I definitely owe an update here. To sum the last couple of weeks up, the Tuesday before last I was elected chairman of the UF College Republicans, so I'm looking forward to doing some good things in the Fall. My vice-chairman Brittnie will be taking care of things over the summer, because I will be spending 100 days in China, starting this Friday.

I finished up finals last Wednesday and drove home on Friday. Now that I'm home, I only have a quick turn-around before heading off to China. Beth is flying in on Wednesday and on Friday we're flying out together. The plan is to spend a week seeing Beijing, Nanjing, Suzhou and Shanghai. Then, we'll fly in separate directions for our respective study abroad programs - mine in Xi'an, hers in Beijing. More than likely, then, my posts for the summer will be coming from Xi'an, China (assuming blogdrive isn't blocked). There's a possibility I may be doing some journalism/column-writing from over there as well, but I'm waiting for details. So, that's the scoop - talk to you next (probably) from China.

For some reason the Alligator didn't post my column on the website today, causing a momentary panic this morning before I ran downstairs and found that yes, it is dindeed still in the print version. I was worried they'd rejected it because it conflicted with their socialist ideologies. Anyway, since they didn't post it I don't feel obligated to link to them this week. Here's the column:

On Sunday, John Forbes Kerry defended his statement that he has been secretly endorsed by foreign leaders, despite the fact that he has not gone abroad in two years. Kerry defended himself, clarifying “you can go to New York City and you can be in a restaurant and you can meet a foreign leader.” This odd statement invites investigation into the identity of those individuals endorsing this international man of mystery, John Kerry. Let’s take a look at some of the suspects:

First we have North Korean dictator and movie-buff Kim Jong-Il, whose mouthpiece news agency reported a Kerry speech in glowing terms last month, prompting the Financial Times to write “Pyongyang’s friendly attitude towards Mr. Kerry contrasts with its strong anti-Bush rhetoric.” If Kerry is elected, he can count on his friend Dear Leader Kim for tips on starving millions of citizens into submission or selling missile components on the international arms market. Maybe Kerry’s plan for shrinking the deficit includes taking a cue from North Korean economics and selling our nuclear weapons to the highest bidder.

Former prime minister of Malaysia and avowed anti-Semite Mahathir Mohamad endorsed Kerry in March, just a few months after he urged Muslims worldwide to achieve “final victory” over the Jews that “rule the world by proxy.” He told the Associated Press “Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of the people and of the rest of the world,” - presumably, those same voices calling for the extermination of Jews and the annihilation of Israel.

In February, a Kerry campaign email picked up by the Iranian news agency made the front page and was even published in full in the vehemently anti-American Tehran Times. The paper hailed Kerry’s proposal to “overcome tensions with [other nations]” as a pledge of support for the Iranian theocracy, adding another foreign endorser to Kerry’s growing list.

Kerry’s foreign support is in fact nothing new. During the Vietnam War, Kerry’s claims of US atrocities were favorites of the guards at the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” prison camp. One vet and former POW recalls hearing about Kerry’s speeches for the first time while in prison, where the guards recounted anti-war speeches like Kerry’s as “an example of why we should cross over to [their] side.” The veteran apparently did not appreciate his guards’ endorsement: he calls Kerry “a traitor to the men he served with."

Kerry’s latest foreign endorsement hails from Fallujah, Iraq, where four American civilians were recently murdered, mutilated, burned and hung from a bridge for the crime of attempting to help rebuild Iraq. A representative of the terrorist Army of Mohamad told UPI "God willing Bush will fall down by the hands of Fallujah… If John Kerry wins the election… then we will not fight. But Bush we will always fight."

It seems Kerry does indeed have the support of foreign leaders, including not only representatives from all three nations of “Axis of Evil,” but avowed anti-Semites and Communist prison guards as well. With all these ringing endorsements, Kerry should rest assured that even after he loses in November, he’ll at least still have his friends overseas.

This week's column in the Alligator discusses Dr. Condoleeza Rice's testimony from last Thursday and the controversy surrounding the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB):

Last Thursday’s 9/11 commission hearing proved both the brilliance of Dr. Condoleeza Rice and the hypocrisy of the Democrats.

After weeks of demanding her public presence and sworn testimony, the hostility and rudeness certain commissioners showed Dr. Rice was astounding. Rice started college at fifteen and later became Stanford’s youngest ever provost. Having once considered becoming a concert pianist, she has played with the famed cellist Yo-Yo Ma, at his request. She has read Tolstoy’s War and Peace twice… in Russian. In short, she has approximately as much brainpower resting on her shoulders as the whole political witch-hunt of a commission combined. Still, certain commissioners tried to bully her around, as if they were cross-examining a hostile witness.

Obviously in search more of sound-bytes than the truth, Commissioner Ben-Veniste repeatedly attempted to clip Dr. Rice to one-word answers. After loudly demanding that she testify under oath, the commission seemed determined to prevent her from telling the “whole truth” as they had so recently requested and as she swore to do at their insistence.

As a sitting National Security Advisor, Dr. Rice testified at the discretion of the president. After the way she was treated, every future president should be more wary about allowing his advisors to testify. Fortunately, Dr. Rice is sharp enough to hold her own against a few grandstanding politicians.

The other product of Thursday’s hearing was the demand for declassification of the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing, although the commission already had access to the document.

The now-released PDB was the result of a presidential request for a briefing on Bin Laden’s capabilities and intentions. Anyone who has taken the time to read it should realize nothing in it could conceivably have prevented the attacks of September 11.

The mostly-historical briefing recaps terrorist activity in the U.S. and announces unsurprisingly that Bin Laden wanted to “bring the fighting to America.” The only current threats it discusses - a possible hijacking plot to secure the release of U.S.-held extremists, suspected terrorist surveillance of federal buildings and a possible plan involving explosives - don’t apply to what actually happened. What, one must wonder, could the President have done given that intelligence?

In criticizing President Bush for not acting to prevent the attacks of September 11, Democrats complain that, even though there was no specific intelligence or imminent threat, the president should have done something anyway.

Amazingly, in criticizing President Bush for liberating Iraq, these same critics charge that the President should not have taken action because Iraq did not pose an “imminent” threat. How can this non sequitur be explained? Either these critics have not learned anything from 9/11 or (more likely) it is simply politically-driven hypocrisy.

These critics are just half-way there to learning the primary lesson of 9/11: a reactive approach to terrorism is not effective. This nation must meet terrorists on their own turf and defeat them before they get the opportunity to pose an imminent threat. It’s a good thing the Bush administration has learned that lesson.

This week's column discusses the future of the University of Florida and the path I believe it should take:

Under the leadership of President Lombardi, the University of Florida broke into the national rankings and solidified its leadership as Florida’s flagship university. Students at the UF understand that this is not just another state-system university like a certain school down I-10.

In addition to being the top state university, UF has the potential to become a prestigious national institution as well. In order to take that next step, UF must have the independence to set its own budget and tuition, without excessive interference from the politicians in Tallahassee.

Everyone agrees that class sizes are too high and funding too short, but under the current system it is practically impossible to lower enrollment or raise tuition. UF depends on high numbers of students to keep the budget balanced, and the legislature refuses to raise in-state tuition because it knows it will have to pay for any increase through Bright Futures.

To compensate, the legislature has raised tuition for non-resident students year after year, discouraging out-of-state students from attending. A good university holds on to in-state talent, but a great university has to attract talent from out-of-state and from overseas as well.

In the meantime, politicians in Tallahassee have meddled with the state university system’s budget, awarding funding to political projects rather than addressing the educational concerns of the students.

It is time to cultivate the University of Florida as a prestigious research university competitive at the highest levels nationally, by granting UF a level of autonomy in budgeting and tuition, using the University of Michigan as a model. Michigan’s constitutional independence has made Big Blue highly competitive with private institutions while continuing to serve the interests of the state as a public university should.

Bright Futures has been an unqualified success as a merit scholarship to keep Florida’s best and brightest in-state, but as the quality of our state institutions rises, the scholarship program must change with the times as well.

By decoupling the Bright Futures award from tuition and granting UF the power to set its own costs, the university would be able to fund its future development, lower class sizes and become more selective. UF students would receive Bright Futures as a fixed amount rather than a percentage and the university would be free to set tuition and determine its own budget as appropriate.

Allowing UF to make more of its own budgetary decisions would ensure a more efficient use of resources, free of political pressure. As part of an annual contract, the university would receive state funding based upon the number of students that graduate.

As a former dean at the University of Michigan, President Machen is in a unique position to advocate limited autonomy for the University of Florida because he has seen the results independence can achieve. We can continue turning UF into a world-class institution or we can remain content with the status quo. Let’s work to build the finest university possible.

I gave my friend Leslie an interview for her reporting class and I figured I had might as well post the interview here:

Leslie: What do you think of the Massachusetts legislature approving the ban on gay marriage but okaying civil unions?

Hunter: I think that compromise is appropriate for the state of Massachusetts. It's important that whatever decision is reached be the result of a legislative process directed by democratically elected representatives of the people. There has been a discussion and a debate in Massachusetts and its legislature has decided upon this course of action and it has recently been okayed by the state's supreme court - that is the way the system is supposed to function.

Leslie: Do you believe that this is a state issue or that the federal government needs to get involved?

Hunter: That is a far cry from the situation in San Francisco where one mayor decided to break the law by illegally issuing licenses, or a situation in which a handful of unelected activist judges decide the matter for the whole country.

Hunter: Marriage is a state issue. The issuance of marriage license has always been handled exclusively by the states. However, I believe it is within the federal government's purview to pass legislation like the Defense of Marriage Act that allows states to decide for themselves whether or not to recognize same-sex marriages rather than having these unions imposed upon them by neighboring states. Governing federal judges is another matter for which it is appropriate for the federal government to take action. If judges start legislating, it's the role of the other two branches of government to step in and check them. That's what our system of checks and balances is all about.

Leslie: Do you think it's something that should be put as a referendum on the ballot, as is being done in Georgia, or should be decided by state legislatures?

Hunter: That's a matter that each state should decide on its own - there's no universal solution to this complex question. In Florida, a referendum means a constitutional amendment and ideally this issue should be kept to statutes, but if activist judges block that route for the people's voice, then it might be appropriate to look at other methods.

Leslie: What do you think about gay marriage should it be legalized or not and why? And do you think civil unions are an alternative if different from marriage at all?

Hunter: I believe that "marriage" is a union between a man and a woman. The debate is not about whether or not homosexuals should be allowed access to the institution of marriage, it's about whether the definition of marriage should be changed to include same-sex unions. I believe society has an important interest in promoting traditional marriage and traditional family and for that reason I don't think that definition should be changed. I'm not sure I understand your last question.

Leslie: Do you think that the terms "civil union" and "marriage" differ in meaning? And if the definition of marriage shouldn't be changed, should civil unions be the alternative to marriage for same sex couples? I don't know if that cleared it up at all.

Hunter: It did… Yes, the terms differ in meaning - one of the questions, however, in allowing civil unions is whether or not those unions should be available to everyone or only for homosexual unions. If they are for everyone, will they completely supplant marriage? If so, would the replacement of traditional marriage with civil union be positive? Those questions have not been answered. Before beginning a massive social experiment, altering the structure of the most basic unit of civilization - the family - we need to take a deep breath, not rush into a decision either way with ideological fervor and examine what the consequences would be for each possibility. Often, a hastily-made compromise leaves no one content.

Leslie: How do you think the family would be affected by the legalization of same-sex civil unions and how do you propose those consequences to society be examined?

Hunter: It depends on the details - would the unions be open to everyone? If so, to what degree would heterosexuals opt for civil union over marriage? How easy would the unions be to get out of - even easier than divorce today? These questions haven't been answered. One of the ways we can examine the consequences is to look toward Europe and see what actions they have taken and what the results have been. High divorce rates, rising rates of illegitimacy and cohabitation and very low take-up rates for homosexual marriage or union suggest should be a warning to the U.S. that we have to be very careful.

Leslie: OK, I think that's all I've got to ask you. Do you have anything else that you'd like to add?

My column this week in the Independent Florida Alligator addresses the politicization of the 9/11 commission:

On Sept. 12, 2001, America stood united as never before. We all were united as Americans - Republicans and Democrats alike. Unfortunately, that solidarity didn’t last long, as the politicization of the Sept. 11 commission attests. The commission has turned into a political sideshow for this year’s elections and will do little to make Americans safer or more secure.

The fact that the commission is described as “bipartisan” is telling - the word “partisan” shouldn’t be involved at all. Comprised chiefly of former politicians, it’s no surprise the commission produces more political fodder than results.

The commission demanded National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice testify, despite the long-standing principle that personal advisers to the president are not beholden to Congress. In fact, Dick Clarke did not testify before a 1999 commission for the same reason.

In spite of this precedent, President Bush has decided to let Rice testify openly and under oath, in addition to the more than four hours of private testimony she already has provided. Those attempting to use Sept. 11 to hurt the president have erred - Rice’s cogent expertise now, after weeks of hype, will be widely broadcast to set the record straight.

It is absolutely clear who was responsible for the horrific attacks of Sept. 11. It was not the fault of Bush or former-President Clinton, nor was it the fault of Clarke (who grandiosely apologized to the nation last week) or Islam, one of the world’s great faiths.

The responsibility for Sept. 11 lies with the terrorists who committed those awful acts of violence. The little pleasure the al-Qaida leadership enjoys in its caves and safe-houses, I imagine, comes from watching our nation waste its energy on political infighting rather than facing the terrorist threat with a united front.

The investigation into the failures leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor did not begin until after World War II for one reason: Playing the blame game while our troops are at war and our nation is under attack does not serve the interests of our nation.

The current attacks on the Bush administration are absurd. During the previous eight years, al-Qaida bombed the World Trade Center, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, two American embassies in Africa and the U.S.S. Cole at anchor in Yemen. Sudan’s offers to hand over bin Laden were rejected. During this time, terrorists grew bolder, believing the most serious response we could muster was a couple of cruise missiles lobbed at empty tents and aspirin factories.

After Sept. 11, the Bush administration rightly decided to handle terrorism as a military rather than a law-enforcement matter with remarkable results. Two brutal regimes have been replaced with democratic governments, two-thirds of al-Qaida leadership have been killed or captured and the terrorists now know fear.

It is clear this commission is more about settling political scores than setting things right and defending this country from future attack. We don’t need a scapegoat; we need to fight terrorism. Americans know how to recognize pandering and political attacks, and we won’t tolerate it.

Liberals have taken offense at the Bush campaigns assertion that Kerry has voted to raise taxes "350 times" or, for gas taxes specifically, "eleven times." There's a great big inconsistency there that needs to be pointed out.

Liberals defended Kerry's "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" quote by saying his procedural vote for a different version of the bill "counted".

Yet now when Kerry's record of supporting higher taxes has come to light, liberals have taken offense, saying that many of those votes were procedural questions, or votes for different versions of the same bill.

Liberals seem to count procedural voting for a different version of the bill providing support funding for our troops in Iraq, but not procedural voting or votes for different versions of tax increases. It seems votes only "count" when Kerry wishes them to.

Go figure. Kerry supporters show as much consistency as their candidate does.

From the "Through the looking glass... life in Gainesville" file, I signwaved for a Democrat today. That's right. I stood on a corner for an hour waving a sign for a democrat. Want to make things even weirder? That sign for a democrat says at the bottom "Paid political advertisement paid for by the Alachua County Republican Executive Committee." It just gets weirder and weirder. Not only did I signwave for the guy, I voted for him.

Why, you ask? Because in the whole of Gainesville, despite the nearly half-dozen democrats running for mayor, not a single Republican candidate could be found. No one won in the first round of elections (which took place over spring break and I voted absentee) so the run-off is today.

The candidates? Conservative democrat and banker C.B. Daniel versus socialist democrat and environmental engineer Pegeen Hanrahan. Hanrahan won a plurality in the first vote, aided by the fact that the Democratic primaries were on the same day, luring more leftists to the polls. On the other hand, students are on campus this week, and they are more likely to vote for Pegeen. The election could go either way. My bet is C.B., based on his broader base of support. I'm betting that anyone who would have voted for Pegeen in the first round already has, and that those who voted for Bussing & the other candidates will swing toward C.B... We shall see.

Gainesville politics... through the looking glass.

Beth forwarded this to me and I thought it was pretty clever:

(A scene at City Hall in San Francisco )

Court Officer: "Next."

Two men: "Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."

Court Officer: "Names?"

Two men: "Tim and Jim Jones."

Court Officer: "Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance."

Two men: "Yes, we're brothers."

Court Officer: "Brothers? You can't get married."

Two men: "Why not? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"

Court Officer: "Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"

Two men: "Incest?" No, we are not gay."

Court Officer: "Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?"

Two men: "For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."

Court Officer: "But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couple s who've been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."

Two men: "Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."

"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"

Court Officer: "All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."

Two men and two women: "Hi. We are here to get married."

Court Officer: "Names?"

Two men and two women: "John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."

Court Officer: "Who wants to marry whom?"

Two men and two women: "We all want to marry each other."

Court Officer: "But there are four of you!"

Two men and two women: "That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."

Court Officer: "But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."

Two men and two women: "So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"

Court Officer: "No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that it's just for couples."

Two men and two women: "Since when are you standing on tradition?"

Court Officer: "Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."

Two men and two women: "Who says? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protec tion under the law. Give us a marriage license!"

Court Officer: "All right, all right. Next."

A man: "Hello, I'd like a marriage license." Court Officer: "In what names?"

A man: "David Deets."

Court Officer: "And the other man?"

A man: "That's all. I want to marry myself."

Court Officer: "Marry yourself? What do you mean?"

A man: "Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."

Court Officer: "That does it! I quit!! You people are making a mockery of marriage!!"

(and you the court did not do that already?)

In the Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, the Supreme Court will decide whether or not the Pledge of Allegiance, including the words "under God," should be recited in public schools. The case brought by California atheist Michael Newdow gained nation-wide notoriety last year when the 9th Circuit (read: Circus) Court ruled that the pledge was unconstitutional.

Most people expected the decision to be overturned easily, but the recusal of Justice Antonin Scalia might make a difference. Justice Scalia has recused himself at Newdow's request, on the grounds that he criticized the 9th circuit decision last year.

That will upset the court's recent 5-4 split. With Scalia absent, a 4-4 tie is possible. If that occurs, the previous court's ruling will be upheld - in this case, against the pledge. If that occurs, there will be a national outrage over judicial activism, and that sentiment may spill over into other issues such as gay marriage. This might be an interesting session.