The Ballad of Trayvon and George

Forget the "ghetto trash trainwreck" star witness for the prosecution, the Skype calls (or lack thereof), or any of the more sensational facts about this case. Better yet, go ahead and completely take race out of the equation, because that seems to be the only thing anyone wants to talk about.

Trayvon Martin was not killed for being black. As much as the news media wants to present the case as the inevitable tragedy of the deeply engrained racial inequalities and prejudices still present in the American South, this case isn't about race.

The prosecution has chosen to say Martin was a victim of the ubiquitous (yet rarely acknowledged) "dangerous black male" stereotype, and that Zimmerman profiled him based on that criteria.
Pointing the finger at Zimmerman's supposed racial prejudice (for which there is virtually no evidence) is why he will go to sleep a free man tonight.

The real problem here is that Trayvon Martin's death was ENTIRELY preventable. We are talking about preventable death on the scale of cigarette smoking, wearing a seatbelt, and fat people.
George Zimmerman did not listen to the dispatcher. Instead, he decided to "play hero" through vigilante justice rather than allow law enforcement to do their job. It is well documented that Zimmerman had an almost child-like obsession with becoming a police officer. Had he followed the dispatcher's instructions to wait for police to arrive, absolutely NONE of this would have happened. In his own words, "these fucking punks always get away", and that is exactly the mentality he carried in approaching Trayvon. As he should have, Trayvon responded indignantly. Being a young black male in this country can be an unpleasant experience, and the prejudice of the "dangerous black male" has been repeatedly confirmed in psychological research.

The problem is that a fist fight ended with a gun shot. The most that Zimmerman should have done is possibly hold Trayvon at gunpoint until police arrived. But he wanted to be the hero.

Am I saying Zimmerman is innocent? He is without a doubt NOT guilty of murder. But the many lesser charges (negligent homicide, manslaughter, etc) for which he could have been found guilty were BARELY explored by the prosecution.

I could go on, and maybe I will later. But consider this: Zimmerman was arrested and charged after the intense public outcry and 24/7 coverage by the news media. Racial conflict creates higher ratings. The death of Trayvon Martin was not because of racial tension. It was the result of one man deciding to take his interpretation of the law into his own hands. And according to the verdict, that vigilantism is perfectly acceptable in the state of Florida.

Response to the worst writer ever hired by the DTH, February 8, 2011

Mr. Neville should consider taking some classes that cover information

beyond the scope of Psychology 100 before attempting to write on a subject

with a vast number of considerations that were not addressed in his column.

Firstly, the argument is open to many racist and classist interpretations.

I suggest using a dictionary. “Mimicry” is never “harmless”. Mimicry is

defined as the action or art of imitating someone or something, typically

in order to entertain or ridicule. Mr. Neville’s column paints the picture

that members of the college-educated upper class are able to “mimic” the

vernacular of the proletariat; i.e., those that do not use the “neutral

Chapel Hill tongue”. This does nothing but merely advance the white-washed

notion of there being a “proper” form of English; if others can’t speak

like us, we “mimic” them because they are too unintelligent to understand

our point otherwise. Conversely, it places a pressure on those racial and

ethnic communities who may not speak the "Chapel Hill tongue" to

assimilate.

Imitating accents and culturally specific syntaxes, intonations, and

morphologies is one of the primary forms of parody for racial/cultural

differences. It reinforces certain schemas about others that create

cognitive biases, which further reinforce these assumptions into forming

stereotypes.

While it is true that it is easier to understand things we are familiar

with, Mr. Neville’s assertion of “mimicking” as a tool for better

communication perpetuates racial and ethnic stereotypes. It is not helpful

imitation, it is narcissistic mockery of cultural differences.

Rejected letter to editor, October 20, 2009

First and foremost, as a student, I vehemently disagree with SBP Jasmin Jones's efforts to ban bonfires on Franklin Street. Ever since ancient man discovered the wonders of fire, the sacred flame has been used for celebration. By lighting bonfires during large festivities on Franklin Street, we are carrying on a tradition spanning hundreds of thousands of years; a grand ritual that has existed much longer than the University. It is an innate aspect of human nature and our cultural values to lose all shreds of sanity in our joyous festivities. Just as the homo-neanderthalensis started a meager fire and chanted in their savage tongue to celebrate a successful hunt, Tar Heels create blazing infernos, chanting in our own boozy patois to rejoice the slaying of Dook.

Additionally, in response to Ms. Pressley's article ("Police... safer"), I have to slightly disagree. If anything, bonfires should be the last the CHPD's worries on a night like last April. Personally, I think fire is pretty awesome. I derive great pleasure in watching effigies of Krzyzithead smolder. But would I jump through it? No. Should any rational person? No. I had a perfectly nice time wailing the Doors classic "Light My Fire", no tempting death involved.

Police intervention will not stop stupid people from doing stupid things. Maybe CHPD should worry about all Spiderman impersonators climbing buildings/trees/lightposts before something other than a couple singed eyebrows happens.

Assigned to run a Republican's Presidential campaign, dramatic irony ensues, 2009

Plan for the 2012 Presidential Campaign

We as the Republican Party are in quite a predicament, essentially faced against all odds in the upcoming 2012 presidential election. A popular incumbent Democratic president and a Democratic majority in Congress currently rule the United States. As this election approaches, our first and foremost objective must be to get a Republican back in the oval office. To accomplish this goal, we must conduct a successful presidential campaign that focuses primarily on gaining the support of those voters that lie somewhere in the middle of the ideological spectrum.

In my own opinion, one of the failings of the Republican Party in recent times is spending too much time trying to satisfy our base supporters; those who align with the most conservative of doctrines. In the past election, John McCain was originally met with apprehension and distrust by our base (in this case, mostly the “evangelical-right”). This situation effectively forced McCain to focus more effort on convincing the nation he was actually a conservative than convincing the nation he was the right man for the presidency (Tucker par. 3). While it has been shown in past elections that the evangelical right (approximately twenty percent of the Republican electorate) is a key player in winning elections, pandering to their interests can do more harm than good by alienating the more-secular moderates within the electorate (Dunn 365).

Furthermore, our campaign should try to target the 18-25 year old demographic through effective use of technology. As we saw in 2008, the Obama campaign’s use of social networking sites and blogging not only added a sense of transparency to the campaign, but it also seemed to make the average American feel as if this man running for office was just like them (Hindman 15). Since this technology and its application in a political campaign are so new, its effectiveness is arguable and mostly unknown. However, if nothing else, it was very successful in the realm of name recognition- within a matter of months, Barack Obama went from an unknown junior Senator to a household name and major contender for the presidency (Hollihan 35).

Our candidate is Mark Sanford, the current governor of South Carolina. Born in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, raised in Beaufort, South Carolina, Sanford has strong ties to the South. He graduated from Furman University in 1983 with a BA in business, and later received an MBA from the Darden Graduate School of Business Administration at the University of Virginia. A real estate entrepreneur, Governor Sanford first entered politics in the mid-1990s. He served three terms as a representative in the United States House of Representatives before being elected governor in 2003. Both as governor and as a representative, Governor Sanford gained the reputation of being somewhat of a maverick amongst his Republican peers. This may sound a bit shocking since that was arguably Senator McCain’s downfall, but Governor Sanford has a staunchly conservative voting record. Where he differes from his peers is on non-partisan issues, such as pork barrel projects, which he has vehemently opposed ever since taking public office. On one occasion as governor, he brought live pigs into the South Carolina State House as a visual protest to some decisions that were made in favor of pork money (Salam par. 2-5).

As a politician, Governor Sanford is a proud conservative who has been known to stand up to big government. While other conservatives simply criticized President Obama’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Sanford flat out refused to accept millions of dollars in federal aid. Looking solely at government spending as an indicator of its expansion, he has also recognized that the military constitutes a large portion of federal spending, therefore he opposes such “pre-emptive wars” such as the war in Iraq. This not only aligns conservatives with public opinion, but gives them a viable way to distance themselves from unpopular Bush-era policies while still remaining conservative in method and action. Sanford’s whole ideology is based in the conservative legacy of William F. Buckley, that government should be small and limited. While relatively libertarian in economic doctrine, Sanford still supports many conservative social causes (Salam par. 6-8).

However, many would argue that the whole focus of the Republican party has been skewed. Popular conceptions of Republicans in recent years have come to represent only a small part of our constituency- the evangelical right- a group that has become increasingly unpopular among moderates and liberals alike after the Bush years. It seems as if the entire crusade of the Republican party in recent years has been waged on social issues- gay marriage, the death penalty, gay marriage, marijuana prohibition, etc. Part of Obama’s success in 2008 was his willingness to discuss his economic plans. Near the latter half of the campaign, it seemed as if most social issues had taken a backseat to the harsh economic reality of recession (Hollihan 234). While Obama was busy constructing and marketing his recovery plan, McCain was still trying to convince the evangelical right he was a true conservative. However, here is the reality in this situation. Statistically, if a “member” of the evangelical right actually does vote, there is about an 86% chance they will vote republican (Dunn 356). As it has been shown in many studies, there is not much a campaign can do to get people to actually go vote- they tend to do so mostly because they feel a strong citizen duty to do so. To successfully win this election, Governor Sanford needs to be frank about where he stands on economic issues during the campaign. He must put a positive light on conservatism, that it’s not about the rich lining their pockets, it’s about your average hardworking American being self-reliant and getting out what they put in.

I don’t mean to say that social issues should be completely disregarded, but they should be approached in a different manner. Opposition should not be given on grounds of a “moral authority”, but on the grounds of the economics involved. One thing that many Americans care about more than anything right now is employment, their job, their job security, etc. Talking about issues such as illegal immigration, federal funding for stem cell research, gay marriage, and minimum wage, Sanford can put an economic explanation to the repercussions and how the liberal agenda could affect the lives of average Americans- job losses, higher taxes. As demonstrated, the most persuadable voters are those voters who disagree with party consensus on a key issue (Hillygus 3). If these voters are targeted with convincing arguments on why they should still vote Republican, Sanford will be sure to gain much support.

In terms of actually getting his name out there, our campaign should become heavily involved with the use of technology, whether it be MySpace, Twitter, Facebook, or blogs. This not only adds transparency, but it makes the voter feel more connected to the candidate (Hindman 15). If Governor Sanford is able to make a connection this way, he will easily be able to share his ideals and stances on the issues with his possible supporters. Speaking in front of a crowd involves a certain level of elitism and condescension- “I am on stage, you are in the crowd”. Directly communicating with supporters and potential supporters eliminates that barrier (Hindman 23). Although it may be through a mass email or text message, it does make the voter feel more involved in the campaign, and thus care more about the outcome since they have seemingly invested something into it (Hollihan 53).

Traditional campaign advertising should not be forgotten. Unless it gets outwardly dirty, we shouldn’t strike first. President Obama will have finished his first term, his approval ratings will be on a steady decline (unless extenuating circumstances arise), and he will surely make a number of decisions that will alienate some of his supporters. Our ads should play upon Governor Sanfords youthful image, pragmatism, and ability to stand up to corruption, while at the same time questioning President Obama’s ability to truly deliver what he offered during his campaign (Hollihan 150). It is undeniable fact that President Obama’s election truly energized America for “progressive change”, and while it is unrealistic that any of these goals be met in one term, the majority of the electorate doesn’t realize this, and will simply feel as if he did not deliver. We have to play on this aspect. Obama made promises that he couldn’t keep, but Governor Sanford will not make any promise he can’t keep. He stands with the average American against big government, and limiting the government’s reach through supply-side economic policy will truly allow the American people to live how they are meant to.

            Over all, I believe that victory in this election will come down to being able to win the moderate vote. Due to Downs’s theory of spatial location, Gov. Sanford cannot align himself too far to the right during primaries. Let his record speak for his staunch conservatism. When it comes time for a national election, he has to be able to capture a significant portion of the vote from both independents and moderate/conservative Democrats that may be disenchanted with President Obama’s policies. Conservatism has to move back to where it once was. Right now, the evangelical right exudes an influence on politicians far beyond their numbers. While they should not be abandoned, we must realize that as some of our most far-right constituents, they will continue to support us as long as we hold true to the social issues that mean something to them. However, for the general electorate, we as Republicans must turn the emphasis back to conservatism as an economic theory based on hard work and self-reliance. Jobs and standards of living is the main issue, and we cannot underestimate the power of playing that game.

The American Misconception of Josef Stalin, 2010

In Thomas Von Laue’s essay “Judging Stalin”, he offers a number of very interesting considerations concerning how Americans are poorly equipped to judge Josef Stalin as a leader due to the vastly different socio-historical contexts between Russian culture and the West. Von Laue argues that morality is both relative and culturally specific, and that our own sense of morality is not applicable within a separate paradigm. In other words, before we pass judgment on such a controversial person as Stalin, we must first attempt to understand the cultural and political environment that surrounded him, and then measure his actions to that standard. Von Laue comes to the conclusion that although the costs in human life were high, the many atrocities that Stalin committed were justified as both a result of Russia’s desperate necessity to quickly modernize for their own self-preservation and a manifestation of the hostile environment and chaotic conditions under which he ruled. Ultimately, one must consider the fact that when Stalin came to power in the early 1920s, Russia was an incredibly backwards society on the verge of annihilation by its more industrialized European neighbors— by the time of his death in 1953, Russia was a world superpower.

            Von Laue begins his argument by offering the assertion that the United States has one of the most advantageous positions in modern history— we are secure from attack, we have a stable government, and we have “unprecedented affluence and power in the world”. For these reasons, we are not able to employ the typical American “moral imperialism” and judge a country such as Russia under our own standards due to its vastly different culture and history. Furthermore, a sympathetic reading towards Russian political brutality is difficult for Westerners to understand due to lack of shared experience.

            He then moves on to describe the political and cultural consciousness felt by Stalin and his many contemporaries following World War I. For hundreds of years under the tsarist autocracy, brutality had become an integral part of politics; a thought that is extremely foreign to Westerners. By placing Stalin and his actions within the specific context of his environment, Von Laue argues that brutality and ruthlessness were not only justified, but also a necessary measure to achieve the seemingly insurmountable task of modernizing Russia as fast as possible. Following World War I, Russia was devastated both physically and within their collective consciousness. Being a backwards nation with a barely functioning government, Russia needed massive industrialization preserve their existence.

            Von Laue falls into the school of historians that believe Stalin gaining rule of Russia was inevitable since he was the only one with a talent for dealing with the immense bureaucracy, being most familiar with the Russian people, and having the capacity to make hard decisions when pressed. For the most part, Von Laue establishes that most of the mechanisms (organizational and moral) that allowed Stalin to rise to power were already in place, but he was the only one with the capacity to take full advantage of them.

Modernizing and industrializing Russia was a near impossible task for Stalin, and he knew that by the nature of the Russian people, it would be difficult to successfully introduce them to a new way of life. However, to Stalin, the cost of delaying mobilization would be domination by a foreign power. Therefore, any sort of political morality was thrown to the wayside, and Stalin fully continued brutality in the Russian tradition.

Ultimately, Stalin is portrayed as a sort of tragic figure, set between “the most nightmarish” decisions one could ever make in politics. Although he was indeed a larger than life figure, he was still mortal, and Von Laue believes that he deserves to be considered as such. Despite his mistakes, Stalin did what he thought was best for his country in the true Machiavellian tradition of his “end” justifying the means by which he achieved it. Furthermore, Stalin is distinguished as a world leader that was under significantly more pressure for a longer period of time than any other ruler in modern history, and it is due to these unique set of experiences that the West is not able to accurately judge Stalin; since the West has always been at the top with their stomachs full, who are they to judge the actions of the poor and hungry, especially if it is for self-preservation?

I agree with Von Laue completely. He provides a very accurate depiction as Stalin being a product of his environment, and he does so without deflecting responsibility. In a sense, the triumph of Stalin in Russian history is a Pyhrric victory; he was correct in choosing to mobilize Russia immediately, and in doing so he not only defended the country from the Nazi advance in WWII, but an industrialized Russia played a significant role in the Allied victory. However, the victory in WWII came at the cost of not only war casualties, but all that died during the years of industrialization and collectivization as well. As an audience, we should take into account Van Laue’s observations about cultural relativism. Most people in the United States live in a very narrowly defined cultural context, and certain actions that seem very foreign to us are commonplace somewhere else. Russia has had an extremely different history than the United States, and thus cultural attitudes towards political, social, and economic morality are very different. The fact that he terrorized his own country is abhorrent to Americans, but when considered in the context which Von Laue provides, we can certainly see that he had to deal with a number of difficult, uncontrollable circumstances to accomplish his goal.

Political science paper, 2009.

Evolution and Importance of the Evangelical Right in Presidential Elections

Ronald Reagan’s victory over incumbent Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1980 presidential election ushered in a new era of conservatism in America. The “Reagan Revolution” mobilized a new brand of conservatives- the “Evangelical Right”- a group made up of predominantly white, Protestant voters. This was certainly not the beginning of mobilization for the religious right, and they probably had little to do with Reagan’s victory, but Moral Majority founder Jerry Falwell claimed responsibility, and from then on the religious right has been considered a very important part of the Republican Party’s base constituents.

However, the religious right’s roots in fact lie in the Democratic party in the South. A series of events occurred in the 1960s and 1970s that were considered to be attempts to keep God out of government- that separation of church and state was “anti-Christian” and would lead to “great moral failure” (Dunn 204). This angered many southern evangelical Democrats enough to defect to the Republican Party. What used to be known as the “Solid South” among Democrats became almost universally Republican in 1968 and 1972 (Dunn 182). As seen in Jimmy Carter’s 1976 election (the only anomaly in consistent-evangelical voting for the Republican candidate), although he was a Democrat, he was a “born-again believer”. That was good enough to get him 49% of the evangelical Republican vote- and the presidency (Noll, Harlow 272).

The origins of the evangelical right lie in the aftermath of the civil rights movement in the Southern United States. At this point in history (late 1950s-early 1960s), the South was in turmoil due to racial tensions and the civil rights movement. Ever since Reconstruction after the Civil War, many in the South have been fairly conservative and wary of government intervention into their way of life. The largest religious influence in the South at this point was the Southern Baptist Convention, a denomination that was solidly Democratic ever since President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s (Dunn 179). However, southern whites viewed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to be an appalling intrusion into their way of life (Dunn 182). Even more so, evangelicals saw the US Supreme Court decision of Engel v. Vitale in 1962, which essentially banned prayer in public schools as an intrusion that violated both their moral convictions and Constitutional rights. Many were so incensed with the Democratic Party (who were partially to blame) that they left it all together. Come the 1968 election, the only southern state that the Democrats carried was Texas- Republicans got 69% of the evangelical vote- the majority of the remaining evangelical vote went to segregationalist Independent candidate George Wallace. In 1972 when President Richard Nixon was up for re-election, he was able to carry the entire south and garner 84% of the evangelical vote.

For arguably the first time, the religious right was making a noticeable impact in the Republican Party’s base. By 1972, it was estimated that at least 35 million evangelical former-Democrats had been integrated into the Republican party (Dunn 203). The resources were present, but the evangelical base was not organized- although it could be argued that they did hold some sort of set of consistent beliefs, they did not have a definite stance- as seen in 1976. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat from Georgia, ran on the platform that he was a “born-again believer”, and that he wished to restore honor and morality in an office that was still reeling from the Watergate scandal (Dunn 191). This was good enough for 49% of evangelical Republicans to vote for him. In a great political strategy, Carter played on Downs’ theory of spatial location to win the election. He never necessarily hid his liberal agenda- any secular, well informed Republican would have never given Carter their vote- but he played his religious beliefs to his advantage. As shown by the results, 49% of evangelicals (whether they knew his stance on issues or not) went across party and ideological lines to “put a man of God back in the White House”, especially after possibly the single greatest call to arms within the evangelical community in recent history- the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade in 1973 (Marsden 264).

            Although detrimental to Republican interests in the short term, Carter’s election spurred evangelical mobilization. After a while, the very same evangelical conservatives that helped put Carter in office realized that he was, in fact, very liberal. Many saw Carter’s creation of a Department of Education within his cabinet as trying to undermine Christian schools (Dunn 200). Also, President Carter publicly stated that he thought of “family in a broad sense”, implying acceptance of homosexuality- considered by fundamentalists as an abomination. Around 1978, secular strategists from various Republican-advocacy groups met together to discuss the gripping defeat of ’76 and what could be done in 1980 to regain the White House. With various local evangelical grassroots movements coming up around to voice discontent with Democrats, they realized the potential if all the different evangelicals were mobilized. In 1979, Jerry Falwell, Charles Stanley, D. James Kennedy, and Tim and Beverly LaHaye founded the Moral Majority in order to “take back our country for God” (Miller 35). Under the Moral Majority, Falwell articulated a set of central beliefs: “Pro-life, pro-traditional families, pro-national defense, and pro-Israel” and to “restore America as One Nation Under God”(Dunn 190).

            With Reagan’s election in 1980, the Moral Majority’s true impact is not well known- however, now mobilized, they could begin to be studied for patterns. Researchers began to notice a pattern within the data for this group, what would be called the “attendance gap”- a person who attends church at least once weekly tends to vote Republican at higher rates than those who do not. As of 1980, the largest group within the religious right was Southern Baptists, who were (and are currently) both the largest Protestant and evangelical denomination; they also hold the largest attendance gap for groups within the religious right (Noll, Harlow 273-5). Also, by 1980, regional voting differences had essentially disappeared- the majority evangelicals were consistently voting Republican across the board (Noll, Harlow 273). Growing faster than any other party base group, the evangelical component rose from 20% to 26% percent of the entire electorate between 1984 and 2004, with younger evangelical voters increasingly more likely to vote Republican than their elders (Noll, Harlow 273).

            The growth and strength of the religious right can also be explained in terms of party identification. In the thirty-year period between the 1940s and 1970s, there was fairly consistent movement of evangelicals identifying as Republicans or Democrats with some volatility in the pattern, for instance the presidential election of 1976. However since the 1980s, there has been a dramatic shift, peaking during President George W. Bush’s first term in 2000-2004. The best explanation of this is generational replacement of older Democrats by younger Republicans (Noll, Harlow 284).

            As I mentioned earlier, abortion was certainly an issue the further entrenched the religious right within the Republican Party, mostly because presidential candidates have professed their beliefs about abortion in elections (Stimson 81). While abortion is a very hotly debated issue, all conservative politicians know that Roe v. Wade cannot be easily repealed because it lies outside the zone of acquiescence. But views on abortion are powerful. Virtually all evangelicals profess that abortion and the pro-life movement is issues that they hold very strong attitudes about, and they could never vote for a pro-life candidate (Miller 34). This attitude is so strong that many evangelicals are single issue voters- they may just vote for the candidate that professes to be pro-life.

            Capturing the religious right’s support in a campaign has proved to either make or break a candidate in recent elections. One republican who has had a very hard time with the religious right in recent years is John McCain. Traditionally moderate (some conservatives will even say he is a “full-blown liberal”), McCain has always had problems adapting to the two-stage contest. In 2000, George W. Bush and his campaign advisors realized the importance of the evangelical base. Bush publicly professed his personal faith in Jesus Christ as his savior, and had multiple speaking arrangements at numerous Christian functions- including a controversial decision to speak at Bob Jones University. This decision was controversial because in the past, the fundamentalist-Christian oriented Bob Jones University had been accused of being a racist institution (they did not allow interracial dating, and for that reason only accepted whites for a period of time). McCain criticized this decision, and stated that Jerry Falwell and televangelist Pat Robertson were “agents of intolerance”, essentially sealing his fate in the 2000 Republican primary (Noll, Harlow 290). Again in 2008, even when McCain had gotten the Republican nomination, many evangelicals were still skeptical- he was too liberal, too secular, and most of all, too soft on his views of abortion (Miller 35). His choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate proved to be very popular within the evangelical base, but drew heavy criticism from the rest of the Republican Party (Miller 35).

            Overall, the vote of the evangelical right has been a very important factor in recent elections, however with a Democratic president and Congress, it will be interesting to see how they play out in future elections. The Republican party is already facing issues about restructuring their beliefs- are they pandering too much to the evangelicals and alienating the secular voters? Possibly so, and with the unpopularity of Bush (and Bush supporters- many of whom are evangelicals) this could change very soon. However, over the course of the past twenty years, it is easy to see that the religious right is a powerful force to be reckoned with when it comes to public opinion and getting elected.

Works Cited

1. Stimson, James A. Tides of Consent: How Public Opinion Shapes American Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

2. Miller, Lisa. “Evangelicals Are Crucial to Winning the 2008 Election.” Newsweek 14 October 2008: 34-35

3. Dunn, Charles W. Religion in American Politics. Washington, D.C. : CQ Press, 1989.

4. Noll, Mark A. and Luke E. Harlow. Religion and American Politics: From the Colonial Period to the Present. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

5. Marsden, George M. Religion and American Culture. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1990.

Poetry that got me the only 'A' of my college career

Boston Common

Standing as soldiers in march,

rows give way to a small gap

where smaller beings look up

in awe, carrying tomorrow’s torch.

The hills of our fathers’ land,

now covered with iron and steel.

We will eat our hunger’s fill,

others buried in the sand—

Upon where ghosts used to graze,

silence lost, with nature’s ways.

July 4^th, A Few Years Ago

Walking house to house around the pond,

no breeze to shake off the air’s stifling

hold. A dream-like glow on streetside lamps,

day’s heat refused to sleep with the sun,

instead flirting with dark air over

the tar-stench blacktop.

Fighting the city lights to see stars

who maybe died with the dinosaurs,

someone’s already tasting dinner

for the second or third time tonight.

Drinks get warm in the blue moon’s hard stare,

and the sky explodes under pressure

of our expectations of grandeur.

Fire streaming upwards, children screaming

at the many pops and cracks above,

we grab another beer, a Camel,

and hope it’ll always be this easy.

Near Independence Pass

The cold ground beneath me cracks,

but only the few blades of grass give way.

Coughing, trying to seize a breath,

I am taller than the mountain

across from me.

The wind is vainly striving

to toss me down into the azure abyss.

I strain my eyes. A thin line divides

the green and continues to the next

ceiling-less hall of peaks and crags.

Using my fingers to dig a seed-deep hole,

I place an old high school ID card

just under the loose-pebble soil.

Covering it up, I hope for rain.

I am going to be here forever.

Three jets fly through the valley.

Even though they were far below,

I still wave hello.

Massachusetts Avenue

Suspended above the murky Charles,

walking back from the Yard,

I see a blurred sun rise behind trees

and empty buildings, horizon

wavering like oil on water.

Fathers walked these paths,

though then they were lined

with trees, not metal obelisks.

Through hills long obscured,

they would come, bringing their

pocket-sized swords to do battle

with aristocrats and kings.

Now I walk as they did, but

under much less noble means.

Even a city that doesn’t sleep

dies sometime during the night.

Eerily empty streets on both sides,

not even the stray animals and

Costello’s drunks dare to leave cover.

Now I see those mightier men

looking back at me.

I myself am a son also—

But not of liberty.

Rorschach

We were a Rorschach on the hillside,

white ink, delicately splattered.

Keeping to our sides,

always meeting in the middle of the page.

We laughed.

It sailed over the surface of the lake

on the backs of little bugs, skating.

The sun looked even brighter behind

our reflections, a spotlight down-stage,

and the fish watched us with envy

they could never know.

If only it could stay as a photograph— forever transfixed,

a thousand words would never be necessary.

But, we yelled.

This time, carried only through the walls

by much larger, unsavory bugs.

Cheap fluorescent lights

with their cold, lifeless gazes

cast hard-edged shadows on floor.

We were nothing more than two

meticulous drops, standing prostrate

around the corners, crossing our sides

as the ink spilled off the page.

Thirty-Six Holes

The days were long as they were humid.

A choral ensemble of hind legs and beaks,

singing amongst the other tiny lives,

provided the deafening drone.

Reverence, respect, honor;

Nature’s noisy chaos is in balance

on the days when we let Her speak.

He called it “the game”—

I never understood.

Bringing me along, carrying the bags,

never able to keep up, just another bag

full of blunt instruments with the rest.

The holes were trials.

I, the little white ball,

being whacked, sliced, and skulled

across the green ocean,

but never landing where I want,

nestled on top of the short stuff.

“Sometimes life hits a bad shot,

but play’r as she lies.”

My father was a believer—

I simply felt it was manual labor,

hands sore and calloused

from digging my club into the ground

as some sort of crude pick axe—

the grassy smells of soil and

fertilizer filling the air

with every hack.

I never learned the secrets,

nor did I strike oil,

But I found some peace

among the divots and a lost ball,

and saw that winning

was not the goal at all.

He told me it was nothing more

than what man has professed

for two thousand years—

“Nosce te ipsum.”