and less reliant on services but still paying premiums - American healthcare may

actually become less expensive long-term. In the end, staying informed is of

utmost importance for America’s health-care future. Health policy expert black_jack1812 on Reddit summarized it best, writing, “An informed citizenry is the best citizenry. Otherwise this Obamacare business could lead the restriction of the First Amendment, the Second Amend-ment, and all that our Founding Fathers stood for.”

Round the Bend Beware the gerrymanderBrian Bartholomew

Two Cents ACA vs ObamacareNancy Smith

19

The ACA ‘Obamacare’Mascot: Stanley the Friendly Stethoscope

Mascot: Pedophile Uncle Sam

Passed in 2010 by Congress

Socialist mandate of B. Hussein Obama

Opposed by 37% of Americans

Opposed by 46% of Americans

Does not kill grandma

KILLS GRANDMA

The Hill