THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE, Spring 2015

BE CU T B — RAY A p. 1 4 ED

urban renaissance

by SOPHIE GIBERGA

price hikes downtown, p. 8 • medical marijuana, p. 16

The editors

Communication and Community

O

n January 22nd, Politico published a story called “The World in 2030,” a compilation of predictions by thinkers, politicians, and philanthropists.

The predictions were marked by expectations of progress (better classrooms and more sustainable food production) and technological development (digital ID cards and genetic breakthroughs). One panelist, Aaron Miller of the Woodrow Wilson Center, even postulated that we might find life outside of our own planet.

Yet among all of these prognostications, not one panelist predicted broad changes in the way people interact.

It is no surprise that the way we communicate is changing. It was only a generation ago that a majority of people spoke to each other via postage, landlines, and simply dropping in to say hello.

Today, the average teenager sends nearly 4,000 text messages per month, and acronyms such as “btw,” “omg,” and “lol” need no translation. If history is any indicator, this trend will not go away. It was only seven years ago that Apple released the first iPhone.

These rapid developments beg the question, ‘so what?’ Does it matter that we use iMessage instead of the written word to communicate with others? Is it detrimental that long-lost friends or family members can reconnect with just the click of a button? Not necessarily: The proper use of such opportunities can foster, instead of erode, a sense of community. But we must be aware of the costs of our clicks. By augmenting our communication, allowing us to become faster and more efficient, technology can serve a great purpose. But if we allow our screens to become a substitute for social interaction in the flesh, we risk starving the relational appetite that makes us human.

As human beings, we are designed to live in community. It is through our

2 / The Arch Conservative

communities that we are raised, provided for, and protected. Moreover, the building block of our social circles is personal interaction, as such interaction engenders emotional bonding, deep-rooted affection, and intimacy. These things not only heighten our humanity but give life meaning as well.

They help us fight depression, loneliness, addiction, and feelings of self-doubt.

The implications of the new technological revolution are far ranging. A study at Connecticut College showed that students with higher rates of technological usage in

communication showed lower levels of social aptitude and greater levels of social anxiety. Technology has been shown to create a sense of isolation between participants, building an electronic wall impermeable to emotions. Additionally, increased technological use can lead to higher rates of depression and ultimately suicide. It’s not that the pixels themselves are driving us to loneliness but rather the fact that we’ve become functionally incapable of healthily handling our own emotions.

As we look to the future, we ask what it holds for personal relationships. One day, when our generation has passed from the scene, will the face-to-face interaction that characterized the lives of our elders be completely outdated? Or will it become a new form of chivalry, a rarely encountered

personality trait that we seek in others?

While the technologically illiterate are already struggling to keep up in the modern world, society still values the ability to put down the phone and have a conversation.

But one day we may live in a world where people are so insulated by technology that any attempt to connect on a more personal, tangible level will be off-putting and shunned.

We at The Arch Conservative believe that life’s greatest joys happen in our relationships with others. And we firmly believe that true relationships cannot be shared from behind a screen but need the vulnerability and intimacy that only face-to-face contact provides. Science shows that technology can change the neural pathways of children, leaving them with an inability to concentrate, low self-esteem, and a void of deep, personal relationships. These implications are not just personal, but have far-ranging impacts in politics and government. Studies tell us that a child’s ability to empathize can be marred by overuse of technology, and on a grand scale this creates a society of citizens and voters who are unable to relate to those who are going through hardships or suffering.

Furthermore, stepping away from the keyboard forces us to learn to communicate in sentences rather than blurbs, and with true emotion rather than emojis. This is not only healthy, but leads to a more fruitful cultivation of the arts. Great literature, music, and film cannot survive on text-speak. They require more than 140 characters. And we must recognize that with every text or blurb, we are handicapping our ability to communicate with the full beauty language provides.

So put down the phone, step back from the screen, and embrace the personalities around you. You won’t regret it.

—The Editors Spring 2015

Photo Courtesy Catherine Winters

We still need real human interaction.

Spring 2015 The Editors

Communication and Community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2

THE CAMPUS INFORMANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 columns

The GOP’s Impending Brawl

An Education in Wisdom

Baylee Culverhouse

Blake Seitz.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

features

Drunk Economics

Davis Parker & Ryan Stewart

Military Derangement Syndrome

Urban Renaissance Cuba Betrayed

John Henry Thompson. .

Q&A: Rep. Allen Peake

National Signing Day

Connor Kitchings

. . . . . . . . . . . . 10

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Cole Calfee .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Davis Parker. .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Review: Homeland Season 4 Humor

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Sophie Giberga

Culture

8

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

John Henry Thompson.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

14

Satire: Bans of New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

A quarterly journal of opinion raising the standard at the University of Georgia.

John Henry Thompson, M. Blake Seitz,

Editor-In-Chief

EDITOR-At-Large

Elizabeth Ridgeway, Davis Parker, Cover Photo COURTESY Anthony Quintano

Connor Kitchings, graphic design Moira Fennell contributors Tristan Bagala Tucker Boyce

publisher

archconuga.com archconuga@gmail.com twitter: @ArchConUGA Mail: P.O. Box 1181 Athens, GA 30603

on the web: EMAIL:

Manager

Associate Editor Cole Calfee

Vijeth Mudalegundi

Baylee Culverhouse

Ryan Stewart

Colin Daniels

Austin Summers

Seth Daniels

Jake Shumard

Sophie Giberga

Sam McCoy

The collegiate network

Rebel Lord

The Arch Conservative is a member publication of the Intercollegiate Studies Institute’s Collegiate Network. Special thanks go out to Mr. Philip Chalk of The Weekly Standard for his inestimable help.

Spring 2015

The Arch Conservative / 3

CAMPUS

It’s catching.

A

t a school where football is king, it’s easy to ignore other UGA athletic teams which are competing for championships in their respective arenas. In the past, lackluster attendance and flagging interest in men’s basketball was understandable, if regrettable. The team hasn’t made the NCAA Tournament since 2011 and only has three winning seasons in the past 10 years. So why should we care this year?

Simply put, Georgia is a good team and getting better. The Dawgs are currently projected as the 29th best team in the country and look likely to claim an eight seed in the Tournament.

Coach Mark Fox recently claimed his 100th win, and the team has only lost once in Stegeman through mid-February. Crowd participation is getting better, too – there has been more student attendance in the first five SEC games of this season than in all of the conference games last season combined.

If you’ve never been to a game before, now is the time to come to your first. As March Madness rapidly approaches and each game becomes more important, our players and coaches need student support.

We don’t need to just show up; we need to get loud and rowdy.

A new student section initiative, The Junkyard, is up and running.

Follow The Junkyard on Twitter (@UGA_StudentSec). Let’s make our presence known. Let’s create an electric atmosphere. Let’s change the culture.

—Kurt Mueller

Perilous Parking

A dangerous side-effect of crammed study halls.

A

s the notorious first round of tests and midterms arrives, campus becomes consumed by palpable stress. The student population of the Miller Learning Center spikes, tables become a rare commodity, and study rooms are defended like medieval fiefdoms. Soaring demand for the sweet caffeinated nectar of Jittery Joes is reflected by the register line looping into the hallway.

During these weeks, students’ intensified stress levels — coupled with a newfound sense of urgency — generate unforeseen and

4 / The Arch Conservative

Foley Field Revival

—Austin Summers

The home of UGA baseball gets a facelift.

A

s the 2015 college baseball season gets underway, the Bulldogs will enjoy the confines of a newly-renovated Foley Field.

The $12 million project, which began at the close of last year’s season, spanned seven months and will enhance both the fan experience and the quality of the program. Players will enjoy new locker rooms, lounge areas, and training facilities. Fans and guests will enjoy an expanded concourse area, renovated press box, and brand new club seating and lounges. While the capacity of the stadium will remain unchanged at 3,000, some 75 seats have been added behind home plate, and 125 seats have been added in the press box. Due to the heavy reliance on public donations, the renovation was expected to take longer, but generous donations allowed the project to be completed before 2015’s first pitch. The Dawgs’ home opener (an 18-3 domination of Eastern Illinois) was made even sweeter by the updated facility. Here’s to a great baseball season, and be sure to come to a game sometime. Foley Field has never looked better.

—Sam McCoy

TAC Hosts Debate

The topic: Free enterprise, government, and poverty in America.

O

n Tuesday, February 10th, The Arch Conservative hosted its first campus event: a debate between Tim Carney (senior columnist at the Washington Examiner and visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute) and Zach Carter (Senior Political Economy Reporter at The Huffington Post). Students, TAC contributors, and guests enjoyed a stimulating policy discussion centered around the question, “Which better serves the poor, Uncle Sam or free enterprise?” The event was generously

Spring 2015

Kilroy was here.

Basketball Fever Spreads

problematic issues for campus logistics.

In a single-minded quest to maximize convenience, students abandon all regard for sensible parking practices when test season hits. Their judgement is clouded by panic and (all too often) a volatile cocktail of unprescribed medication.

Armed with the knowledge of exactly when Parking Services closes for the day, students abandon all pretense of parking diligence. Ford Explorers left in flowerbeds, Chevy Silverados lodged perilously on hillsides, Jeep Cherokees perched atop curbs: These are common sights. The repercussions of this irresponsibility include blocked-in cars, side-swipes, and hit-and-runs.

To combat the outbreak of illegally parked cars, “Full Parking Lot” signs have been installed with arrows pointing to the adjacent free Hull Street Parking Deck. Additionally, Parking Services employees have been making after hour lot checks to ticket illegally parked cars.

While this issue is a small one in the grand scheme of the university, it makes test weeks even more chaotic. Let’s try and maintain the rule of law, even if it means a longer walk to the MLC.

campus

sga

T

watch

he philosopher-kings of SGA are preparing to crown a new royal family. As this issue goes to print, a real race for Exec is very much in doubt, as sources indicate that only one ticket has filed the necessary paperwork to run. This is a step backwards for SGA’s relevance. Last year’s winning ticket received less than 2,000 total votes. If no opposition emerges, and it appears that that train has left the station, SGA Watch predicts that far fewer will vote in SGA elections this time.

SGA Watch has repeatedly voiced a dual criticism of SGA: It is both exceedingly irrelevant and supremely self-confident. This juxtaposition has too often contributed to a laughable-at-best, unhinged-at-worst atmosphere of resume padding and social crusading within SGA. Over the past year, the Executive Board and Committee structures of SGA have attempted to reign in these instincts among Senators. This is to the credit of the outgoing Executive Board. Drew Jacoby, Jim Thompson, and Brittany Arnold, as well as their staff, did a mostly stellar job of staying out of the limelight and working diligently to achieve their platform.

Still, SGA is a fundamentally ridiculous institution. Election season is a wonderful reminder of SGA’s silliness. The elections code is a moronic and pointlessly byzantine document that speaks to both of SGA’s twin shortcomings – widespread apathy and towering self-regard.

The election calendar is an incredibly restrictive one for such an uninspired campaign process. The brief two-day voting period depresses turnout (the voting period for Homecoming court is an entire school week). The percentage of campaign season allotted for “active campaigning” is miniscule – effectively less than a week. “Restrictive campaigning,” by comparison, lasts about a month. In case those terms are vague, the code instructs that “Wearing t-shirts and buttons, use of social media, posting signs, distributing promotional materials, etc. are viewed as active campaigning.”

These are the primary methods by which candidates’

sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute and the Arthur Rupe Foundation. The speakers both presented compelling arguments, and challenged all in attendance to question and reevaluate their opinions.

As a conservative, it is my sincere hope that those on the political right will listen to Tim Carney. His work points the way forward for conservatism — not merely electorally, but morally.

The poor in society deserve our focus more so than any other group. There is a role for government to play in assisting the poor, and conservatives should freely admit to that. But free enterprise, more so than bigger government, has worked wonders for the alleviation of poverty. By limiting red tape and freeing our economy from the shackles placed upon it by the confluence of government and big business interests, we can help the less fortunate.

Conservatives will do the nation — and the poor — a disservice if they cede the issue of poverty to the left.

—John Henry Thompson Spring 2015

platforms are disseminated to the student body, but their use is needlessly confined. Furthermore, even passive endorsements, such as changing one’s Facebook profile picture to a ticket’s campaign logo, require the submission of an endorsement form. Self-funding and total campaign expenditure caps restrict the amount spent on the campaign. Why? Is Koch Bros. dark money threatening to erode democracy at the University of Georgia? On top of all that, SGA’s Elections Committee must pre-approve all campaign materials a week in advance.

SGA Watch is skeptical of SGA elections’ efficacy in drawing the student body into a dialogue about the direction of our university. But one would think that SGA itself believes in such a mission. These rules belie that assumption. Student Government is hamstrung by its reputation for exclusivity. Nothing about its election calendar or code will change that perception.

—John Henry Thompson

No advocate of “restrictive campaigning.”

SHAG leaves UHC

Group becomes independent student organization.

L

ast fall, The Arch Conservative broke the story that SHAG, the Sexual Health Advocacy Group then officially affiliated with the University Health Center, funded a student field trip whose destinations included Planned Parenthood and Inserection adult store in Atlanta. Since then, it seems that SHAG has split from UHC and become an independent student organization. The UHC website no longer hosts SHAG content in either its articles or links, and does not explicitly connect advisor Katy Janousek to the group. Upcoming SHAG events in Spring 2015 include seminars on the “History of Sex” and “Sex Across the Spectrum”.

—Elizabeth Ridgeway

The Arch Conservative / 5

Columns

The GOP’s Impending Brawl Bracing for primary season.

B

Baylee Culverhouse is a freshman studying political science and English. She is a regular contributor to The Arch Conservative.

6 / The Arch Conservative

Who will be the next standard bearer? for establishment support.

With a mounting list of potential contenders, the question becomes one of survival. Will the more moderate establishment Republican candidates grab the bid?

Will the Tea Party’s favorites make things interesting? Or will a hybrid candidate, in the mold of Scott Walker or Marco Rubio (considered palatable to activists and the powerful donor class alike) upset the field?

The 2016 presidential election presents as a phenomenal opportunity for the GOP. As indicated by November’s red wave, there exists anger at some of President Obama’s policies. Hit by the rocky rollout of the Affordable Care Act, public distrust of unilateral executive action, and nowquiet but distinctly unresolved scandals, President Obama’s approval ratings dipped to 38 percent last year. Republicans can see the open door, even if most acknowledge that the road ahead is decidedly arduous.

Republicans have a real chance to reclaim the Oval Office in 2016 if they play their cards correctly, and playing their cards correctly, in the eyes of many, implies an orderly and constructive primary season.

Party leaders already seem to be taking steps to promote such a primary contest.

Members of the Republican National Committee (RNC), led by Chairman Reince Priebus, set the date for the 2016 Republican National Convention approximately five weeks earlier than usual. This change is intended to head off a long, grueling, and sometimes damaging primary process.

An earlier convention means five weeks less to campaign - and five fewer weeks to run harsh negative advertisements directed at fellow Republicans. In addition, the RNC has moved to reduce the number of

primary debates, and to restrict the extent to which the media can use these debates to hurt the party’s brand.

An overly long election process often creates annoyed voters: Voters who are tired of the dinnertime phone calls and ceaseless television ads. Furthermore, longer campaigns generate burned-out volunteers, stressed staffers, and ultimately an exhausted candidate. To win in 2016, Republicans will need someone ready to launch an appealing message, not a diminished candidate critically wounded by intra-party battles. With such a large pool of candidates jockeying for the nomination, the shorter primary process will be a relief for many.

Some have questioned the RNC’s move, claiming that a shortened season and fewer debates is a scheme to benefit the establishment’s preferred candidates. It is possible, of course, that a shorter contest could hamstring an insurgent candidate. But it is unlikely, due to the realities of delegate math, that a full-on comeback could be mounted in the last five weeks of a campaign.

Thus far, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton seems to be the lone contender for the Democratic nomination, an unusual occurrence for a non-incumbent.

Some argue that an easy primary is a disadvantage in that it will weaken the candidate’s ability to fight, but be assured: Hillary Clinton will be polished, rested and ready for battle when the bloodied winner of the Republican ticket emerges. Until then, conservatives will watch intently, and with grave concern, as the creaking gears of the Republican nominating process grind into action. Let’s hope they don’t grind out hope for a conservative victory in 2016. b spring 2015

Photo Courtesy James Currie

ack in 2011, conservative Republicans worried about a dearth of appealing candidates. The issue today might be an embarrassment of riches: Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, Scott Walker, Rand Paul, and Rick Perry are all almost certainly vying for the nomination.

Could this logjam of competing candidates cause problems for the Republicans’ chances? Perhaps too many candidates from different sides of the Republican ideological spectrum are in the mix.

The strength of the Tea Party will be tested during the primaries. And although some have suggested that 2014’s more moderate — and more successful — candidate slate indicates a decline in Tea Party power, several potential candidates are hoping to tap into grassroots support. Indeed, potential candidates such as Rick Santorum, Ben Carson, and Mike Huckabee are leaning heavily on Tea Party enthusaism.

Towards the centrist wing of the party stands New Jersey governor Chris Christie, hampered, but not totally eliminated, by the “Bridgegate” scandal. Although Christie was cleared of wrongdoing, the incident, in which staff members under the appointment of Christie created massive traffic jams, has left a mark on the governor’s public perception. Furthermore, it has yet to be seen whether Christie’s New Jersey bravado will appeal to Iowans.

In December, former Florida governor Jeb Bush indicated that an exploratory committee was in place to test his popularity for the nomination ticket. At a Kochaffiliated event in January, several potential candidates stepped onto the stage, vying for the support of the donor class of the Republican Party. Following Mitt Romney’s announcement that he will not seek the nomination, Christie and Bush will vie

Columns

An Education in Wisdom Public policy should reacquaint itself with the Western canon.

I

am a writer by trade, but a bureaucrat by training. In my sophomore year, I made a fateful decision that affected the next three years of my academic studies. I enrolled in a dual bachelors-masters program that supplemented my political science course-load with masters work in public administration.

The decision was motivated by equal parts vanity and misperception. As a sophomore (lit. “wise fool,” of the ladder-climbing, endlessly ambitious variety), I thought that it would sound mighty impressive to tell people that I was already pursuing my masters. Subsequent experience at parties bore this out. I came across as Mighty Impressive to a handful of people, for whatever that was worth. As for the misperception, I thought that my studies in public administration would be satisfying. I had come to college to become a professional, had I not? With my masters in public administration, I would become a mandarin.

Competent. Analytical. Employable. All of which, I assured myself, were synonyms for the chief adjective, Wise.

Three years later, I have learned a great many things. I have learned to write a finely-tuned policy memo. I have learned all there is to know about market failure. (This was the public administration program, after all; boooooo capitalism.) I have learned from robotic textbooks that instruct their operators on the arcana of policymaking.

Wisdom according to these manuals is the accumulation of data points, the viewing of said data points through the proper theoretical lens, and the application of the proper treatment to the human data points under one’s command, such that subsequent accumulations of data points reflect a desired change. I was soaked in this antiseptic bunkum for many semesters. In Blake Seitz is a senior studying political science and public administration & policy.

He is Editor-At-Large of The Arch Conservative.

spring 2015

May, I will have the mandarin training certificate to prove it. It will languish for all time as a line on my resume, and nothing more.

Contrast this with my experience at the University of Oxford, where I am studying for spring term. I am taking three classes, political philosophy from Plato to Machiavelli, political philosophy from Hobbes to Nietzsche, and historiography of English literature. All three meet in intimate classroom settings one hour per week. The rest of the week is spent in the library, reading primary texts and writing lengthy essays. The first two weeks of the program, I read Plato’s Republic, Thomas Hobbes’s Le-

I was soaked in this antiseptic bunkum for many semesters. In May, I will have the mandarin training certificate to prove it. viathan, Thomas More’s Utopia, and hefty section of Sir Philip Sidney’s Old Arcadia, accompanied by secondary sources discussing the same. Each week, I am guided first by the eminences of the Western canon, then by the eminences of the modern day, and finally by my professors in lively hours of dialogue.

These eminences have very little to say about the arcana of policymaking, but much to say about deeper matters. E.g.

What is justice? What is the best regime?

What is the foundation of civil society?

What does it mean to be a citizen? How an expert answers these questions determines whether or not he is dangerous. If he answers them a certain way, he is a philosopher-king. If he answers them another way, he is a brownshirt. Fascist states were marvels of modern policymaking, after all. The

trains ran on time there. Their terminus happens to be the death camp.

Admittedly, I’m making a somewhat unfair comparison. While Athens is a wonderful college town in every respect, it has nothing on the musty libraries, “dreaming spires,” and high-tweed environment of Oxford. As a visitor in this place, no doubt I am intoxicated by its many charms — it is not every day that you can read Hobbes, More, and Sidney on the same plot of land where all three kicked around as undergraduates.

Additionally, some might argue that masters degrees are meant as professional training courses, to be undertaken after a generalist undergraduate education. You had four years to read the old books and ask big questions, these defenders would say. Now we will teach you to get a job.

This is not how college works in practice, however. While some of my classmates in the masters program had a liberal arts education (easily identifiable because of their complaints about its uselessness in the job market), most did not. They received a purely technocratic undergraduate education in political science or a related field, and were following that to its logical conclusion in their graduate studies.

None of these students, by the way, were bad people. They were bright and motivated to a man, drawn to the program because they sensed, rightly, that there is something admirable about public service. But I suspect that a great many of them believe that, precisely because they are not total reprobates, they can rely on their gut to make ethical decisions, while their professional skills clean up the rest. Upon graduation, more than a few students in more than a few majors will absorb the sophist’s assurance that I am proficient, therefore I am wise.

Three years too late, I confirmed for myself that an education in great books has transcendent, redeeming value. You can learn from my dearly-purchased, meager wisdom by pursuing such an education.

Dreaming spires recommended, but not required. b

The Arch Conservative / 7

Features

Drunk Economics Collusion fears mount as liquor prices rise.

by DAvis PArker & Ryan stewart

M

ore so than almost any other college in the country, the University of Georgia is intimately associated with the town in which it resides. Athens is known for its music, dining, and alcohol. This latter category often goes unspoken when recruiting students — no parents want to hear about the prevalence of underage drinking — but it certainly looms large in their day-to-day activities.

With nearly 100 bars, a litany of liquor stores, and lax fake ID policies, Athens is seen by many as the quintessential college playground. But not all bars are the same.

As in any market, different firms serve different clientele; there are grungy “townie bars”, graduate school bars, Greek bars, and others. Different consumer bases posses differing willingness to pay, leading many undergraduate bars to heavily discount their drinks in order to attract younger, more parsimonious patrons. This phenomenon is best demonstrated by “power hour” specials that many bars have instituted. In the past, students could find unlimited one dollar liquor drinks from nine to eleven at a handful of bars.

From an economic perspective, this pricing strategy made sense — low price happy hours attract patrons so that they will be more likely to stay when the price jumps to its regular level. And the strategy worked, to a point. Power hours incentivized students to migrate downtown earlier and helped build large crowds of buzzed undergrads, yet these students often fled the discounted bars once the promos ended. Many bars were unwilling to drop power hour, as they’d be functionally shut out of the early drinking crowd. Over Winter

Davis Parker is Manager of The Arch Conservative. Ryan Stewart is a sophomore studying marketing.

8 / The Arch Conservative

Break, this predicament changed. According to employees at these discount bars — including Moonshine, On The Rocks, and Whiskey Bent — the managerial staffs met over the break and agreed to an across the board elimination of power hours.

Upon returning to Athens, students were greeted with increased prices downtown. It seemed the spending money they scraped up over the break would not go as far as it used to, and it didn’t take long for them to protest. Students accused the bars of colluding to manipulate prices and create an unfair market advantage. It’s as if all the competing gas stations on a street corner agreed to raise their prices 50 cents per gallon, knowing that the consumer has no other choice but to comply. It’s technically illegal, but not altogether uncommon.

Accusations of collusion have been made in professional sports, the airline industry, industrial agriculture, and a host of other sectors. Collusion in downtown Athens, a place perceived to have low barriers to entry and a myriad of economic players, may seem unlikely. In fact, however, most bars are controlled by a handful of key owners. For instance, Moonshine and Jerzees (two centrally located downtown bars) share the same proprietor. Other owners control upwards of four establishments.

This concentration of ownership allows for greater collaboration among the bars and ultimately opens the door to price collusion. A small oligopoly of establishments may be attempting to dictate the market price.

The effect of rising prices has already begun to change the downtown drinking culture. Instead of arriving early to take advantage of dirt-cheap drinks, patrons are now “pre-gaming” — drinking at home — later into the night to avoid increased costs. This loss of revenue early in the night is something that bars are beginning to

notice, and they will have to decide if decreased traffic is a bigger threat to profit margins than lack of retention. If college students are looking for a cheap buzz, they will find one, and bar owners should note that price trumps loyalty to a bar in most students’ eyes.

Another schanging aspect of bar operation is the practice of bartenders cutting drink prices for their friends. Most bars allocate each bartender a certain amount of money for a complimentary tab that is designed to draw in their friends’ business.

These tabs are advantageous for bartenders as well because discounted customers are far more likely to tip, as they feel they are being taken care of and valued by the bar. However, increased drink prices have not led to increased complimentary tabs.

These fountains of free alcohol are beginning to run dry, and bartenders are being forced into tough positions with longtime customers. Successful bars keep strict track of inventory, and rising prices decrease the value of these beloved tabs. Customers may be tipsy, but they are far from stupid, and most are beginning to realize that bottom line is superseding client relationships downtown.

It is unfair to assume that downtown bars operate in a vacuum. Rumors persist that some establishments were under pressure from the municipality to raise prices, as discount hours incentivize younger students to quickly drink large quantities of alcohol. This is a safety hazard for the students themselves and creates additional risks for local law enforcement. When asked for comment, the Athens Downtown Development Authority said that it “always supports and encourages responsible drinking” but is only an economic development authority that “works to create an economically sustainable, vibrant, and viable downtown.” spring 2015

FEATURES Features

Photo Courtesy chuck, wikimedia commons

Regardless of whether or not the change in prices is the function of collusion or a pseudo-oligopoly, it is still worth debating the merits of its impact. Is it possible that some prices are too low? Research indicates that the answer may be yes. According to a study by Harvard professor Elissa Weitzman, the most influential factor in determining whether or not a freshman in college would begin binge drinking is price. As bars find their greatest profits in mass-volume sales, they are willing to enormously discount their drinks to rockbottom prices. By buying their liquor and beer at wholesale prices, bars can afford to sell drinks for one or two dollars apiece — so long as they sell lots of them.

Price, more so than any level of information about the risks of binge drinking, dictates consumption among students. So if we consider it a societal goal to reduce overall consumption, especially among young people, shouldn’t we be heralding these price increases as a step in the right direction? Generally speaking, society easily comprehends the concept of a sin tax;

most people agree that taxes on cigarettes, liquor, and gambling do well to curb usage and are good policies. So shouldn’t we be supportive when private owners take this price increase upon themselves, thereby removing the burden from government?

Economists know that manipulation of markets by small groups of people poses a plethora of problems. In this case, however, a powerful utilitarian argument can be made that cheap, accessible drinks are harming students.

President Jere Morehead has repeatedly stated that what he worries about the most — what keeps him up at night — is not the size of Georgia’s endowment or the progress of the athletic department but the problems posed by downtown Athens. Cheap liquor can fuel drunk driving, sexual assault, and alcoholism. By raising prices, perhaps bars are forcing students to reconsider their habits, drink a little less, and make better decisions. But others are skeptical of this outcome’s likelihood. They argue that students will consume alcohol by whichever method presents itself, and

that increased prices downtown (whether via collusion, imperfect competition, or government coercion) will only shift consumption to the dorm room or apartment complex. It is also important to keep in mind the population hit hardest by these price changes: Students below the legal drinking age who visit the cheapest, most accesible establishments. If these bar patrons are willing to risk arrest to consume alcohol downtown, it is likely that they will continue to consume in the future, whatever the marginal cost of losing their precious power hour.

It will take some time to evaluate the impact of these price changes. It is possible (even likely) that in a collective action scheme extending to this many actors; one bar might defect — in essence bringing the collusion to an end. Whatever eventually happens, Athenians and undergraduates alike have received a stern lesson in economics (albeit a lesson with potentially positive side-effects) from an unlikely source.b

Clayton Street: scene of the crime(s).

spring 2015

The Arch Conservative / 9

Features

Military Derangement Syndrome When dislike for a war becomes disdain for warriors.

W

by connor kitchings alking out of the theater after seeing American Sniper, I couldn’t help but consider how this war movie was different from others that Hollywood has produced in the past decade. Its narrative didn’t center on the politics surrounding the Iraq War or continuously focus on the impact that war has on the human mind, like Green Zone or Jarhead. It also didn’t play like a military recruitment video, as did Act of Valor. Instead, it simply told the story of Chris Kyle, a man who believed in something larger than himself, who was ready to lay down his life for his beliefs. American Sniper was the story of a true American war hero — and that is why the left can’t stand it.

The idea that a virtuous person can serve in the military and be proud of his service infuriates some liberals, especially in the context of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The proud creed of “God, country, family: in that order” is anathema to them.

Many just cannot wrap their minds around the belief that a man can be a part of the military and righteously fight the enemy to protect his brothers-in-arms and his country. And, naturally, radical elements of the left attack any ideal that doesn’t adhere to their “progressive” sense of morality.

Connor Kitchings is Associate Editor of THE ARCH CONSERVATIVE.

10 / The Arch Conservative

The attacks have been ruthless and incessant. Some have called Kyle a “psychopath” or a “murderer” as they point to his autobiography, which includes the admission that one of his biggest regrets is that he didn’t kill more of the “savages,” even though Kyle also included the reason he was proud of the killing was the fact that he was protecting his fellow soldiers and his country. He believed that every enemy combatant that he didn’t kill was likely to

“Hanoi Jane” in her element. kill one of his fellow soldiers.

Liberal documentary maker Michael Moore had a more wide-ranging criticism of Kyle and the movie. Moore’s response to the movie involved calling all snipers “cowards” and insinuating that the United States was worse than cowardly because we were the “invaders” of Iraq. These attacks, while disgusting, are not restricted to just American Sniper, Chris Kyle, or even the Iraq War. Rather, they demonstrate a grander, overarching pillar of American liberalism that reaches back to well before the War on Terror.

Disparaging the military and its members became part of mainstream leftist practice during the Vietnam War. The Vietnam Era was the first period in American history where widespread dissension against all facets of a war became a political platform. Previously, people had opposed wars due to concerns for the humanitarian or economic costs of war itself. Other times, objectors held geopolitical concerns regarding intervention in conflicts on the other side the world. In the case of the Korean War, many were skeptical of the notion that the United States should get involved in the civil war of a country across the Pacific Ocean.

Nevertheless, there was at still a common acceptance from the public that stopping the relentless advance of Communism was in the United States’ best interest.

Public perceptions of the Vietnam War followed this pattern, at least initially. But as events at home and in the jungles of Indochina progressed, public opinion on the war deteriorated. While many Americans continued to support the effort, the impact of widespread antiwar sentiment became clear: For the first time, the concept that the U.S. stood on the wrong side of history (and was fighting for it) entered the political mainstream.

A sizeable contingent of the anti-war movement sympathized with North Vietnam, and even articulated parallels between Vietnam’s civil war and the American Revolution. Certainly, the Vietcong and the Communist North viewed the conflict as an extension of their previous war for independence from France. They Spring 2015

Photo Courtesy Ragesoss

Features

saw America as another colonial power looking to dominate the region for geopolitical reasons. Many Americans, some of which were exposed to what amounted to propaganda, came to agree with the North Vietnamese. The enemy mounted arguments, based on liberty and self-determination, which were designed to appeal to American sensibilities. Anti-war activists — and a chunk of the general public — accepted these claims, ceding the premise that American troops stationed in Vietnam were invaders and marauders. While a minority view, this notion drove resentment of American soldiers in Southeast Asia and fueled despicable treatment of returning veterans.

Unsurprisingly, the beating heart of anti-military sentiment during the Vietnam War was located in Hollywood. (Times don’t really change, do they?) During the conflict, there was no greater embodiment of this sentiment than actress Jane Fonda.

Fonda toured North Vietnam in 1972, speaking to government and military officials during the trip. During a tour of a North Vietnamese encampment, she made radio broadcasts to American troops, urging them to stop bombing North Vietnam.

She even posed for photographs while sitting in a live anti-aircraft cannon. To many serviceman and veterans, the photo and radio broadcast, in which she called American serviceman “war criminals,” easily constituted an example of giving “aid and comfort” to America’s enemies.

Many called for her to be put on trial for Spring 2015

treason. Fonda’s treachery constituted a watershed moment. This war wasn’t being opposed for mere political reasons. Instead, the Americans sent to carry out the war’s objectives were cast as antagonists.

For her part, Jane Fonda made millions of dollars, won two Academy Awards, and won the American Film Institute’s Lifetime Achievement Award.

The left’s toxic attitude towards the military did not pass with the conclusion of the war in Vietnam. Indeed, this was the rhetoric in which future liberal leaders were steeped as youths. In the ultimate irony, the Democratic Party nominated just such a man for the office of Commanderin-Chief in 2004. John Kerry served in the Navy from 1966 to 1970 and received five commendations, including three purple hearts. But by all accounts, he has never demonstrated pride in his military service.

Exceptions to this rule have arisen whenever Mr. Kerry has been competing for high office, whether that office is in the Senate, the White House, or the State Department.

In a symbol of solidarity with the anti-war movement, he threw away another soldier’s medals while protesting the Vietnam War in place of his own. He also testified to a congressional committee that he believed that his fellow servicemen were responsible for committing war crimes, saying they “razed villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan.”

In some quarters, Vietnam-era views of the military have returned. Many liberals, like Michael Moore, see America not

as a liberator of people from tyrannical or fundamentalist governments, but as an invader. They see U.S. troops’ presence in Middle Eastern countries as part of a never-ending cycle of colonialism and greed.

Many believe that President Bush committed American blood to a conflict born of oil-driven avarice.

As in the case of Vietnam, these people view America as on the wrong side of a conflict. Their point of view, then, posits that American servicemen and women are fighting for an immoral (or fatally misguided) cause. It’s one thing to disagree with a war. It’s quite another to transfer that opposition to warriors - but the left’s anti-war DNA allows them no other option.

That is why the left’s criticism of American Sniper, and the military in general, has become so vitriolic. The Left has lost the capacity to differentiate between the morality of a war and the morality of a warrior. Praise for a movie, especially a movie that is so clearly pro-soldier, should in no way be seen as a statement of support for the Iraq War or warfare in general. But today, the Left is unable to see it in any other terms. American Sniper takes the horror of the war as a given, and from that crucible exhibits true stories of heroism and bravery. Sadly, the initial position of American soldiers as agents for good is a position the left has abandoned. Americans should thank our military men and women for putting themselves in harm’s way, not denigrate them for carrying out the mission with which they are presented. b The Arch Conservative / 11

Features

Urban Renaissance An entrepreneurial renewal of American cities.

by Sophie giberga

I

n July 2013, Detroit became the largest American city to ever file for bankruptcy. Once the epicenter of American innovation and industry, the city was failing on all fronts. At over 16 percent, the unemployment rate was more than double the national average.

The city ranked among the country’s most dangerous, and Detroiters waited an average of 58 minutes for police to respond to emergencies. As Detroit’s financial stability deteriorated, so did the city itself. Approximately 40 percent of the city’s streetlights didn’t work in 2013 and 78,000 structures had been abandoned. Even Detroiters had given up on the city. At its peak during the 1950s, 1.8 million people called Detroit home, making it the fourth-largest city in America. At the time of bankruptcy in 2013, Detroit’s population had plummeted to only 700,000 residents.

But Detroit isn’t alone. Many of America’s cities are facing challenges of deteriorating infrastructure, waning (or conversely, overgrowing) population, chronic homelessness, cyclical poverty, broken education systems, government corruption, and inefficient public transit. Cities are either growing too quickly without the infrastructure to support the influx or losing the population necessary to support their fundamental institutions.

While struggling cities see their populations falling, many of the country’s most prosperous cities are struggling with huge influxes of population. In the last decade and especially since the economy began to recover, Americans are moving out of the suburbs and back into cities. The 2013 Census found 2.3 million more people living in cities than in 2012. Though indicative of a Sophie Giberga is a senior studying economics and political science.

12 / The Arch Conservative

stronger economy, this trend has presented challenges for growing urban areas. Jobs are harder to find. Public transportation systems built to accommodate a smaller population must adapt to the newcomers.

More cars on the road means more congestion and pollution. Struggling to accommodate the influx of population, cities are growing just to keep up, but have lost a human element.

Ultimately, cities shouldn’t be about skyscrapers or rushing taxis. They should

A city is the intersection of government, philanthropy, innovation, industry, and human capital.

Harnessing the power of each of these players has the potential to create tangible impact. be designed for people. Cities represent a unique opportunity to impact millions of Americans’ lives at once. One in three Americans lives in the top ten most populated cities in the country (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Philadelphia, Washington, Miami, Atlanta, and Boston). By addressing the problems faced by cities, we can address the problems faced by a majority of Americans. A city is the intersection of government, philanthropy, innovation, industry, and human capital. Harnessing the power of each of these players has the potential to create tangible impact.

As new urban challenges have emerged, so have new organizations committed to solving them. These organizations want to build strong urban centers capable of tackling challenges. They are attracting and supporting communities of entrepreneurs.

And they are developing strong local leaders who are committed to their cities and upon whom citizens can trust.

The Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities (100RC) initiative is working to build a resilient urban infrastructure in cities around the world. 100 Resilient Cities is “dedicated to helping cities around the world become more resilient to the physical, social, and economic challenges that are a growing part of the 21st century.”

So far, the organization has elected 64 cities to its cohort. Each city selected receives funding to elect what 100RC calls a “Chief Resilience Officer” and assistance in developing and implementing a resilience strategy. A resilient city is able to respond to adversity and overcome challenges, be it a natural disaster, an economic recession, or a change in demographics.

Even with a resilient infrastructure and support for entrepreneurs, no city can excel without the guidance and commitment of strong and effective local leaders. It is no secret that city leaders have long held a reputation for corruption. Developing strong, trustworthy leaders is the challenge that organizations like Cities of Service are taking on. Cities of Service focuses on implementing citizen-driven volunteer service projects, but it begins by recruiting and training mayors to be strong leaders and advocates in their communities.

Mayor Karl Dean of Nashville is a founding member of the Cities of Service coalition. Soon after bringing on a chief service officer for Nashville, Mayor Dean was faced with extensive flooding throughout Nashville. As a leader committed to spring 2015

Features

PHoto courtesy tom merton

Where Americans live. citizen engagement and resiliency, Mayor Dean, along with Nashville’s chief service officer, was able to quickly mobilize thousands of volunteers from around the city to clear debris. Cities of Service aims to equip every city with a leader like Mayor Dean, someone who can both perform their job competently and motivate communities to take an active part in improving their cities. Cities of Service has proven the importance of strong local leadership, but also of engaging citizens to be active in their local communities and empowered to make change.

New Orleans, Louisiana was among the first cities selected as a Rockefeller Resilient City. When Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in August 2005 it left a ravaged and broken city in its path. In addition to the 1,833 lives lost during the storm, Katrina left 80 percent of New Orleans under water, resulted in a population decline of nearly 30 percent, and eliminated some 190,000 jobs. Many thought the city could never recover, but New Orleans has proven that it can rebuild — and is now stronger than ever.

At the heart of the recovery in New Orleans is a burgeoning community of entrepreneurs, who, attracted by the challenge the broken city presented, have come to call the city home. One organization that has long been at the forefront of the entrepreneurial movement in New Orleans is The Idea Village. The Idea Village is an incubator for new entrepreneurs, but is also working to develop leaders in the New Orleans community. Since 2009, organization has provided support to 3,411 entrepreneurs in New Orleans and their alumni have generated more than $105 million in economic impact in the area. spring 2015

While The Idea Village has supported entrepreneurs who have created incredible economic value for the city, Tim Williamson, co-founder and CEO of The Idea Village, says that the organization is about more than just that: “The Idea Village was founded on the belief that entrepreneurship is an agent of change and creates the leaders that actually make communities strong.” In 2000, Williamson and his cofounders realized that New Orleans had lost “the type of leaders who knew how to build a resilient, innovative city.” They set out to shape an organization that would develop strong leaders who could take on the enormous challenges New Orleans faced.

Since Hurricane Katrina, Williamson says the attitude of New Orleanians has changed. In a way, he says, “The day after Katrina, everyone became an entrepreneur.” With the old political and business structures fractured, New Orleans had the opportunity to become a laboratory, equipped with the talent to solve even its most deeply rooted problems.

Tim Williamson believes that the key to resiliency in a city is a deep sense of place.

To motivate people to be engaged in their communities and to want to improve their cities will require that we reconnect the city to the people and the people to the city. A resilient city is made up of people who feel a certain sense of ownership of that city and would do anything to keep it alive.

They feel they have a stake in the future of the community. Williamson calls this a “culture of resilience.”

Yuval Levin, founding editor of National Affairs and one of the foremost leaders of the burgeoning reform conservatism movement, said it best: “The premise of

conservatism has always been that what matters most about society happens in the space between the individual and the state—the space occupied by families, communities, civic and religious institutions, and the private economy—and that creating, sustaining, and protecting that space and helping all Americans take part in what happens there are among the foremost purposes of government.” Cities are unique because they represent the entirety of that space. As conservatives, refocusing our efforts on cities not only aligns with our most basic values, it allows us to shape cities that actually work for the American people.

For much of recent electoral history, the left has dominated cities. In the 2012 presidential election, 27 of the 30 most populous cities in the country voted Democratic (the outliers: Phoenix, Salt Lake City, and Fort Worth). But the growth of new, often market-driven urban reform organizations reveals that conservatives shouldn’t be so quick to cede cities. There is a place for conservatives in advocating for cities, and it is at the intersection of philanthropy, government, and business. Those on the right believe in promoting entrepreneurship, empowering leaders, and engaging a vibrant citizenry. The urban environment, more so than any other, provides a laboratory in which to test the innovative and restorative power of these concepts.

Conservatives already understand and appreciate the building blocks of a flourishing city. It’s time that we contribute our time, talents, and principles to the growing movement to revitalize America’s urban areas. The city-dwellers of this country — a growing population — deserve nothing less.b The Arch Conservative / 13

Features

Cuba Betrayed President Obama abandons moral clarity.

by John henry thompson

D

uring the Cold War, many American liberals advocated indefinite coexistence with the Soviet Union. Indeed, nearly the entire foreign policy establishment embraced the underlying premise of détente, i.e., the Soviet model would always exist and must be approached accordingly. The left diagnosed the wrong problem during much of the Cold War, and thus prescribed the wrong strategy to ameliorate it. The problem wasn’t hostility between superpowers.

The problem was the continued Communist domination of Eastern Europe and Russia. Thankfully, others realized that the Cold War could be won, and that the enslavement of millions behind the Iron Curtain was a grave injustice, not a fact to be accepted.

Today, the liberal establishment has repeated the mistakes of the Cold War. As Cuba’s isolation drags towards the sixdecade point, President Obama has taken action to move towards normalized relations with the country. Furthermore, he has called on Congress to end its statutory embargo in Cuban trade. In January’s State of the Union address, Obama struck a tone of contented accomplishment: “In Cuba, we are ending a policy that was long past its expiration date...Our shift in Cuba policy has the potential to end a legacy of mistrust in our hemisphere; removes a phony excuse for restrictions in Cuba; stands up for democratic values; and extends the hand of friendship to the Cuban people.”

The president has identified the wrong problem as it pertains to Cuba. Like his Cold War predecessors, Obama sees poor relations with Cuba, rather than the Castro regime’s dictatorial reign, as the main

John Henry Thompson is Editor-in-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

14 / The Arch Conservative

dilemma to be worked out. Cuba is ruled by a militaristic oligarchy that deprives its impoverished populace of basic liberties such as free speech, assembly, and of course, the vote. Relaxing tensions and eventually normalizing relations with the wardens of the Cuban prison-state will not help the Cuban people. The geopolitical importance of keeping Cuba isolated, which has stopped the Castros from fomenting leftist revolution and spreading their tyrannical influence, has been cast aside as a failure. Quite simply, the administration has it backwards: Hostile relations with the Cuban junta are a requirement for

Relaxing tensions and eventually normalizing relations with the wardens of the Cuban prison-state will not help the Cuban people. any liberty-loving nation, not a monument to Cold War-era squabbles.

Although President Obama cannot lift the embargo on his own, he has made it clear that if he had the power, he would do just that. The argument is often made that liberalizing trade would be mutually beneficial, and would help to alleviate Cuban poverty. One wonders whether, in any other context, the left would admit to free markets’ incredible ability to lift up the poor.

Regardless, this argument is oftentimes persuasive, and were Cuba governed differently, conservatives would surely endorse it. But Cuba is not a valid trade partner

— not as long as trade with the Cuban regime would facilitate the continued denial of rights and liberties to the Cuban people.

Many point to the examples of China and Vietnam as the way forward on Cuba.

To varying degrees, U.S. policy has enabled totalitarian thuggery in both of those countries. China’s growth has indeed given rise to a middle class, but millions remain in poverty. Even if we accept the Chinese economic miracle (and neglect China’s human rights abuses, which are legion), the sheer size of China’s population, and thus its potential economy, makes it a poor comparison for Cuba. Vietnam may be a more suitable parallel, but the comparison should offer no solace to those concerned about Cuban détente. Western businesses have reaped the rewards of Vietnam’s economic liberalization, as have thousands of affluent European and American tourists.

By celebrating Vietnam’s commercial progress, however, the West has conveniently whitewashed that country’s inhuman abuses of life and liberty. Ask an American businessman seeking to expand operations to Vietnam, and he will cite the government’s eagerness to do business with Westerners. It is far less likely that he is aware that Vietnamese state-run drug rehabilitation centers are a front for forced labor — the “Rehab Archipelago.”

American business interests are benefitting from Vietnamese liberalization, but the Vietnamese have gained precious little in the realm of human rights. Cuba carries the same risk. The economic opportunities presented by an opened Cuban market are indeed considerable. Corporate and political entities on both sides of the Florida Straits would profit from investment in the island. It is less clear, however, that increased investment would stay the brutal hand of the Castro regime. The Cuban dictatorship has relied on generous SPRING 2015

Features

Venezuelan subsidies for years. Economic and political unrest have roiled Venezuela (not-so-incidentally, Venezuela is another country whose democracy movement has been ignored or undercut by this administration), and those subsidies are in increasing doubt. By opening Cuba to business investment, Americans could find themselves solving the Castro brothers’ cash flow problems, rather than aiding the average Cuban.

Even if the administration’s desired economic détente is prevented, diplomatic recognition of the Cuban regime is toxic to the cause of liberty. Keeping in mind the stubborn longevity of the dictatorship, the fact remains that Venezuela’s deteriorating ability to keep Cuba afloat presented a real opportunity for political change. Obama has effectively closed the door on that opportunity. Setting aside that miscalculation, however, doesn’t redeem the administration’s decision.

By acceding to the regime’s long-held wish for recognition, the U.S. has dealt a severe blow to the Cuban democracy movement.

Obama’s decision in effect guarantees that the Castro regime will persist for the foreseeable future and thus ensures that its insidious assault on the people of Cuba will continue as well. Some of Obama’s supporters protest that since the status quo hasn’t produced regime change, policy must be adjusted. This is fair. But nothing about the administration’s language indicates desire for regime change. To the contrary, this action rewards the regime.

Obama dresses his no-strings-attached bailout of the Castro brothers in language of compassion. This is only natural — the entire free world should mourn the oppression of the Cuban people. Why, then, are leading Cuban dissidents excoriating the administration’s decision? Yoani Sanchez runs a world-renowned blog, Generacion Y, which serves as a crucial outlet of (somewhat) free speech from within Cuba. Upon learning of the Obama White House’s decision, Ms. Sanchez remarked that “Castroism has won.” Jorge Luis García Pérez, a former political prisoner and leader of the Cuban resistance movement Atunez, voiced his opinion on Twitter, Spring 2015

claiming that Obama had “betrayed” Cuba’s “yearnings for liberty.” Mr. Perez attended the State of the Union as a guest of House Speaker John Boehner.

Since the administration announced the changes, political arrests in Cuba have continued apace. As part of the deal, the Castro regime agreed to release its political prisoners, something they have promised the Pope and the Spanish government in the past — and which has never actually happened. Since December 17th, it appears that some 20-odd prisoners have been let out of jail. They are under constant surveillance and carry legally restricted status. Still, excuses are offered, and not one administration official has indicated that Cuba’s end of the “bargain” will be monitored. Instead, celebratory passages are added to the State of the Union address.

An undeserving beneficiary.

Weeks after the plan for normalized relations was announced, Raul Castro fulfilled the worst suspicions of the deal’s critics.

The dictator has demanded that the U.S. Naval base at Guantanamo Bay be returned to Cuba, and has called for vast sums in reparations. Most depressingly — and predictably — the Castro regime reiterated its refusal to change its single-party political system. As skeptics of Cuban détente predicted, the Castros have taken Obama’s bailout and leveraged it, with ample use of propaganda, for their own purposes. All this to earn a flailing administration a hollow foreign policy “achievement.”

* * * Within seconds of President Obama’s announcement on Cuban relations, upper-crust liberals took to social media to express their approval and excitement.

Some well-intentioned (but ultimately misguided) supporters were pleased to see steps being taken to help the Cuban people. Others used the moment to voice their craven desire to luxuriate in Cuba’s “quaint” atmosphere, undoubtedly assisted by a fresh mojito. Now, the mere desire to visit Cuba is certainly understandable.

But it is beyond ironic to witness liberals, supposed defenders of the oppressed, wax poetic about the thought of their feet on Cuban sand whilst men in olive uniforms torment missionaries, aid workers, and political dissidents.

The left in America refuses to treat the Cuban regime with the disdain that it, and all such tyrannies, rightly deserve. Cuba gets carte blanche to torture and oppress.

Perhaps this is due to a lingering leftist dalliance with the “romantic” nature of Fidel’s revolution (The enduring popularity of Che Guevara t-shirts bolsters this theory.) Or perhaps liberals, including President Obama, simply see Cuba as a handy brush with which to tar conservatives as Cold War throwbacks. Whatever the motivation, the tendency to pardon Cuba’s dictators has been revived, not quelled,

by Obama’s policy decision.

By taking executive diplomatic action to normalize relations with Cuba, this administration has thrown a life raft not to the people of Cuba, thousands of whom have risked everything to reach our shores, but to their oppressors.

In his finest address, Ronald Reagan decried those in America who would say to those under the Soviet heel, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” The context is different, but the lesson applies. Today, there is no threat of nuclear war with the Soviet Union, but the liberal intelligentia still wishes to ignore those held in the Communist gulag — all for the sake of détente.

The cause of liberty in Cuba has been beset on all sides for the past 55 years. At times, U.S. policy has failed to aid that cause, but this latest change actively undermines it. Today, as the Cuban people yearn for liberty, we have made a deal with their slave masters. There is no greater shame. b The Arch Conservative / 15

Culture

Q&A:

Hayleigh’s Hope Act Rep. Allen Peake on HB 1.

16 / The Arch Conservative

SPRING 2015

PHoto courtesy allen peake

I

change lives in our state. had my doubts walking into a College Republicans meeting Peake has stood strong in the midst of public opposition and for which State Representative Allen Peake was scheduled to has shown an obvious emotional connection to the children who speak. I was curious about the legislation he had proposed are the driving force behind the bill itself. When asked what would for the legalization of medical marijuana throughout the state of happen if the bill once again failed to pass through both the House Georgia, but I certainly wasn’t expecting to walk out of the meetand Senate, Peake responded by saying, “I am fully prepared to ing a proponent of Peake’s ideas or the bill itself. In the past I’ve risk going to jail to get medicine for these children with seizure held a fairly neutral stance toward the movement to legalize both disorders.” Bold in the defense of his cause, medical and recreational use of marijuaPeake feels that civil disobedience would na in other parts of the country. Frankly, be would be appropriate if the bill were to I didn’t see how it would be possible in be rejected once more. With that said, he our state — or anywhere else in the Deep is confident that that will not be the case.

South, for that matter.

I had the chance to speak with RepreA middle Georgia native and successsentative Peake on the phone and asked ful entrepreneur, Peake was recently rehim a few general questions on behalf of elected to his fifth term in the Georgia The Arch Conservative.

State House and holds various prominent positions within the state legislative arena. the arch conservative: What He is respected throughout Georgia and is the difference between what the study the country for his continued excellence in committee is researching this year and both business and politics. what they looked into in 2014?

The bill, HB 1, is titled “Haleigh’s Hope Rep. Peake: There are a couple of big Act,” a reference to Haleigh Cox — a differences — last year, we started by look4-year-old whose family was forced to ing at how to provide cannabis oil with move to Colorado to obtain medical marivery low amounts of THC for kids with juana legally. The bill originally proposed severe seizure disorders. What we learned that Georgia implement a system in which Rep. Allen Peake was that we could certainly provide a very cannabis could be grown in-state and low THC product, but there may be other processed into an oil containing minimal diagnoses that could potentially benefit from that. Because of this, parts THC (the component in marijuana that gives recreational we’ve expanded the bill to include 17 total diagnoses and a higher users an intense “high”.) The cannabis oil would then be medically level of THC. prescribed to children suffering from severe cases of epilepsy and tac: What do you have to say to farmers who are anxiously hundreds of seizures per week. awaiting your bill to pass and see its passing as step toward wholeUltimately, the state Senate rejected this version of the bill dursale legalization? ing the 2014 legislative session. Since then, there have been a few Rep. Peake: I would tell them that that is the farthest thing notable changes and Peake expects the bill to pass this spring. The from where we are heading as a state. Governor Deal has made it most significant change is that the legislation no longer proposes very clear that he would never allow legalization of marijuana for that the plant itself be grown in-state. Instead, it calls for decrimirecreational purposes in Georgia. I’ve also made it very clear that I nalization of possession of the drug within state lines. This will am absolutely opposed to that as well. I don’t think that you could allow families like the Coxes to remain in-state to lawfully pursue even get that possibility in the ballpark at this point and, in fact, treatment for Haleigh and others. it’s something that I will fight vigorously against.

For children with severe cases of epileptic seizures, the bill is tac: Do you see yourself working on issues of similar merit in clearly an answer to the future? prayers. Following Cole Calfee is a Rep. Peake: This bill has really been the higlight of my legislathe story throughsophomore studying tive career. I’ve passed a lot of bills and been involved in getting out the past five marketing. He is a a lot of legislation passed, but this is one that I know is going to months, I’ve beregular contributor at The Arch Conserhave a positive impact on people’s lives. Because of that, I’m not come an advocate vative. sure that I’m going to ever be involved in something as important of the bill and its as this in the future. Maybe so, but this one will certainly be at the tremendous, uptop of the list for me. b lifting potential to

culture

Review: Homeland Season 4 Finally, an honest depiction of the global War on Terror.

S

Promotional image

ince September 11, 2001, the television and movie industries have struggled with how to present the global war on terror. Some efforts have been met with significant critical acclaim but failed to engage the wider public (Hurt Locker).

Others captured millions of avid fans but induced cringes among the entertainment elite (24). The recently released docudrama American Sniper may end up being the most successful movie about the war, following a string of box-office and reviewcolumn mixed bags such as Lone Survivor and Zero Dark Thirty. The most forgettable stabs at depicting modern warfare skirted the actual war altogether, instead depicting ridiculous global bogeymen bearing no resemblance to the very real threats we face (see: Act of Valor, Olympus Has Fallen).

In the midst of Hollywood’s struggle to come to terms with unconventional warfare on screen, Showtime’s Homeland has garnered praise from critics and excellent ratings for a show broadcast via subscription channel. That praise is well deserved.

Many productions focused on the war on terror have attempted to wedge themselves neatly into one of two demographic camps: cultural conservatives apt to celebrate military values and support the war (Sniper does this brilliantly) or liberal audiences seeking affirmation that our fight is unjust, unwinnable, or ill-advised. What makes Homeland great is its flat refusal to engage in this dichotomy. Watch any season of Homeland with a conservative, and he’ll harrumph at such plot twists as (spoiler alert) the radicalization of an American soldier when an Iraqi boy he befriends is killed in a U.S. drone strike. Watch it with a liberal, and prepare for protests when sometime-CIA director Saul Berenson (Mandy Patinkin) growls that radical Islam John Henry Thompson is a senior studying economics and political science. He is the Editor-In-Chief of The Arch Conservative.

Spring 2015

is our greatest enemy, or when nosy Senate oversight panels disrupt national security interests. Protagonist Carrie Mathison (Claire Danes) is no Jack Bauer, and in this more nuanced intelligence community, torture isn’t the answer to every unsolved puzzle. Still, Ms. Mathison and her allies are patriots, willing to use extreme ends to kill terrorists and protect the country.

Moral equivalence is used sparingly, and when it is implied, it is more compelling than disrespectful. Throughout the show,

battle lines are apparent. We are the good guys, and the terrorists are evil.

In its fourth season, Homeland has taken an enormous leap. Set mainly in Afghanistan and Pakistan, season four covers Carrie Mathison’s rocky tenure as CIA station chief in Kabul, and later, Islamabad. Mercifully, the Nicholas Brody plot, which consumed much of the first two seasons, has come to an end. This means that Sergeant Brody’s insufferable family life is gone from the scene. This development redounds to the great benefit of season four. The viewer is immersed in counter-terrorism suspense without having to witness the nauseating angst-fest that is daughter Dana Brody.

Season four focuses on Pakistan, and especially on the complicated — and often corrupt — interplay between American diplomats, local government officials, Pakistani intelligence, and terror cells. Throughout the season, the viewer is kept guessing

as to the allegiances of several recurring characters. Ex-CIA Director Berenson again looms large; suffice it to say his retirement is no rose garden. Laila Robins is excellent as Martha Boyd, U.S. ambassador to Pakistan. Peter Quinn (Rupert Friend) is again riveting, taking his CIA assassin character to new heights (single-handedly executing more successful missions than the rest of the Agency combined) and lows (crippling self-doubt regarding his violent career path). And of course, Carrie Mathison is superb. Her often bitingly cold practicality is both horrifying and courageous.

Claire Danes perfectly captures the conflicted character’s desire for victory, while holding firm as the show’s moral center in the face of unprecedented challenges.

Another strength of Homeland is its ability to weave itself into current events.

When radicals threaten the U.S. embassy, officials worry that it could end up as “another Benghazi.” Yes, there are times during season four (and in all of Homeland) when disbelief at a plot twist must be set aside.

But more often than not, the show unfolds so effectively – and believably – that the viewer finds it hard to separate the reality of the war on terror from Carrie, Quinn, and Saul’s battle with militant Islam.

Homeland is a show that raises questions about the future of our mission to defeat terroristic threats to the West. But it raises these questions from within a framework that serves to remind us of the sheer brutality of our enemy, and of the consequences that attend failure. It is by no means a “conservative” show, and that’s a good thing. It is likely to inspire debate and re-evaluation on both the left and right. Homeland’s strength is its nuance, but certainly not nuance for nuance’s sake. Ethical dilemmas pervade the plot, but they aren’t intended to force the viewer to renounce American efforts. They are instead presented bluntly, in such a way that the viewer feels at liberty to wholeheartedly disagree with the ultimate decision. But when Carrie Mathison is calling the shots, we’re damn sure that America’s best interests are being taken into account. b

The Arch Conservative / 17

Columns

National Signing Day It’s very important...for some reason. by davis parker

E

arlier this month, America witnessed what is probably its most bizarre sports spectacle: National Signing Day. On the first Wednesday of each February, hundreds of thousands of middle-aged men watch anxiously as 17 and 18 year-olds around the country sign their official letter of intent to play college football. The letter, a binding agreement between the recruit and university, promises that the signee will attend and compete for a specific university. For these teens, it is a day of joyful celebration, and rightfully so. Who wouldn’t be excited to receive a free education?

National Signing Day has become the focal point of a recruiting season during which grown men obsessively hang on the every word of high school athletes, many of whom are unprepared for the limelight.

Byron Cowart, this year’s top recruit according to Rivals.com, has nearly 12,000 Twitter followers, a number roughly equal to that of former Sen. Saxby Chambliss.

Some fans not only follow prospective players but take it upon themselves to actually recruit. Last year, Tyler Luatua, a highly rated tight end prospect from California, reported that one fan went as far as to say that he would kill himself if Luatua didn’t sign with Southern Cal. On signing day, major networks such as ESPN often live-broadcast the commitments of players, leading the commits to embrace flamboyant ceremonies involving live animals and other ridiculous props.

In one infamous ceremony, the mother of Alex Collins, now the starting tailback at Arkansas, stole her son’s letter of intent in an attempt to force him to sign with the local Miami Hurricanes.

In what might be the wackiest example

of all, a Nevada high school senior Kevin Hart staged a fake commitment ceremony between California and Oregon in February 2008. Despite being only modestly recruited and never receiving an offer from either school, Hart committed to the University of California-Berkeley Bears in front of a packed auditorium of his classmates. It didn’t take long for Hart’s fraud to be sniffed out, and he became a national laughingstock - a humorous example of recruiting gone awry.

In a recruiting world where high schoolers are household names, it’s no surprise that some stretch too far for the spotlight.

Kevin Hart’s commitment is as much an indictment on recruiting culture as it is on himself. When we treat teenagers like superheros, it shouldn’t come as a shock when they think they can fly. b

HUMOR A ban on cell phones in the nation’s bigge st school system is creating an uproar amon g parents and students alike.

Parents have written angry letters and e-ma ils, staged rallies and news conferences, and threatened to sue. Some City Council members are introducing legislation on their behalf.

But Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Scho ols Chancellor Joel Klein have staunchly refus ed to drop the ban. They insist cell phones are a distraction and are used to cheat, take inappropri ate photos in bathrooms and organize gang rende zvous.

They are also a top stolen item...

*real news stories **satirical

- Associated Press, May 12, 2006

m fleet of yela nearly unifor r fo n’s an pl ’s administratio York City the Bloomberg blocked New y of e da es on to Tu on ow A judge lly decisive bl ing a potentia e city’s Taxi low taxis, deal hattan said th atives. an iti M in n in e rt tio ta ou or C sp preme plan to requir signature tran ler of State Su in devising a ag H the ity or S. — th o 0 m au 20 lo V its Justice Sh a Nissan N d exceeded e, ha cl hi on si ve is e m m Com the sa 11. and Limousine ators purchase mpetition in 20 ber 8, 2013 llow taxi oper Tomorrow co to ye of l Oc al s, xi ly me Ta Ti ar e rk th ne that part of - The New Yo by the city as en os ch el od m

of the success alpointing to y ch b al n g io le is h the dec Althoug ed s. ifi 0 1, 9 st 9 ju 1 l ar e u ci on Jan y ...the Coun ar ban, instituted in th into effect of o g ff l o il il m es w si lv cy n themse , the poli ea d Singapore’s w te n u to o s m th mon e been have three lenges hav g dicts” will ad m u free chewin “G .

2017 rkers - that o t.

Y en . id ew v N ce ty is self-e d to most the substan us to us - an public health and safe n addressed once “It’s obvio to b reat d it has ee -Wilson. sist. The th tiful city, an u ea b 2016 cannot per Wallace r u o March 13, an Abigail grace to m is o d a lw is ci n m u o C Gu ed m ai ” procl and for all,

...During a press conference timed to acco mpany President Warren’s visit to the city, de Blasio unveiled a long-anticipated ban on police badges. The movement to ban badges began after an altercation betw een police officers and gang members during which Sgt. William Lorenzo was saved when a bullet glanced off of his NYPD badge.

After an emotional march by civil rights activ ists, Mayor de Blasio came to support the badge ban.

“The badge stands for oppression and racis m in too many of our communities,” said the Rev. Al Sharpton following the May or’s announcement. “I’m pleased to see my friend Bill de Blasio call for a ban on these gleaming symbols of police privilege. It’s high time our children stopp ed looking up to the police, and removing their badges will assist in a transition away from cop-worship…”

July 7, 2017

...Coun to clear cil members pa th contain e way for a b ssed legislatio an on p n ers Thu la rsday. T as a vic he appr stic foam tory to oval ca Mayor who fir me Mic st final Sta introduced the hael Bloombe rg initiativ te of th e City a e at his , Februa ddress ry. this pas The de t year to cision will all ow offi see if p cials on olystyr recycle ene e ds tally ef ufficiently an foam can be fective, d be “e nvironm econom safe.” I enica fn July 20 ot, the ban wil lly feasible an 15. d l be enf orced in Mayore le ct Bill d his sup e Blasio port f has voic “This is or the plan. ed a very im to redu portant ce the c s tep ity reduce the amo ’s solid waste forward stream, unt of p there th roducts to at are d th an ing on for half gerous and li at are out ter a Speake r Chris century in our ally livtine Qu inn said landfills,” -H . uffingto

n Post,

January

23, 201

5

g down is steppin al, o h w , sio and ill de Bla ll-girl sc Mayor B September ’s ca on ti a rt o p trans ake of w e n g in in the w ep ed a swe announc forms of 021, all 2 . , 1 re u s ry a a ycles, e u m g on Jan ndem bic Beginnin ortation, save ta ts. stree transp personal ned on New York the Council, we n o a ight f ortawill be b the fores stainable transp re to s k n a u s tu “Th fu in t y h g tr the coun sent a bri will lead m bicycles repre the internal com e f d o ur n o d a n d T e n . a e n tio is is th r roads h u T o . y n o it c p for our eath gri ngine’s d or. bustion e claimed the May r (Mayor-elect ro so s p e c ,” c s u g s n lu will face lasio’s B e d e n e w r, she o p Wh s e k n... linton) ta to the baNovember 6, 2020 Hillary C gal challenges s le numerou