In(dividualist)to the Wild

A couple of days ago I read the first book since I started law school that did not have to do with some aspect of the law. The book was Jon Krakauer's Into the Wild, the story of Chris McCandless, a self-styled and controversial intrepid wanderer who walked into the Alaskan wilderness and, after 114 days, starved to death in an abandoned bus that sat by the Sushana River. The story of McCandless has come to prominence recently because of Sean Penn's movie based on the book. i have read many reactions to the McCandless story, and have found that many people express resentment toward him and his death. Indeed, Krakauer even chronicles some of the criticisms of McCandless that surfaced after the article that led to the book was published in Outside Magazine. The overriding theme of McCandless' critics seems to be that he was selfish, hubric, and under-prepared. People say that he ought not be made into a hero, that he should have thought more about his parents and others who cared for him, that he sets a bad example for people considering setting off into the wilderness to find themselves. I however, think these people have missed the nuance of the story. Chris McCandless was never meant to be heroic, his story was chronicled because it represents the convergence of tragedy, American mythology, and that aspect of humanity that makes us distinctly human and frail- that existence between extremes that is at the same time mundane and austere, yet, when it surfaces in people like McCandless, seems so very extraordinary.

I find myself comparing the story of McCandless to that of Aron Ralston, whom we all remember for being the guy who did what it took to survive, who challenged our self-perceptions and forced us to ask- could I do that? Ralston, of course, is the hiker whose arm was pinned by a boulder and who, after several days of suffering with little food and water, was forced to cut his own arm off to free himself. I bring up Ralston's story not in juxtaposition to McCandless', but rather peoples' reactions to the stories in juxtaposition. No one decried Ralston for being unprepared, or for possessing only that youthful hubris that would lead him into such a precarious position. Even though Ralston was hiking alone, had told no one where he was going or when to expect him back, and made the classic mistake of trusting his weight to a precariously perched boulder that had wedged itself into a canyon, a well-known canyoneering hazard. Yet Ralston has written a book about his travails, and now works as a public speaker, thus capitalizing on his brush with death. McCandless, on the other hand, made many of the same type of mistakes as Ralston, but perhaps his downfall is simply that he died, thus never allowing him the chance to make money from his story.

But the purpose of this post is not to point out the hypocrisy of McCandless' critics, but rather their ignorance as to what it really means to be American and human. When McCandless' body was found, there was a stack of books, many bearing notes and highlights from McCandless. One of the authors featured prominently in the collection was Henry David Thoreau, another American made famous for going "into the wild". The influence of Thoreau is perhaps one of the most vexing aspects of McCandless' story. When Thoreau wrote so vividly in celebration of the rugged individualism (not his term, but descriptive of the notion nonetheless), he was not describing what should have been, but what he saw all around him. That is the American ethos, the lifeblood of this country, and, at least during its formative years, what it meant to be an American. That, as Booker T. Washington so eloquently put it, a man can pull himself up by his own bootstraps. Self-reliance was how Emerson put it. Individualism is at the heart of American law, politics, philosophy, and life. Individualist notions permeate our Constitution the writings of the Enlightenment thinkers who gave us our own brand of democracy. And yet when someone who personifies that ethos so well dies in the process of adhering to the principle, people decry him as selfish and full of hubris.

True, McCandless is also exemplary of the dark and unattainable side of individualism. McCandless shows us that humans have socialized to the point that we can no longer survive the pinnacle of individualism. The state of nature is no longer hospitable to the civilized man. Perhaps this is the root of the criticisms of McCandless. It is not his own fault that worries people so much, but his exposure of the weakness in all of us. The book picks up on this theme in an aside about another individual who tried, and failed, to live off the land- Carl McCunn. McCunn's experiment with individualism was couched in terms of anthropological self-experimentation. McCunn wanted to see if a civilized man could survive using only the tools of the caveman. McCunn did well for a time, but eventually he died by his own hand, presumably after learning that his desired result was unacheivable.

Ultimately, though, the story of McCandless is one of a person who is distinctly human. He is at once both strong and frail, idealistic and pragmatic. McCandless is not the hero of stark proportions, who acts only according to virtuous principles and triumphs over evil. Nor are any of the rest of us. We lead a murky existence full of relativism, moments of weakness, and, should you view it the way that many seem to, the ultimate failure- death. This, is my theory as to why people react so differently to the stories of McCandless and Aron Ralston. Ralston lived, he cheated death, whereas McCandless committed the ultimate sin against life, he died, pitifully and alone. But the story of McCandless is much more real. We see McCandless in hospital beds, in churches, in ourselves. We see the repugnant reality that is death and, perhaps, just how maddeningly pointless a life-examined can seem when the story ends with death.

Political Natural Selection

The State Board of Education is going to meet in January to debate whether to accept two biology textbooks that espouse the theory of evolution as the basis for the modern scientific understanding of life. Apparently concerns were raised over comments made by former Clemson professor Horace Skipper who criticised the books because "I didn't see where they had the scientific support that I think public schools need in a textbook." Having not read the textbooks, I have decided to comment on this issue only from a general, theoretical perspective.

First, the theory of evolution is not just a theory, as many of its detractors like to point out. If one ascribes to the paradigmatic view of science as illustrated in the classic The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, then one surely must concede that the theory of evolution ushered in a paradigm shift in scientific thought. It did not answer the questions, it framed the debate, rescued science from a series of pitfalls and red herrings, and brought about a new lense through which to look at our world. If one is a pragmatist, in the sense that one believes that truth is that which is proven through experience and results, then it is difficult to look at the relationship between science and technology as it exists today, as it has evolved since the paradigm shift brought about by Darwin's classic theory, and to deny that evolution essentially "works". Scientific research from within the evolutionary paradigm has given us cures for diseases once thought incurable, the cloning of entire organisms, the mapping and understanding of the human genome, the ability to turn stem cells into functioning organs, and the subsequent ability to turn other cells into stem cells.

The truth of the matter is that evolution is not up for debate in the scientific community. The only real topic for debate on evolution is at what level it occurs (e.g. macro-evolution vs. micro-evolution). That our State Board of Education would deny what has proven itself to be the truth to our students is alarming. I can only figure two possible reasons that this debate even exists today, one political and one based on the frailties of human nature.

The political, and largely cynical, view is that the members of the State Board of Education who consider themselves proponents of creationism or "intelligent design" (my favorite oxymoron) are simply pandering to what they perceive as their base, much like the Presidential candidates pander to the far reaches of their "base" in the primaries. This is why we see John McCain speaking at Jerry Falwell's "university", Mitt Romney getting a hunting license, or Hillary Clinton "singing" traditional African-American spirituals. Now we have conservative members of the State Board of Education pandering to what they consider to be their base: uneducated, religious conservatives. If I were one who considered myself a conservative, I would personally be offended that these people truly believe that they can placate me and reserve my support through passing off such rubbish on the already beleaguered South Carolina student.

The only other explanation I can think of for this aberration is one based on the frailties of human nature. This is based on my perception that many religious people think that there is a necessary conflict between evolutionary science and Christian faith. In short, these people are so afraid of going to Hell that they cannot possibly accept that the Bible might not be literally written. This is the frailty of human nature- fear of the unknown. The Bible, particularly as read by many of those on the more conservative side of religion, provides a quick and easy way to eternal bliss. Anything professing to be "knowledge" that may conflict with that path to bliss must be vehemently denied and hidden from the marketplace of ideas. My only answer to these people is that religion is an epistemology of faith. Science is an epistemology of reason. These are two entirely different ways of looking at the world, addressing very different subjects, and each ought to be separate. Just as Jefferson argued for the separation of church and state, I argue for the separation of church and science. When viewed properly, I believe that religion and science can be just as copacetic as apple pie and ice cream.

Ultimately, the dogmatic adherence to religious views when applied to scientific study will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to the "understanding" of spontaneous generation. Similarly, a dogmatic adherence to scientific views when applied outside of their scope will produce the same false beliefs that lead us to Social Darwinism and the Holocaust. We must temper our beliefs and our understandings. To the SC Board of Education I beseech you, please separate science and religion, please temper your views, open your eyes to the world around you- a world of shades of grey and nuanced understanding, not a world of black and white, good and evil.

Cold Mountain

I have never read the book, Cold Mountain. I saw the movie, but I couldn't tell you much about it. But I have been to the top of Cold Mountain- the real Cold Mountain. And it lived up to its name. It was indeed cold, and windy, and foggy, and an alltogether dismal place to be. Perhaps if we had caught better weather, my account would be different, but I have only been there once, and it was as it was.

We started out from a familiar place, the Boy Scout camp where we had ended one of the most difficult trips of our lives, followed by the best beer and piece of cheese I ever had. I blogged about it a year ago. This time was going to be different, though. This time we would start at the Scout camp, about 6 miles closer to the trail that leads to the top of Cold Mountain. See, last year we were so burnt out and pressed for time by the time we reached Deep Gap, where the trail to the top of Cold Mountain splits from the trail down to the Scout camp, we decided that we would have to forego the trip to the summit of Cold Mountain in favor of actually making it to the car before sundown. This year the only goal was to reach the top of the mountain, and we were going to be sure to make it.

We started out a bit late on Friday afternoon. The weather was brisk, yet mild enough to shed all of my outer layers. We lost sunlight just as we approached a small trailside campsite and decided to camp there for the night. It turned out to be a great night, chilly, but certainly bearable. We sat around the campfire for a few hours, cooked my new favorite camp food, chicken quesadillas, and sipped whiskey through the night. I also used the occaision to break out my new toy, my backpacker guitar. Although I'm sure my singing voice sounds more like an animal in pain than the great rock star grit that I hear in my head, everyone seemed to enjoy the diversion.

The next morning was uneventful. Powerbars and coffee for breakfast, then we hit the trail. We made good time considering the trail climbed a couple thousand feet at about a 45 degree angle, and by midday we were at Deep Gap. Deep Gap is a gap between a place called The Narrows and the summit of Cold Mountain. It is relatively open and sparsely populated with oak and birch trees and the occaisional evergreen. At least three trails converge on Deep Gap, making it a relatively highly trafficed area and, at least in a few respects, not the optimal place to camp. More on this later.

After lunch (Wolf brand Chili, definitely worth the weight of an aluminum can if its cold out) we set up camp and headed for the top of the mountain. We had been fortunate enough to pay close attention to the area weather forecast, and knew that a storm was scheduled to roll in on Saturday. Because of this, we decided to set the tents up with the doors facing each other and to string a couple of tarps up over the opening for a cooking space and common area. With the tents pitched and the tarps taut, we headed up the trail toward the top of Cold Mountain. As we set out the clouds began to roll in, the wind picked up, and we knew it was just a matter of time until the storm hit, but we all knew that we had to get to the top of the mountain. It had haunted me for a year and I was not going to get this close again and not make it.

Because water is scarce, we filled our water bottles on the way up from a mudpuddle formed from water dripping off of a rock onto the trail. Not exactly the fountain of youth, but with the help of a trusty filter, it did the trick without setting off a second storm within our intestines. The hike to the top was tough and steep, yet leisurely. Everyone was in good spirits, knowing that we were finally going to the top. The weather worsened gradually as we climbed, but no one seemed to notice.

As we reached the lower section of the peak, above the treeline, the weather became apparent. We came across a couple of ledges that almost certainly would have provided breathtaking views except for the thick clouds that enveloped us at the time and prevented any visibility past about ten feet. All of my instincts told me to turn back, that the weather was going to catch up to us and that the timeframe for the trip down was shrinking. But I was not going to be deterred. I wanted to reach the top, as did everyone else. And finally, we were there, looking at the USGS benchmark that had been placed at the summit in 1934, conveniently labelling the top of the mountain for those too unobservant to realize they were there. By this time the wind was whipping so loud that we could barely hear one another, we had to hold on to our hats for fear that they would be blown into the abyss of the passing clouds. We peered over ledges into nothing but thick, grey clouds.

Yet the heavens were smiling on us. After a few gracious minutes at the top, we decided to head down. The trip down was quick due to the steep incline and just as we emerged from the trail and back into Deep Gap, the rain began to trickle. We made for the tents to get a warm drink and a snack and wait the rain out. But it never stopped. It rained, sleeted, and snowed all night. We sat in our tents eagerly awaiting the end of the rain so that we could emerge, start a fire, and go through the camping ritual we all knew so well. But it never happened. It never stopped raining. We sat there from three in the afternoon until after midnight and the rain continued. Finally we gave up, and settled in for sleep.

We awoke to bitter, bitter cold. We had planned on cooking pancakes and bacon for breakfast, but it was so cold that all we could think of was to get moving. We struck camp quickly, with few words, then hit the trail, back down toward the Scout camp. It would be about twenty minutes into the hike that I began to feel my toes again. I have never hiked that distance with so many clothes on. Snow flurries were flying around our heads nearly the whole time. And it was wonderful.

The point of this post is not to make the trip sound tougher than it really was. Many people have been in much tougher conditions on much higher peaks. My point is merely to tell the world, from the proverbial top of the mountain, how much I love these trips and how, even though it may rain, the wind may whip, visibility may be low, the trip is still worth making.

Shifting Sands and Mortgage Markets

All of the recent problems with the mortgage markets have me thinking, and the one question that keeps troubling my mind is this: what, if anything, is our economy based on? I have had extensive conversations about this question with people much smarter than me and we seem to have come to a couple of (at least theoretical) conclusions about from where value derives in our economy. Of course all of these "conclusions" just lead to a plethora of other questions until, at least in my estimation, the whole argument becomes cyclical and, ultimately, paradoxical. However, I think I have distilled at least the value of the dollar to two things: 1) America's ability not to pay its debts; and 2) Amercian's faith in the notion that tomorrow will be better than today.

So, what do I mean by America's ability not to pay its debts? Well its a sort of Machiavellian economics: might makes rich. In other words, we sell of our debt to other nations based on the assumption that we won't have to pay those debts off. Why? Well, who is going to knock on our national door and make us pay those debts? Therefore, we can sell off our debt to inferior countries who can never collect on it. Its really a beatiful thing for us, so long as we can maintain our military might. This conclusion seems to be bolstered by the great negative impacts of national security failures on our economy (see 9/11) as well as the relative strength injected into our economy from successful military endeavours (see WWII and the Cold War).

My second conclusion (which I really must attribute to a friend of mine), that our faith in the notion that tomorrow will be better than today, finds evidence in interest rates. I mean, what exactly are we doing when we take out a loan? I think we're wagering (either consciously or not) that the advantage gained today by the money we receive will be worth at least as much as that total plus the interest rate we're paying when the money is due. This makes sense in the context of a home loan: houses are appreciating assets that ought to be worth more than they were 30 years from when they are purchased by a margin at least as great as their interest rate and usually expectedly more.

I'm not sure why I felt compelled to post this, but I think it stems from a worry I have about waning resources (hence the picture of one of my favorite lakes that is drying up). What are we going to do when we run out of oil, water, top soil, and clean air?

The Problem of the Slippery Slope

I have been hearing a lot of slippery slope (or as I so affectionately refer to them, "chicken little") arguments lately, and I have become very dismayed at their effectiveness in changing people's minds. I find these arguments to be not only entirely ineffective and unpersuasive, but, and perhaps more insidiously, completely logically fallacious. See, the fundamental problem with chicken little arguments is that the conclusion does not necessarily follow the premises. These arguments are pure conjecture and speculation, yet, when framed right, sound authoritative. The fact is that slippery slope arguments depend largely on a series of causal assumptions, none of which are ever justified within the argument. Just because something seems to make sense at first blush, does not mean that it makes logical sense.

Another issue I have with chicken little arguments is their utter determinism. The great minds riding on Einstein's coat-tails have essentially eliminated determinism as a viable philosophical model and the simple minds, such as myself, have always refused to ascribe to deterministic philosophies because we refuse to give up the notion of free will. Long gone are the days when a scientist could credibly assert that, if he could freeze time and determine the direction and velocity of every atom in the universe, he could see the future in its entirety. The problem with slippery slope arguments is that they depend on deterministic causal chains in order to come true. The slippery slope arguer will assert that if X occurs, then over time, Y will occur. That a whole myriad of other elements of causation and deviation could occur within any segment of the prescribed time span is irrelevant to the slippery slope.

My point here is that we encounter these arguments with increasing regularity in our daily lives. Politicians are some of the most egregious examples of slippery slope appeals to the emotions. So I charge my reader(s) - next time someone tells you that if, for example, we pull our troops out of Iraq then the whole middle east will erupt in violence, ask them why that is? Or if you hear someone say that if we allow the government to trump a liberty in favor of greater security that sooner or later we will be living in a police state, ask why. My caveat here is, please do not respond to the above examples, as I have meant only to exemplify two different slippery slope arguments I have heard a lot of lately (one from each end of the political spectrum, by the way), and in no way mean to undermine either of those arguments, but rather to encourage my reader(s) to question them.

Rule by Adverse Possession (Pt. 1)

For those of you not subjected to reading page after page of dry, dull court cases, there is a concept in the law of property that most people encounter in their first year of law school called "adverse possession." When I first read about this stuff, I was absolutely blown away. It seemed comepletely antithetical to everything I had assumed about ownership and property as it functions in society. You see, adverse possession (at least when grossly oversimplified) works something like this: Let's say this guy Joe owns a piece of land in Alaska, but Joe live in SC. Then this guy Sam, an Alaskan native, wanders onto Joe's Alaskan tract of land and decides he wants to live there. Over a couple of years, Sam builds himself a little hut, a garden, and some other basic improvements, and happily lives on Joe's tract of land for some time. Joe, meanwhile, is stuck in SC and can't get to his Alaskan tract of land. He has no idea Sam is living there. Then one day, Sam's buddy tells him about this thing called "adverse possession." He tells Sam that he can go down to the courthouse and file for quiet title on the land and it will be his. Sure enough, Sam does this and, like magic, the title to the land is in Sam's name. Unbeknownst to Joe, he has lost his Alaskan asset. And all of this, given certain technicalities that must be met, is completely legal (save the time that Sam was trespassing, but that is forgiven after a set period runs and Joe does not eject Sam).

Now, when I first read about this stuff, I was taken aback. How is it that, in America (he said with a thick Texan accent) some vagrant can squat on your land long enough and then it just becomes his? Well, the justification is that Sam is making more efficient use of the land and, because Joe did not care enough about the land to even discover that Sam was there, Sam is more deserving of the title. Whether or not you agree with this concept matters very little. It is settled law in every state in this country (though the requirements vary from state to state).

But I don't want to write this post about adverse possession- at least not the legal variety. Nope, I'm not talking about property law at all. I'm talking about adverse possession at the very top of the American political system. I'm talking about presidential adverse possession. You see, apart from reading about the mundane legal quandaries that people find themselves in, I'm also reading about constitutional law. And recently I have had the distinct pleasure of reading a series of cases dealing with executive power and its interplay with the other branches of government. Most notably, I just read the recent "enemy combatant" cases, which involve American citizens that were picked up either in Afghanistan or while returning from Afghanistan. Of course, these are not ordinary American citizens. These are people who took up arms against our own armed forces and at least appeared to fight for the Taliban. My gut says "hang'em high." Problem is, that my brain just finished processing their court cases, and he's not so sure.

Don't get me wrong, I'm in no way coming out in support of terrorism or defecting to the enemy, or anything like that. No, that would be way too interesting. Nope, I'm talking about procedure and governmental structure. Things that work in the background of cases like these that have way more impact than a lot of people realize. See, neither of these two cases that I read had anything at all to do with establishing whether either of these guys was a bad guy- that was established well before either of these cases got to the Supreme Court. These cases revolved around whether or not these people would be subject to a trial by jury (as is guarrantied to all citizens of the United States in the Constitution) or to a special military tribunal.

Turns out, the Supreme Court isn't sure. Neither am I. See, as much as I scorn the President's policies, and as much fault as I find in a war on anything in the abstract, I can't seem to countenance being very polite to a couple of guys who decided to fight against their own country. At the same time, I'm a big fan of the Constitution, particularly the part about allowing all citizens to have their day in court. Indeed, James Madison argued that, as long as habeas corpus remained robust and undeniable, that we didn't even need the Bill of Rights. All that could be sorted out in court. And I'm a firm believer that when it comes to things like criminal charges, people deserve all of the protections that the legal system currently affords (at least most of) them. But this brings me back to my gut- these guys could die of gonnorhea and rot in hell as far as I care. So, despite my normal, opinionated tone, I'm going to take a back seat here and admit, I don't know the answer. At least not yet.

(P.S. I know that no one who reads this will have any idea why I included that first part about adverse possession...it will become clear when I post the conclusion to this in a couple of days...but first, I want my reader(s) to tell me what you think about all of this.)

Ann Coulter = Windbag

Nuff said

Big Brother's Census

So, I normally do not look forward to checking my mail. It seems that Publisher's Clearing House forgot their promise that I was the winner of a major prize, and somebody named SCE&G seems to think I owe them $300 a month. That's the only real correspondence I receive via the US Mail, so anyone can imagine my disdain for the mailman (even my dog seems to hate the guy). However, being a good, law-abiding citizen, I perform my requisite daily duty of checking the old inbox.

It seems, though, that Uncle Sam has not caught on to my mailbox blues, and, last week, really kicked it up a notch. See, my
residence has been "scientifically selected" (whatever that means) to participate in the American Community Survey. For those of you who may not be familiar with the survey (a demographic that included myself until last week), it is billed as a supplement to thedecennial census, aimed at gathering information to disseminate to various federal, state, and local entities to help them formulate plans and divert aid. The handy-dandy brochure that accompanied the survey explains that the valuable information I provide will go to government bodies that determine things like police and fire station locations, housing aid, and "to show a large corporation that a town has the workforce it needs."

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for government handouts, at least when they come to me. However, the questions on the
survey raised some serious concerns on my part. For example, I have to provide intrusive information about all the residents of my house, my relationship to those persons, where they work, if they don't work, why not and for how long, as well as about 10 pages of other questions. Now, I'm not going to get on my soap box, wrap myself in an American flag, and spout off truisms about this being a "free country" or anything, I'm not that naive. However, I was curious as to just how the
census bureau justified asking such intrusive questions and requiring their answers under threat of penalties.

Being the responsible law student that I am, I immediately turned to my favorite online legal research site, and began digging. What I found was: 1) theACS has never been challenged in a court of law; 2) the ACS is not specifically sanctioned under any legislative act; 3) the office of the US Comptroller General has written a memo to a Congressional
oversight committee attempting to justify theACS; 4) that memo finds the authority to compel answers to the ACS not in any specific statute, but inferred from the text of at least 2 separate statutes (see 13 USC §§ 141, 193); 5) that those statutes call for supplementary census information only for the purpose of furthering the singular goal of the census; 6) that the singular goal of the census is the apportionment of US Representatives based on population.

So, to recap, save a legal memo put out in defense of the ACS, I couldn't find anything truly justifying its existence, except perhaps some loose and non-legal argument about the need for up-to-date information on US citizens to better divert government monies to those who are in need. My question (or at least one of them) is why is the Federal government collecting all this data for services that are traditionally provided by state and local governments?

Hillary Stumps in Columbia

The Blue South was able to get a correspondant in to the gymnasium at Allen University to see Hillary Clinton deliver her stump speech on Monday, and boy was it anticlimactic. While we generally don't expect a whole lot of substance to speeches this early in the race, we do expect a lot of applause pauses and energy. And that wasn't the case on Monday. Maybe she was just having a bad day, but the speech was about as rousing as a Zanax washed down with a pint of Thunderbird. The town-meeting format wasn't particularly compelling either (and, while we generally oppose scripted questions at those sorts of things, a bit of screening wouldn't have been such a bad idea). Indeed, it was one of Sen. Clinton's questioners that received the loudest applause as he delivered his 10-minute "question" railing in the Iraq war from a Vietnam vet's perspective. In the end, Sen. Darrell Jackson had to cut the guy's mike to give Clinton a chance to speak up.

As far as the speech goes, she hit all the normal highlights. Universal healthcare, Iraq was a bad idea, George Bush sucks, all the standard Democratic stump-speech fare. She also insists on vowing to take the profits of the big mean oil companies (how she plans to do that short of a Nixon-esque "plumber" team, is beyond me). The fact is that Clinton simply isn't a compelling candidate at this point in the race.

Oh yeah, and while we're on the topic of Hillary, the Blue South would like to send a personal boot to the hindquarters of Clinton's operative, Howard Wolfson. This guy is dirty and vicious and about as blatant a liar as we've seen in a long time. We caught him last night on Hardball calling David Geffen Obama's "campaign finance coordinator." Come on, Wolfy, you know that's not true. The fact is that his tactic of spinning Geffen's anti-Clinton remarks (that were fairly meek) into an instance of the Obama campaign utilizing the slash and burn tactics that Obama himself vows to eliminate. Not a bad tactical move, but don't reach too far, or you'll lose any shred of credibility you have left.

Obama-Rama

So I here there's this new guy running for president...what's his name...Oh yeah, Barack Obama. The guy has become as ubiquitous as American Idol in the past year or so. Obama's rise to political stardom began of course with a humble speech at the Democratic National Convention just a few years ago and since then the guy hasn't let up. All the while Obama has been gaining popularity exponentially. This somewhat rare status as a true political superstar has left the Blue South wondering...what exactly is it that makes this guy so freakin' popular?

Certainly Obama's strong oratorical skills and natual charisma play an enormous part in his stardom, but is there any substance behind it all? Obama has taken a strong rhetorical stance against the Iraq War (a fairly popular position these days) and is, in fact, the only Senator who has introduced a De-escalation plan, per the 9-11 commissions recommendations. Obama also talks a lot about healthcare. Its hard to find much he's done on that front nationally, but the word on the street is that while a state Senator for Illinois, Obama did manage to get some healthcare reform passed. Obama speaks of his days as a communtiy organizer in inner-city Chicago, as a civil rights lawyer and law professor, all noble pursuits. But his experience in the national theater is meager and, although he speaks passionately against cynicism (he even wrote a book most audaciously titled "The Audacity of Hope"), who knows what a few years in the D.C. meatgrinder will do to a guy like that.

Not that I'm a cynic but I am skeptical. The system tends to rub off on you. Obama speaks like he's going to enter the system and enact real, sweeping change. The questions are 1) whether that's even possible and 2) whether Obama's message will comport with his actions and policies.

The Troops Behind the Curtain

According to MSNBC news, our very own Congressman John Spratt has spearheaded an effort by the Congressional Budget Office to look into President Bush's proposed troop surge in Iraq. As we all know by now, Pres. Bush vowed to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq in an effort to stabilize what many are now calling a civil war in Iraq. What Bush failed to mention, as uncovered by the CBO is that those 21,500 COMBAT troops will require at least as many, if not more, support troops to go to the country. CBO estimated that the effort could involve as many as 48,000 troops in all.

Despite what you think about the war in and of itself, I think we can find it agreeable on both sides of the aisle that politicians like Congressman Spratt have been standing up to the administration and reasserting their own voices in the debate. There are numerous bi-partisan non-binding resolution floating around the Senate that express Congress' reticence to escalate the troop numbers in Iraq. Barack Obama just introduced binding legislation that requires a nearly full US withdrawal (save some special forces) by March of 2008 (naturally this has largely been viewed as a posturing move for Obama given his recent entrance into the presidential race).

I say kudos to Congressman Spratt and all the other politicians who are taking a stand, particularly SC politicians (Lyndsey Graham has acted admirably as well). I'm glad to see leadership emerging in Congress and that our legislative body is once again asserting its own power and not being unquestioningly deferential to an executive office that has sought to expand its power time and time again.

Hagel in '08?

The preliminary buzz (and by buzz we mean circumstantial speculation of the media) is that Chuck Hagel is positioning himself for a run for the presidency in 2008. News people seem to think that Hagel's criticism of the war in Iraq stems from his presidential aspirations and the almost universal sense among Republicans that, in order to succeed in '08, any viable candidate must distance himself from the President, particularly on the issue of Iraq.

However, the Blue South does not necessarily think Hagel's criticism of the war is necessarily political in nature (at least not entirely). After all, Hagel does not only have a war record, he has war wounds, and lots of them. And Hagel didn't receive those wounds in just any war, it was the Vietnam War. And since it seems in vogue to draw comparisons between the Iraq and Vietnam wars, the logical conclusion might be that Hagel, who witnessed the shortcomings of American policy in Vietnam first hand, simply doesn't want Iraq to turn into the same kind of conflict.

Now, the Blue South is on the record as saying that Iraq is definitely NOT Vietnam, and we stand by that assertion. However, there are similarities, at least superficially. But we want to give Hagel more credit. We like the guy. He's what McCain might be if he were a few years younger. Hagel's a tough guy. He just told the US Senate that, if they want an easy job, "go sell shoes." Chuck Hagel might be just what the Republican party needs: a tough guy that can appear to be tough on security matters, yet pragmatic in the face of disaster. And it is pragmatism that we desparately need in the politics of our country.

The American people did not elect a whole bunch of Democrats last year because they want hippie love-ins, higher taxes, and expanded government. What America wants is a counter-balance to the President, who has sought to expand the powers of his office drastically since he's been there. America is not a nation of politically polarized people. They do not exist only at the far ends of the spectrum. The vast majority of American people are in the middle, where they ought to be. That's because we're a nation of pragmatists (just ask John Dewey, William James, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., etc.). As far as we're concerned at the Blue South, Chuck Hagel's a pragmatist, he's the kind of guy we need in politics, and we like him.

Affirmative Government

In a brazen political move, our House of Representatives has overridden Mark "Don Veto" Sanford's latest legislative rejection. Apparently, in all his executive wisdom, Gov. Sanford saw fit to veto a bill that would allow residents of Richland County to drive golf carts on the road. Sanford's office declined comment, but the Blue South was able to reach Tiger Woods for his input. Here's the interview:

TBS: Thanks for you time Mr. Woods.
Tiger: Who are you?
TBS: That's not important. So, why does Richland County need the golf cart bill?
Tiger: What's that?
TBS: Don't play stupid Tiger, we know the golf lobby was behind the legislation.
Tiger: Eh?
TBS: So how does it feel to meddle in SC's politics?
Tiger: Seriously, I think you have the wrong number. *click*

Seems fishy that the shady golf lobbying group (otherwise known as the PGA) won't give us straight answers. So in our investigative fervor, the Blue South turned to the bill's sponsor and avid golf carting enthusiast, Rep. Todd Rutherford (pictured above)...and he wouldn't talk to us either. The Blue South believes that Rutherford's silence is due to his ownership of the ultimate in golf cart luxury, complete with oversized mud tires, a DVD player, and a classy taxi-cab yellow paint job that just screams "responsible public official." Anyway, we've decided that we at the Blue South place our full support behind the golf cart bill because we feel that the traffic in 5 points isn't slow enough and it simply isn't safe for pedestrian traffic (especially the intoxicated college freshmen on their way home from a night of underage debauchery at Sharky's).