Berkeley Political Review Spring 2013 by Berkeley Political Review

Editor’s Note Change we can(‘t) wait for

e have vocalized our needs, but when will government respond?

2013 sees the waning remnants of the Occupy Movement that swept the US, and the globe, from 2011-12. Seemingly, nothing has changed. The divide between the one percent and the rest of Americans remains strong and continues to grow. As big banks continue to get a slap on the wrist, if anything, for their unlawful actions, we are left wondering what policies lay ahead for both our

state and the nation. Berkeley Political Review has been following these matters closely, from our issue on the Occupy Movement last spring, to our issue on the 2012 Presidential Elections this past fall, and our expectations for the change that 2013 has in store in our last winter issue. There have been a number of propositions for change coming from Congress since economic and social inequality manifested itself in Zuccotti Park, but many of these attempts have yet to yield tangible results. Americans are left to question how much reform to truly expect in the next four years. As Felix Cruz discusses on page 12, the transformation of Obama’s initial tax reform proposition from a bill that would have affected all singles making over $200,000 annually, to one only affecting those earning over $400,000, is just one instance of a failure to execute substantial change. On page 19, Ankit Aggarwal illuminates the failure of the American judicial system to hold large banks accountable—as the broken scale of justice on this issue’s cover also points out. While partisan gridlock has made sweeping policy changes unlikely, the US government must be held accountable to making the changes Americans voted for in the last election. However, not all chance of reform is dismal. As students of UC Berkeley, we are fortunate to live in a state that often leads the way in nation-wide policy reform. Katie McCray discusses the future of California gun control reform on page six, and on page nine, Mary Zhou points out encouraging developments in California health care reform. Despite California’s obvious problems such as fiscal stability and at times questionable results of direct democracy as discussed by Michael Manset on page 10, the state remains a model to be followed. Change is always a slow and staggered process, but we hope this issue provides our readers with some food for thought about the current state of affairs. Yours,

Niku Jafarnia Editor-In-Chief

Masthead EDITOR-IN-CHIEF

Niku Jafarnia

MANAGING EDITOR

Daniel Tuchler

DEPUTY MANAGING EDITOR

Tanay Kothari

CALIFORNIA EDITOR

Elena Kempf

DEPUTY CALIFORNIA EDITOR

Shayna Howitt

INTERNATIONAL

Alex Heyn

DEPUTY INTERNATIONAL EDITOR

Ada Lin

NATIONAL EDITOR

Kyle Bowen

DEPUTY NATIONAL EDITOR

Matt Symonds

OPINION EDITOR

Alex Kravitz

DEPUTY OPINION EDITOR

Tina Parija

ONLINE EDITOR

Wil Mumby

DEPUTY ONLINE EDITOR

Anna Bella Korbatov DESIGN EDITOR

Kathleen Sheffer OUTREACH EDITOR

Justin Lin

COPY EDITOR

Mandy Honeychurch DESIGN TEAM

Deepika Dilip, Ha Duong, Nik Rajpal ADVISOR

Susan Rasky STAFF

Ankit Aggarwal, Allison Arnold, Efe Atli, Disha Banik, Matthew Calvert, Martina Chun, Zac Commins, Felix Cruz, Sandra Farzam, Stuart Fine, A.J. Francia, Vinayak Ganeshan, Ben Goldblatt, Ryan Hang, Maggie Hardy, Adeeba Hasan, Eoghan Hughes, Viveka Jagadeesan, Nicholas Kitchel, Nikhil Kotecha, Kevin Kraft, Jessie Lau, Woody Little, Lindsey Lohman, Michael Manset, Katie McCray, Nashilu Mouen-Makoua, Stacey Nguyen, Brendan Pinder, Chinmai Raman, Maria Salamanca, Sebastien Welch, Carrie Yang, Mary Zhou The content of this publication does not reflect the views of the University of California, Berkeley or the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC). Advertisements appearing in Berkeley Political Review reflect the views of the advertisers only, and are not an expression of the editorial opinion or views of the staff.

Table of Contents Spring 2013, Volume XI, No. 3

California

5 6 7 8 9 10

National

11 12 13 14

International

15 16 17 18

Opinion

19 20 21 22

The Rollercoaster Ride by Allison Arnold Gay Marriage in California Taking Steps Toward a Safer California by Katie McCray Gun control in the Golden State (INFOGRAPHIC) Murder, By the Numbers researched by Alex Kravitz, designed by Deepika Dilip University of California, Online by Matthew Calvert The UC is expanding its online presence, but at what cost? California’s Way Ahead by Mary Zhou Following through with the Affordable Care Act The Uncharged Third Rail by Michael Manset Is reform of Prop 13 possible?

Swimming Solo by Woody Little Why it’s a good thing that Chuck Hagel is outside the mainstream Obama’s Agenda by Felix Cruz A dance between leading and following From Adams to Biden by Disha Banik The evolution of the vice presidency Cyber-Disobedience by Viveka Jagadeesan The battle for open access and a free Internet future

A Practice in Self-Mutilation by Eoghan Hughes Could Britain leave the European Union? The Politics of Censorship: Press Freedom in Turkey by Efe Atli Turkey’s decade-long political transformation has had detrimental effects on censorship and press freedom The Honduran Powder Keg by Kevin Kraft Debilitating economic crises and troubled political history leave Honduras dangerously close to yet another coup Militarization vs. Inaction: The Syrian Predicament by Jessie Lau Exploring the risks of military intervention in Syria

Too Big to Jail vs. Too Small to Protest by Ankit Aggarwal While most have few options in the criminal justice system, major banks like HSBC get away with laundering money What Constitutes an “Acceptable Quality of Life?” by Nikhil Kotecha Hunger strikes in prisons and hospitals force us to question institutional competence of care Off the Cliff, Anyway by Ben Goldblatt What the fiscal cliff deal really means for your pocketbook The Enemy Without by Nashilu Mouen-Makoua The fabled litany of burgeoning US economic foes has never thus far materialized On the cover: Justice for sale? by Kathleen Sheffer The cartoon implies that the scales of justice are broken. Ankit Aggrawal’s article, “Too Big to Jail vs. Too Small to Protest” on page 19 further explains the issue.

More political analysis from Berkeley Political Review available online at

www.bpr.berkeley.edu

TO THE POINT

PROTESTS IN BANGLADESH Last week, the death penalty given to Islamic leader Delawar Hossain Sayadee, a leader of Jamaat-e-Islami, an Islamist party that fought against Bangladesh’s war of independence, set off violent clashes between followers of Jamaat and those who believe that justice should be served to Jamaat for the serious war crimes of mass rape and murder. This sentence is a part of a war crimes tribunal for atrocities committed during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan that occurred 42 years ago. So far, the violent, countrywide riots killed 46 people.

REEXAMING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

As the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the case regarding the 1965 Voting Rights Act, Justice Antonin Scalia referred to this landmark civil rights legislation as nothing more than a “racial entitlement.” This acerbic remark earned Scalia a sharp rejoinder from Rachel Maddow, who referred to the Supreme Court Justice as “a troll.” the last time congress voted on renewing the Voting Rights Act was in 2006, and the vote came after 21 hearings, 10 months of debate and the presentation of 15,000 pages of evidence examining whether the bill was still necessary to ensure the protection of minority voting rights. The bill passed the House 390-33 and the vote in the Senate was unanimous: 98-0. Still, Scalia insists that “[T]his is not the kind of a question you can leave to Congress.”

Foggy Bottom theatrics: The sequester

GAY RIGHTS AND THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

As of the end of February, over 100 Republicans had signed an amicus brief in favor of striking down Prop 8 and legalizing Gay Marriage in California. The brief was organized by Ken Mehlman, who is openly gay and a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. Prominent Republicans who signed the brief include former gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman, former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman, a top adviser to Mitt Romney, and two Members of Congress.

“

The conventional wisdom that’s been floating around Washington [is] that somehow, even though most people agree that I’m being reasonable, that most people agree I’m presenting a fair deal, the fact that they [the Republicans] don’t take it means that I should somehow, you know, do a Jedi mind meld with these folks and convince them to do what’s right.”

“

We should not have to move a third bill before the Senate gets off their ass and begins to do something” — House Speaker John Boehner, Feb. 27, 2013

NOTABLE QUOTABLES

All photos credited to AP and Getty Images

— President Barack Obama, March 1, 2013

CALIFORNIA

The Rollercoaster Ride Gay Marriage in California By Allison Arnold, Staff Writer

can, or because the idea is different. True change occurs when you have a majority fighting for the rights of the minority. ” The battle over Prop 8 continues to this day. Republican Theodore Olson, a UC

California must remind the rest of the US that true change is the majority standing up for the rights of the minority.

Jamison Wieser

n the 2008 elections, Prop 8 passed in California, restricting legal marriage to couples consisting of a man and a woman. After years of debate and outrage on a national level, the Supreme Court has set a court date on March 26, 2013 to discuss the constitutionality of Prop 8 in California. In the spring of 2004, mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco allowed city officials to award marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Within the span of a Berkeley graduate and month, approximately former solicitor general 4,000 same-sex couto the US Supreme Court ples were wed in San Francisco County. Imhas teamed up with Demmediately afterwards, ocrat David Boies to the Supreme Court of promote the constituCalifornia ruled that tionality of same sex these marriages were marriage, and overturn void, citing the mayor’s Prop 8 in California. inability to bypass state Pro and anti-Prop 8 protesters rally in front of the San Francisco City Hall as the The duo has travelled law. Despite this deci- California Supreme Court holds a session to determine the definition of marriage. across the country, and sion, in June of 2008 the requested the support of court’s decision was the Obama administration 8. Others believed the left had not fought overruled, and samein the upcoming Supreme Court hearing on sex couples were extended the legal rights hard enough against the bill, while the right both Prop 8 and DOMA (Defense of Marriage of marriage. Even after this rollercoaster of was more passionate and poured money Act). laws, two weeks later an initiative to over- into the measure. However, according to reThe legalization of same-sex marriage on ride the legalization of same-sex marriage search done by Georgia State University, di- the federal level is crucial to the well-being of qualified for a vote in the November election rect democracy mechanisms such as ballot California and the rest of the nation. As one ballot, taking the name Prop 8. When Prop 8 initiatives will not promote the rights of the of the liberal strongholds of the US, Califorwas passed with a 52 percent majority (a dif- minority, and instead enforce the preferenc- nia must remind the rest of the US that true ference of half a million votes), California be- es of the majority. Shockingly, 70 percent of change is the majority standing up for the came the only state that had formerly allowed the times citizens vote on civil rights laws, rights of the minority, granting them equal same-sex couples to be wed, and then ceased minorities lose the protection of their rights protection and rights. Historically, the San to do so. given to them by a representative democracy. Francisco Bay has had a particular affinity for How exactly did such a conservative bill A UC Berkeley professor of political sci- such movements. The gay rights movement pass in California? Polling had suggested that ence added that in a direct democracy “ma- began here, and hopefully one day, it will California would not pass the measure, and jorities have no one to challenge them, so end here. One cannot pick and choose which there was confusion surrounding the loss, when civil rights laws are based on a majority people will receive the rights that should be attributing it to inadequate funding or lack ruling, more often than not, it votes to restrict granted to everyone; the majority should not of organization on the side opposing Prop the rights of the minority simply because it control the entitlements of minorities. ♦

CALIFORNIA

Taking Steps Toward a Safer California Gun control in the Golden State

arm sales through licensed dealers reduces prohibited persons from buying weapons, her proposal would cost an as of yet “undetermined” amount of money, making it poBy Katie McCray, Staff Writer This loophole allows dangerous firearms tentially impractical and open to critique by to remain within the community. Another pro-gun unions. Rather than implementing discrepancy between state and federal law new laws in California, current laws should ore than 31,000 people in the US regards the minimum age for firearm pos- be expanded upon and loopholes eradicated die from gunshot wounds every session. While California prohibits persons in order to better protect our citizens. year, and almost 334,000 non-fatal under the age of 21 from purchasing a handAssemblymember Ammiano (D-San crimes are committed with guns. The reper- gun, the law does not prevent them from Francisco) is also expected to propose a bill cussions of gun violence costs the US an es- owning one. In addition, all “minors” are that is aimed to protect children by adding timated $100 billion per year. prohibited from owning a firearm—yet Cali- a safe storage requirement when a person California has one of the strongest state fornia law does not define the term “minor.” prohibited from gun possession lives in gun control laws in the US, second only to California lawmakers have recently the same home as the gun owner. This law New York. Severwould also extend al bill proposals waiting periods for by California lawnecessary backmakers have the ground checks when potential to boost necessary. Ammiano California’s gun describes this bill control ranking as a “common sense to first. extension of laws Currently, Calalready in place.” ifornia law regRemedying underulates the sale, lying weaknesses in possession, and current gun laws is use of firearms a crucial aspect of as well as amstrengthening gun munition. These safety. laws include, Though Califorbut are not limnia remains at the ited to, mandaforefront of gun tory licensing of control, its neighboth public and bors are not. Ariprivate weapons zona and Nevada dealers, the rescored zero and cording of handfive points on the gun serial numBrady State Scorebers and sales, card respectively, and the outlawing with neither reof assault weap- Los Angeles residents gathering to protest gun violence and implore lawmakers for new quiring background ons. On the Brady gun control laws. checks nor licensing State Scorecard, for private firearm a comparison of and ammunition the quantity of sales. A 2012 report proposed nine new gun control bills. Naneach states’ gun laws, California scores 81 cy Skinner (D-Berkeley) has proposed AB by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that out of 100 possible points. 48, which would outlaw the sale of ammu- Nevada was one of the top 10 states with Despite California’s stringent gun con- nition devices capable of accepting more the highest rate of guns recovered in out-oftrol laws, incidents of gun violence are still than 10 rounds and require the monitoring state crimes, with Arizona coming in at the a major issue, primarily in urban areas. In and recording of ammunition sales. “When 13th spot. California’s stringent gun control Oakland alone, 1,077 shootings were report- we have safeguards in place for purchasing policies are useless when firearms are so ed in 2011. The major causes for high levels guns, why is it so much easier to buy bul- easily transported into the state. of gun violence in California are loopholes lets—the very thing that makes a gun deadCalifornia lawmakers are taking steps in current state law and insufficient federal ly?” asks Skinner. AB 48 would require that to bolster California’s gun control laws. If laws, which undermine California gun con- all ammunition sales are done through a passed, these bills will help to reduce gun trol legislature. licensed dealer and reported to the Depart- crime in California; but when federal gun One such loophole is the ‘grandfather- ment of Justice. Though Skinner’s proposal control policy fails to adequately monitor ing’ of gun models that are currently illegal, makes a compelling point about bullets and the interstate movement of firearms, Calibut were not at the time of their purchase. calls attention to the fact that reporting fire- fornia’s laws are severely undermined. ♦ David Dovaragnes/Associated Press

CALIFORNIA

University of California, Online

Paul Chinn

The UC is expanding its online presence, but at what cost?

The UC regents discussed ways to increase the use of online education at their last meeting.

By Matthew Calvert, Staff Writer

he University of California is planning on expanding the number of classes taken online by undergraduates, but both the details of the plan and the motivations of its creators are unclear. The plan discussed by the regents has evoked mixed reactions and prompted responses from student leaders, including student regent Jonathan Stein. The regents’ plan involves the prospect of moving many introductory classes online. Currently, only a handful of UC Berkeley classes are available on the Internet. However, President Yudof expressed his wish that one day “10 percent to 15 percent of all undergraduate courses are taken online.” Governor Jerry Brown, another regent, is particularly interested in increasing the UC’s online presence in the hope of raising revenue and increasing the number of students that the UC can serve. Many Berkeley classes already involve an online component. These online models are spearheaded by the Berkeley Resource Center for Online Education (BRCOE). Despite having led the way on most online

initiatives, BRCOE’s Academic Director Armando Fox came away from the regents’ meeting without a clear idea of the direction of UC’s online education. Fox had trumpeted the so-called “blended method” of online education that combines online lectures and materials with inclass discussions. San Jose State University has piloted this program and saw the pass rate soar from 59 percent to 90 percent in the trial classes. Fox argues that “this is where the money is saved,” as “costs were lowered by helping people graduate more quickly,” and that online education can be a great way for technology to help enrolled students. Meanwhile, the regents are looking at it as a way to help bring new students into the system and to save costs on the ones that are already there. This schism points to the issue of innovating for the sake of innovation versus innovating for the sake of dollars. Student regent Jonathan Stein praised Professor Fox’s efforts in a recent interview. Stein said that “on a campus level [online education] is very encouraging.” The BRCOE has been “focusing on online education models that supplement instead of

replace the in-classroom experience.” Stein argues that the cost-cutting potential of online education is limited. “Developing the technologies that make blended learning possible won’t make teaching cheaper, but will dramatically lower drop rates and that might save money in the future as fewer students have to repeat classes.” While the UC currently offers classes through its extension for a fee, other colleges have created models that are free. MIT has pioneered “Open Courseware,” which provides the materials of thousands of courses to anyone who wants them in the hopes that they will empower people to learn on their own (and possibly donate to the university after they do). Stanford has taken a somewhat different approach, offering free classes that are aimed at both their own students and those around the world. They hope to use the platform as a way to allow faculty to try new teaching methods, assist in faculty training, and provide public access to learning as a public service. While both MIT and Stanford represent different ways of offering free classes, both have found a way to offer their brand of education to the world without sacrificing quality. The question will be whether the UC will follow in their footsteps or look to carve its own path. It is still unclear whether the online initiative will be profitable, but Stein argues that online education increases the ability of those wishing to educate themselves by providing them with the materials to do so. If UC online leads to an increase in the possibilities of those in California and around the world to learn from this institution, then it constitutes a success. While other schools have the luxury of experimenting with online models as a way to improve learning and provide a service to the world, the under-funded UC seems to be making the move online solely for the

Under-funded UC seems to be making the move online solely for the money. money. For the UC to meet its goals, it must strike a balance between working toward fiscal security and providing a world-class education. ♦

CALIFORNIA

California’s Way Ahead Following through with the Affordable Care Act By Mary Zhou, Staff Writer

bama’s Affordable Care Act (ACA), signed in March 2010, represents one of the most significant shifts in healthcare since the passing of Medicaid and Medicare in 1965. California started its implementation of the ACA early, establishing itself at the forefront of universal healthcare. Health insurance exchanges represent a key component of the ACA. The exchanges determine which health insurance companies participate in insurance coverage, facilitate the delivery of subsidies, and assist citizens in comparing and selecting insurance plans. 18 years ago, California set up its own exchange; however, it collapsed under financial burdens in 2006. Supported with $240 million in federal grants, California began to reinforce health insurance exchanges again following the passing of the ACA. The plans, operating on four different tiers, all guarantee basic benefits such as preventive care, prescription drug coverage, pediatric services and mental health treatment. San Jose Mercury News reported in 2012 that California was most well prepared to enforce Obama’s legislation. Joan Bloom, the Kaiser Permanente endowed chair in Health Policy and Management at UC Berkeley, agrees that it was a good idea for California to begin its implementation early. The state is one of few to

have gone beyond the ACA’s requirements and established its own exchange, Covered California. The ACA requires the buying of health insurance to officially begin in Jan. 2014, but Governor Brown is already calling special sessions to implement his healthcare bills within the next few months. Still, according to the California Healthcare Foundation, about seven million Californians are uninsured. Bloom explains that “the uninsured often wait until their conditions worsen to seek hospitalization; by that time, they need emergency care, which is more costly.” More than a quarter of the currently uninsured are eligible for federal subsidies to pay for their insurance, and

Even though California seems ready to give its citizens the full benefits of healthcare, the benefits cannot be fully reaped due to the state’s limited supply of doctors.

getcovered.ca.org

California’s new health insurance exchange.

subsidization of insurance will go up to 400 percent above the poverty line, suggesting that the number of uninsured is about to be reduced. Even though California seems ready to give its citizens the full benefits of healthcare, the benefits cannot be fully reaped due to the state’s limited supply of doctors. The government recommends about 70 doctors and 100 specialists per 100,000 residents, but only 16 out of California’s 58 counties achieve this threshold. Almost 30 percent of the state’s doctors are soon to retire, the largest rate nationwide. The growing population of doctors in training can hardly keep up with the growth of the rest of society. To address this problem, California is redefining the term “doctor” to include both pharmacists and nurse practitioners, so more people will be able to obtain basic medical help. However, the inclusion of more medical professionals might up financial costs by increasing the number of tests ordered and antibiotics prescribed. With California’s fiscal state already in a volatile condition, some worry that the ACA will exacerbate the situation. However, Bloom argues that “the federal government will help pick up a lot of the healthcare expansion.” The state will save money in the long run, because “theoretically when we spend less on emergency intensive care, that’s where the saving comes in.” In Jan. 2013, Governor Brown proposed a budget plan that would contribute $350 million to the implementation of the ACA. Hence, despite California’s annual healthcare cost of $1.30 billion, California still seems ready to tackle the healthcare issue. Currently, about 350 bills are being discussed in the state legislature to reform standards that define who qualifies as a doctor. Some propose that health workers set up their own practice. However, doing so would create a void in some clinics. The board for Covered California also has to decide on the cost of premiums for those who do not qualify for federal assistance. Bloom asserts that California “is doing everything it can, but it’s a long and complicated process.” Optimistically, this process will ultimately grant about 6.3 million Californians either complete coverage or subsidies for their insurance. Though California’s financial future looks murky and California still has to come to grips with its supply of doctors, the state is making progress and paving a path for other states to follow. ♦

CALIFORNIA

The Uncharged Third Rail Is reform of Prop 13 possible? By Michael Manset, Staff Writer

that failed received over 55 percent of the vote. Another proposal by Senator Lois Wolk (D-Davis) would similarly reduce the requirement to issue bonds and raise parcel taxes to fund local libraries. Leno and Wolk’s proposals could very well succeed. In 2000, voters passed a similar constitutional amendment in the form of Prop 39 that lowered the threshold to pass school bonds to 55 percent. Ted Lempert, a former state assemblymember and current UC Berkeley lecturer who sponsored the legislation that later became Prop 3 9 , states that while he believes a c a m -

Xio Alvarez

t is a good time to be a Democrat in California. In November 2012, voters awarded the party a two-thirds supermajority in both houses of the state legislature, giving the party the ability to raise taxes without the cooperation of Republicans. Additionally, Governor Brown’s tax measure, Prop 30, passed with 55.4 percent of the vote. Emboldened, some Democrats are now looking to touch the third-rail of California politics, Prop 13. Prop 13 was a successful 1978 ballot measure that radically altered California’s tax structure and finances. It capped increases in property taxes at two percent, and prevented reassessment of a property’s value except in cases in which construction occurred or when there was a change in ownership. The measure also raised the threshold for the passage of tax increases in the legislature or through local elections to two-thirds of total votes. There were significant effects on California’s budget, most notably forcing the state to rely on revenue from income and sales taxes, leaving California’s financial state vulCalifornia Democrats seeking to reform Prop 13. nerable to economic downturns. After years of uncertainty, deficits, and being forced to cut many pro- paign to ease passing parcel taxes for grams and services, Democrats have eyed school funding would be difficult, “dependreform of Prop 13, but the bill’s continued ing on what that legislation ultimately looks popularity among the voters has until now like, it could be constructed in a way that it stayed their hand. could pass.” In the hope that Democrats will take A third proposal, by State Assemblyman advantage of their supermajority in the leg- Tom Ammiano (D-San Francisco), is much islature, three legislators have proposed more ambitious. Ammiano advocates placserious reforms to Prop 13. The first, by ing another constitutional amendment on State Senator Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) the ballot that would create a “split roll,” would place on the ballot an amendment to allowing commercial property to be taxed the state constitution that would allow local based on its current market value (resimeasures to increase school district parcel dential properties would not be affected). taxes to pass with 55 percent of the vote. In Ammiano has argued that businesses are the 2012 election, 17 of the 27 proposed par- engaged in various techniques to avoid a cel tax increases passed, but seven of the 10 reassessment when property is sold. De-

In the hope that Democrats will take advantage of their supermajority in the legislature, three legislators have proposed serious reforms to Prop 13. spite the proposal’s audacity, polling suggests that it could perform well at the ballot box. A Dec. 2012 Public Policy Institute of California poll found that 58 percent of likely voters back the idea of a “splitroll.” However, it is unclear if that level of support would withstand an intense opposition campaign by the business comm u - nity. It remains unclear whether Governor Brown and other Democratic legislators are as willing to engage in another major tax fight so soon after Prop 30’s passage. Yet Lempert thinks that Prop 13 reform, if pursued wisely, could very well pass, citing Prop 39. “That changed Prop 13. It had the support of virtually every sector in the state. So when people say ‘Oh my gosh! You’re going to touch Prop 13,’ well we already did that!” If Californians managed to alter Prop 13 over a decade ago, and more recently agreed to tax themselves with Prop 30, perhaps California’s third rail is no longer electrified. ♦

Like us on facebook! www.facebook.com/ berkeleypoliticalreview

NATIONAL

Swimming Solo Why it’s a good thing that Chuck Hagel is outside the mainstream

Jim Dale/Associated Press

about Israel. He has challenged the influence wielded by the hardline pro-Israel group AIPAC. Though he used the unfortunate term “Jewish lobby” in his comments, his critique is still valid. Groups like AIPAC have reified blind support for the Israeli government, and labelled anyone who criticizes its actions as anti-semitic. This devalues our public discourse, reduces the prospect of a two-state solution and trivializes a form of bigotry that ought to be taken more seriously. The foreign policy consensus of pundits and politicians has not done well on these issues. As Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel should follow through on his past positions and push policy in a different direction.

Chuck Hagel at his confirmation hearing.

By Woody Little, Staff Writer

ecently approved Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has the dubious honor of being the only Secretary of Defense ever to be filibustered. Hagel, a decorated Vietnam War veteran and conservative Republican senator from Nebraska until 2009, had an exceptionally hard time winning over Republicans. The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald attributes this phenomenon to the fact that Hagel has been one of the few national politicians to “question and dissent from the destructive bipartisan orthodoxies on foreign policy.” Giving credence to this theory, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) defended his opposition to Hagel by declaring Hagel to be “outside the mainstream” of foreign policy. Sen. Cornyn’s comment was obviously meant to smear Hagel as an unqualified radical. However, with the dismal record of the foreign policy consensus over the last decade in mind, calling someone “outside the mainstream” should be considered a compliment. Mr. Hagel was roundly criticized for challenging the foreign policy consensus around the Iraq War. Though he voted with that consensus to authorize the invasion of Iraq in 2003, Hagel became one of the war’s most outspoken critics. He often declared

Iraq a “war of choice,” said in 2008 that it was “destroying our military,” and alleged in the same speech that oil interests remained central to decision-making. “We’re not there for figs,” he said. Hagel’s comments here challenge people to consider why the US remained in Iraq after it became clear that “weapons of mass destruction” were nowhere to be seen, incurring hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties and thousands of American casualties in the process. Hagel is also criticized for breaking from the consensus that supported the 2007 troop surge in Iraq, calling it “the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.” Perhaps a bit overstated, Hagel’s criticism of the surge’s efficacy is echoed by Middle Eastern historian Juan Cole, who holds that “the troop escalation in and of itself was probably not that consequential.” Sen. John McCain criticized Mr. Hagel at his confirmation hearing for his previous opposition to unilateral sanctions against Iran. The perception that Hagel is “soft” on Iran hurts his support generally. However, the mainstream orthodoxy that demands a “hardline” stance on Iran has failed to bring the Islamic Republic to the negotiating table. A different approach could prove fruitful. Chuck Hagel has also broken various Washington taboos limiting discussion

As Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel should follow through on his past positions and push policy in a different direction. Even if Hagel fails to personally shift US foreign policy in any major ways, supporters such as Glenn Greenwald argue that putting a dissenting voice in a position of power could do much to further the foreign policy dialogue. However, perhaps we suffer less from a lack of dissident individuals in positions of power than from a fear of those in power that they will lose their mainstream credentials if they express dissent. Sen. McCain defended his vote to filibuster Mr. Hagel by pointing to Hagel’s criticisms of President Bush and his policy, declaring Hagel “anti-party.” Many other criticisms of Hagel point not to his general record but to specific words or phrases that he used only once. Hagel’s confirmation battle has been a window into the culture of political censorship in Washington. We should take the opportunity to question why a powerful mainstream of thought exists at all. After a decade of war, we need critics of our country and its actions to help us redefine the meaning of patriotism. Hopefully, Chuck Hagel can help us remember that love of county is proven not by blind faith in political leaders but in the critical eye turned toward one’s own nation. ♦

NATIONAL

Obama’s Agenda

Getty Images

A dance between leading and following

Obama delivering the State of the Union Address.

By Felix Cruz, Staff Writer

f President Obama’s Inaugural speech demonstrates his commitment to fighting for equality, the State of the Union speech justifies that commitment by arguing that equality perpetuates and increases economic growth. However, while Obama is leading the country into new progressive territory, he will be following a path of compromise toward policy execution. Most notably he

He will be following a path of compromise toward policy execution. stated, “But they do expect us to put the nation’s interest before party. They do expect us to forge reasonable compromise where we can.” This acknowledges that in a Republican -controlled House of Representatives there will be a difference between the rhetoric set forth in these two speeches and the translation of those plans into policy. Progressives

may not like Obama’s centrist streak, but compromise does not mean inherent failure. Indeed, Obama’s allies on the left should recognize that compromise is the only path available for Obama to succeed; without it, his ambitious agenda will crumble. Obama revealed his inclination to compromise in the fiscal cliff debate at the beginning of this year. Obama initially kept his stance that he would raise capital gains and dividend taxes from 15 to 20 percent for those couples that earned more than $250,000 and individuals earning more than $200,000. But the final bill only resulted in tax increases for couples earning more than $450,000 and for individuals with over $400,000. Some liberals who wanted more saw this as a failure. But the compromise was favorable to Obama’s agenda, raising more revenue from the rich. The same debate continues now that the “sequester”—automatic cuts to domestic and defense spending—is set to begin on March 1. But an ideological Republican Party will force Obama to shift to his right. Still, policy borne out of compromise is better than gridlock and brinksmanship. As President Obama said, “The greatest nation on Earth cannot keep conducting its business by drifting from one manufactured crisis to the next.” ♦

Berkeley Political Review is UC Berkeley’s only nonpartisan political magazine. We publish and distribute the magazine for free four times a year. Our staff is composed entirely of undergraduate students.

https://www.facebook.com/berkeleypoliticalreview

Interested in writing, graphic design or marketing? Apply online at:

bpr.berkeley.edu

NATIONAL

From Adams to Biden The evolution of the vice presidency

A progression of Vice Presidents John Adams, Dick Cheney, and Joe Biden.

By Disha Banik, Staff Writer

ohn Adams, America’s first vice president, pulled no punches in describing the office he occupied: “My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived.” This description of the vice presidency is in dramatic contrast to the power wielded by vice presidents in the 21st century, particularly Dick Cheney in the Bush Administration. The power, influence and significance of the vice president’s office, in both concrete and symbolic terms, has progressively expanded from John Adams’ term to Cheney’s, while contracting slightly during Biden’s tenure. While the vice presidency has undergone many transformations throughout American history, Jimmy Carter’s vice president, Walter Mondale is generally viewed as the man who initiated the modern role of the vice president. Mondale became the first vice president to hold an office in the West Wing. He expanded the role of his office from a figurehead position to presidential advisor and full participant in the administration. He established the tradition of weekly lunches with the president, which continues to this day. Since the end of the Cold War, the vice

president has assumed a greater role in national security and foreign policy decision-making. This trend is best exemplified by Dick Cheney. When he took office in Jan. 2001, he played an instrumental role in the Bush administration’s energy policy, environmental policy, domestic surveillance program, and foreign policy. He often acted with little input from executive branch officials explicitly in charge of providing national security and counterrorism advice to Bush. “I believe in a strong, robust executive authority, and I think that the world we live in demands it,” said Cheney in Dec. 2005 when flying from Pakistan to Oman. There are several factors that catalyzed the expansion of vice presidential power during the Bush Administration. One of which concerns President Bush’s relative inexperience with foreign policy and congress. Also, counter-terrorism policies—especially the Patriot Act—greatly increased the power of the entire executive branch. This development dramatically augmented the scope of Cheney’s authority, though he later famously claimed that his office was not part of the executive branch to avoid compliance with an executive order. This temporary, wartime expansion of political power left the door open for the office to significantly increase its long-term role in national security policy. The vice president has a permanent seat on the National Se-

curity Council, and recently Joe Biden was highly involved in the search for Osama Bin Laden. While current Vice President Joe Biden has not exhibited as much policymaking authority as Cheney, he has played an important symbolic role in formulating the Obama Administration’s position on same-sex marriage. President Obama originally showed no intention of initiating a policy aimed at ensuring marriage rights for same-sex couples until Biden unequivocally articulated his support for marriage equality. Biden was nearly single-handedly responsible for persuading the Obama administration to take a position in favor of marriage equality, and for the first time in American history, the right of same-sex couples to get married was affirmed in the Presidential Inaugural Address. Biden also arguably recovered Obama’s poor performance in the first presidential debate through his debate with Paul Ryan. The extent to which Biden helped buoy Obama’s poll numbers is up for debate, but Biden definitely established a more audacious, forward and facetious tone for himself and the president, a tone that has surfaced in many of Obama’s subsequent speeches. ♦

This is an excerpt. Please read the full story, featuring an interview with former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm online at bpr.berkeley.edu.

NATIONAL

Cyber-Disobedience The battle for open access and a free Internet future

ly-funded research should be sequestered behind paywalls.

Daniel J. Sieradski

He saw no reason why articles that drew upon publicly-funded research should be sequestered behind paywalls.

Swartz campaigning against SOPA in 2012.

By Viveka Jagadeesan, Staff Writer

wo days before Internet activist Aaron Swartz committed suicide, federal prosecutors rejected a plea bargain offer from his lawyers that would have kept him out of prison, instead threatening him with more than three decades behind bars. Though Swartz was charged with wire fraud, computer fraud, unauthorized access and computer damage, his real crime seems to have been breaking into a wiring closet at MIT in order to download articles from the academic research database JSTOR. US attorney Carmen Ortiz said of the indictment: “Stealing is stealing…whether you take documents, data or dollars. It is equally harmful to the victim whether you sell what you have stolen or give it away.” This grandiose proclamation of concern for what is “harmful to the victim” is more than a bit disingenuous, as JSTOR had no intention of taking the matter to court. In response to the incident, the academic database issued the following statement: “We secured from Mr. Swartz the content that was taken, and received confirmation that the content was not and would not be used, copied, transferred, or distributed...Once this was achieved, we had no interest in this becoming an ongoing legal matter.” Swartz was originally charged with the state-level crime of breaking and entering in

the daytime. Boston criminal defense lawyer Harvey Silverglate explains how lawyers familiar with the case believed it would be handled: “the state charge would be continued without a finding, with Swartz duly admonished and then returned to civil society to continue his pioneering electronic work in a less legally questionable manner. Tragedy intervened when Ortiz’s office took over the case to send ‘a message.’” Indeed, as revealed in a congressional briefing on the case, prosecutors were influenced by pro-information sharing beliefs Aaron expressed as a signatory to the “Guerilla Open Access Manifesto,” and were motivated to deter similar political activism. After Ortiz literally made a federal case out of this, Swartz was charged under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Since it was first enacted in 1984, this legislation “has given federal prosecutors almost unbridled discretion to bully practically anyone using a computer network in ways the government doesn’t like,” explains Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig. And the nature of the government’s objection to Swartz’s computer activity is no mystery: he didn’t download over four million articles to sell for financial gain; his crime was an act of civil disobedience. He vociferously objected to a system that charged large fees for access to academic papers without compensating the authors. Moreover, he saw no reason why articles that drew upon public-

Whether or not you agree with Swartz’s method of expressing dissatisfaction with this system, it seems quite clear that to threaten with 35 years in prison someone aiming—not to profit from—but to share freely a trove of mostly public domain scientific research is draconian and perverse. So what explains the government’s excessive prosecutorial zeal in this case? According to The Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald, the answer lies in the central focus of Swartz’s activism, which was “the war over how the internet is used and who controls the information that flows on it—and that was his real crime in the eyes of the US government: challenging its authority and those of corporate factions to maintain a stranglehold on that information.” UC Berkeley genetics professor Michael Eisen articulated a similar opinion, connecting the Swartz case to another high-profiling instance of the government aggressively prosecuting an advocate of the free flow of information: “the liberation of information [is] being used as an attack on traditional power structures— in the case of Bradley Manning, the government’s political power and in Aaron Swartz’s case, economic power. It’s not an accident that there is a systemwide crackdown.” Aaron Swartz broke the law, and his actions warranted legal consequences. However, the prosecutorial overreach in this case demonstrates the government’s imperious desire to control the exchange of information online. Each of us now leads a life inescapably linked to the flow of information over the Internet. If we believe, as Eisen advocates, that “information should be as free as possible, without the violation of legitimate interests,” we need to critically examine how our government regulates cyberspace. The principles we endorse now will shape future debates surrounding this seminal issue. ♦

INTERNATIONAL

Maggie Hardy, Staff Writer

A Practice in Self-Mutilation: Could Britain Leave the European Union?

In January, UK Prime Minister David Cameron announced plans for a referendum on British membership of the EU by 2017 to the dismay and concern of economic powerhouses.

By Eoghan Hughes, Staff Writer

n 2003, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair likened a British secession from the European Union to an act of self-mutilation. Now, his successor David Cameron has made that mutilation all the more likely with his recent vow to host an in-or-out referendum on British membership of the EU. In January, Cameron shocked spectators across the continent by announcing his plans for a referendum that could see one of Europe’s largest populations and economies cut ties with the Union, which would in turn completely reshape European politics. Though Cameron has promised to negotiate concessions with Brussels’s that would exempt Britain from some EU policies while still retaining membership, polls show that 52 percent of British citizens would vote to leave the Union should negotiations fail, citing the high cost of membership. On the other hand, the cost of leaving the EU must also be considered. While a British exit remains a remote possibility, if

they leave, the worst-case scenario has the UK becoming economically isolated from the continent. Considering that more than half of Britain’s trade is conducted with EU member states, this would be disastrous for the UK. The EU itself would lose the faith of investors as a place of business, leading to further economic stagnation at the time of the Euro debt crisis. The loss of lenders would cause strain between member states and create a power vacuum, leading to unrestricted competition between the states for economic supremacy. In such a scenario the EU could collapse into itself, destabilizing the world market and potentially plunging both Europe and the world to new depths of recession. Fortunately, this scenario is not the most likely. Dr Laurent Pech, an expert on the EU’s internal market, has explained that even if the British leave the Union, they will probably remain a vital part of the European market via the European Economic Area, similar to Iceland and Norway. All members of the EU are members of the EEA, a single market area in which the free movement of goods, capital, services and

people is guaranteed. Lacking the political component that the UK finds problematic, the EEA seems like a possible solution to the problem should the referendum pass, which is at the moment merely a distant possibility. Even if the referendum manages to shore up support for Cameron’s unpopular Conservatives in the 2015 election, there is no guarantee that by 2017 it will still be on the table. Circumstances will change. Britain may get the chance to ‘renegotiate’ their place in Europe or public opinion could take a decisive swing in favor of EU membership, making the exit an even more remote possibility. For now, the most important element is the immediate political impact Cameron’s announcement has had at home and abroad. Pech has warned that Scotland and Wales might seek independence from the UK to remain within Europe. With a Scottish referendum on independence set for 2014, the fact that Scotland is the most pro-EU of all British nations could create damaging internal conflict in the UK. Abroad, French President Francois Hollande expressed contempt for the referendum, while German Chancellor Angela Merkel has emphasized the need to find a fair compromise that would keep Britain “an active” member of the EU. The UK received a cold reception in Brussels’s during the EU six-year budget discussions. European Parliament President Shulz asked how Britain felt it could opine on the budget when it might not be an EU member by the time of its completion, a clear sign of the bitterness Cameron has aroused in Europe. In the US, the Obama Administration has warned Cameron of the economic danger of the UK leaving the EU, while China, the EU’s greatest trade partner, fears the “uncertainties” business leaders will face should Britain leave the Union. As both nations have strong economic ties with Europe, a fractured European system would likely be seen in the GDP of their trading partners. Having made enemies in Europe, stirred up conflict within Britain and aroused the concern of the US, it seems that Cameron’s speech was the first cut in the self-mutilation of Britain. It won’t be until 2017 that we will know just how far the blade has sunk. ♦

INTERNATIONAL

The Politics of Censorship: Press Freedom in Turkey

Haber-Sen

Turkey’s decade-long political transformation has had detrimental effects on censorship and press freedom

Activists protest the rampant imprisonment of journalists.

By Efe Atli, Staff Writer

n 1998, Recep Tayyip Erdogan was arrested for reciting a poem. Banned from politics and imprisoned, the future prime minister was indicted due to “subversive activities.” Today, however, Erdogan is the undisputed leader of Turkey, and his party (AKP) dominates the political atmosphere. Nonetheless, one of the legacies of the AKP decade (2002-present) has been the precipitous decline of political expression and press freedom in Turkey. According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, Turkey now imprisons more journalists than any other state. Most

Turkey now imprisons more journalists than any other state. of those imprisoned have been indicted under the legal apparatus constructed to combat terrorism. The frequently-cited “Anti-Terror” law is only a recent iteration (1995) in a comprehensive response to subversion that can be traced back from the 1970s. Although Article 26 of the Turkish

constitution guarantees the freedom of expression, it also states that this freedom may be restricted in order to combat threats to the state. Erdogan claims that increasing measures have been needed to combat terrorism. However, UC Berkeley Professor Cihan Tugal suggests that the use of antiterror rhetoric to combat “real or perceived threats” is part of a global trend. Tugal sees the widespread decline of expression as indicative of an effort to marginalize any possible threat to the AKP. And indeed, the primary recipients of the state’s authoritarian measures have been critics of the regime, both internal and external. The ascendancy of the AKP regime has resulted in the decline of the former political establishment. Since the 1920s, Kemalist ideology has served as the foundation of Turkish politics. Kemalism is a blend of secularism and republicanism created by Kemal Ataturk, the founder of the Turkish Republic. Any ideology perceived to threaten this foundation has been harshly dealt with. It was under such a political environment that Erdogan was imprisoned in 1998. While the previous political atmosphere hardly tolerated a full spectrum of beliefs, the new regime has not acted much differently. Today any and all opponents of AKP have found themselves quickly marginalized.

Large-scale suppression has primarily occurred through the Ergenekon trials, or the indictment of 531 journalists, businessmen, politicians, and generals over purported membership in an alleged ultranationalist organization which the state claims has been behind every act of political violence and sabotage in Turkey over the past 30 years. Although supporters assert that the trials are essential in promoting democracy, Turkey’s ability to undergo a peaceful transition of power has been undermined. It is possible that—as Erdogan claims—“Ergenekon” had been planning a coup d’état against the AKP. However, the arrest of various journalists, academics and internal critics of the regime with no discernible link besides opposition to the AKP suggests that the trials serve as tools of political suppression. There remains only one viable opposition to the AKP—the CHP. However, even CHP officials and members, including the leader of the party, have been arrested or are under investigation. Surprisingly, international commentary on the trials has been slow to materialize. Erdogan has been quick to proclaim friendship and cooperation with the US, and the AKP has accelerated EU talks further than any previous Turkish administration. Although the EU has cited apprehension regarding the authoritarian streaks within the Turkish government, the close alliance between the EU, Turkey, and the US has meant that harsh denunciations have not occurred. Nonetheless, The New Yorker quotes an undisclosed American diplomat as commenting, “[Ergenekon] would never hold up in a Western court. People are being put on trial for their beliefs.” Censorship and restriction of political speech have become a reality in Turkey. The decline of civil society has resulted in the concentration of political capital within select organizations affiliated with the AKP. Though the situation must not be exaggerated, such widespread political censorship has stifled criticism of the AKP—an unfortunate development. Though Erdogan was himself arrested in 1998, it has been under his tutelage that Turkey has since imprisoned more journalists than any other state. This ironic distinction will doubtlessly influence both domestic and regional politics in the coming years. And while much is currently worrisome, much still remains to be seen. ♦

INTERNATIONAL

The Honduran Powder Keg: Primed for Yet Another Coup Debilitating economic crises and troubled political history leave Honduras dangerously close to yet another coup By Kevin Kraft, Staff Writer

Jeremy Kyrt

ith the Honduran government no longer able to financially support basic services and the country teeming with discontent, it appears that a major regime change is in the imminent future. This recent economic downturn, coupled with Honduras’ complicated political history, has the country poised for yet another coup. Essentially, the Honduran government is no longer functioning properly. On the brink of bankruptcy for months, the government is in desperate need of cash. Honduras currently faces an internal debt that has tripled over the past three years and an international debt of $6 billion, exceeding the entire government’s 2011 budget of $5 billion. By committing so much money to making necessary debt payments, Honduras has been unable to make payments to ensure basic services or guarantee the salaries of government workers. Teachers haven’t been paid for six months, hospitals are lacking in major supplies and essential medicines, street surveillance cameras in dangerous areas are being shut down, and, most threatening of all, soldiers are not receiving regular sala-

ries. Lawmakers have only passed a partial budget, leaving the financial future of numerous institutions, such as utility companies and ports, shrouded in uncertainty. The government itself points the finger at shortsighted financial policies from previous regimes combined with the general global economic depression. More reliable non-governmental voices and international groups believe that widespread corruption and election-year politics are more to blame. Transparency International, a political watchdog group, has published a report exposing numerous illegal government expenditures. According to the report, Honduras, one of Latin America’s poorest countries with 60 percent of the population living below the poverty line, has the most expensive legislature in the region. In addition, with presidential and legislative elections coming this fall, there are a “great number of candidates who are state officials and their tendency is to abuse state resources that they control to fund their campaigns” according to former Honduran presidential candidate and current legislator Olban Valladeras. Historically speaking, Honduras is no stranger to quasi-legal political takeovers. Recently, in 2009, democratically-elected

Police surround pro-democratic protestors during the 2009 coup (the most recent Honduran regime change) in Tegucigalpa.

President Manuel Zelaya was deposed in a military coup after coming into conflict with the Honduran Supreme Court over issuing a referendum to reform the current constitution. Holding a secret arrest warrant issued by the Supreme Court, Honduran soldiers kidnapped Zelaya during the middle of the night and left him alone in his pajamas in the middle of an airport runway in Costa Rica. Similar to Zelaya, Porfirio Lobo, the current Honduran president, has also clashed with the Honduran Supreme Court. After the Supreme Court deemed a Lobo-supported police reform law unconstitutional in 2012, Lobo unleashed a firestorm of public opinion against several the Supreme Court Justices, describing them as puppets of commercial interests acting against the interest of the state. After Lobo’s outcry, the Honduran Congress approved a measure to immediately remove four of the “offending” Supreme Court Justices. This move drew considerable public outrage and was dubbed a “technical coup” to take power away from the Supreme Court. Since then, the Honduran Congress, now able to effectively overrule any Supreme Court decision, has been enacting unconstitutional laws at will and unabashedly threatening to use force to suppress any outspoken opposition. While the previous two coups did not break out into widespread violence, it is possible that this trend will be broken. In addition to the existing discontent, the likelihood of a revolution is greatly increased by the ominous reality that Honduran soldiers aren’t receiving regular paychecks. With their government loyalty weakened without their pay, soldiers are extremely susceptible to becoming hired guns for drug cartels or being swept up in a military coup. With all corners of society increasingly despondent about the government and a troubled history of less than legal regime change, Honduras appears to be poised for a coup. The country has effectively devolved into crisis and is embroiled in essentially constant protests from all corners of society, clamoring that their government has failed them. Even though elections are scheduled for this coming fall, the current situation is so volatile that the current regime will probably not last that long. With a dreadful combination of economic devastation and a history of coups, Honduras has effectively become a powder keg, ready to explode into chaos with the slightest spark. ♦

INTERNATIONAL

Militarization vs. Inaction: The Syrian Predicament

Jeff Mitchell/Getty Images

Exploring the risks of military intervention in Syria

Syrian refugees arrive at the Za’atari Refugee Camp in Mafeq, Jordan

By Jessie Lau, Staff Writer

s the two year anniversary of the Syrian conflict draws near, the glamour of revolution has long ago been shattered and replaced by a gritty reality. The number of people at risk in Syria: 2.5 million. The number of Syrians displaced: 1.2 million. The number of registered Syrian refugees: 400,000. The UN estimates that the death toll in Syria is now “approaching 70,000.” Yet even with these horrifying statistics, the international community finds itself frozen, incapable of substantial action. This inactive disposition is a symptom of an overwhelming sense of uncertainty regarding the potentially negative consequences of military intervention. The issue of military intervention has been debated among the Western powers with increasing ferocity during these past few months. The US Senate amended the 2013 defense bill to require the president to report to Congress regarding any military plans to “deny or significantly degrade the use of (US) air power” against “civilian and opposition groups in Syria.” The New York Times also revealed a strategy by CIA Director David Petraeus and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to arm the rebels—whereas Obama has expressed reluctance in increasing military presence. Meanwhile, British senior defense sources declared that Britain would only consider providing the rebels

with maritime or air support if the United States took action as well. France has stressed that they are not providing weapons for the rebels, although they are funding the rebels’ military operations through Turkey. The Western powers are also reluctant

It is impossible to determine whether military interference will better or worsen the conflict, and the costs are simply getting higher. to directly arm the rebels for fear that military equipment will find their way to terrorist organizations and undermine western interests, further destabilizing at-risk regions. Dr. Gary Wren, a faculty member of UC Berkeley’s Interdisciplinary Studies department who specializes in political theory, is also cautious about military intervention. “You feel like you should do something, but you don’t know which side you would be helping and what the long-term consequences would be.” He continues to point out that “we don’t even know how involved we already are”—drawing attention to the fact that “there are some reports that the US

has established training camps for rebels in Turkey, and that we’ve offered supplies behind the scenes.” The most commonly suggested types of military intervention include establishing a no-fly zone and directly arming the rebels. Two main barriers to implementing these forms of armed involvement include the military risks of establishing such a no-fly zone, and the perceived fragile unity of the diverse factions that make up the National Coalition of Syrian Revolution and Opposition forces. Unlike the air defenses that NATO faced in Libya—Syria’s defense network is sophisticated and hard to defeat. Overcoming Syria’s air defense would come at the price of Western soldiers, resources, and finances— not to mention increased civilian causalities and a potential escalation of the crisis. Some are also cautious to arm a group with such ethnic and religious diversity for fear of triggering sectarian conflicts. The Syrian National Coalition is recognized by most as the legitimate representative of the Syrian people; however not all opposition groups support the coalition. The leaders of the Syrian National Coalition consist of moderate Arabs and democratic activists with expressed progressive interests; their stated aim is to overthrow the regime and help Syria transition into democracy, and to protect the rights of Syrians. Al-Khatib, a moderate Sunni Muslim cleric, leads the coalition. Although the Syrian National Council, a predominantly Sunni Muslim opposition group, holds 22 out of 63 seats in the coalition’s council, the rest of the coalition contains a myriad of religious and ethnic diversity including Syrian Turks, Kurds, and more. Should the rebels overthrow the regime, the coalition’s biggest challenge will be establishing a secure, transitional government and keeping Syria from collapsing into civil war. Perhaps the international community should be focusing its efforts on preparing for and shaping such a transition—particularly through stabilizing the coalition’s distinct opposition groups and alleviating the effects of the crisis. Ultimately, it is impossible to determine whether military interference will better or worsen the conflict, and the costs are simply getting higher. The western powers are torn between risking the lives of more Syrians and jeopardizing their own interests—a restless stalemate that will most likely continue for now. ♦

OPINION

Too Big to Jail vs. Too Small to Protest

By Ankit Aggarwal, Staff Writer

n the US today, observers can find no more salient evidence of the power of massive wealth than its ability to translate its beholders’ economic freedom into legal impunity. We can no longer rely on the American justice system—the supposed bastion of all our values—to enforce our laws equally. Does a young, former Stanford student who downloaded academic articles from JSTOR and posted them online for free seem to you like the face of crime today? To the prosecutor of 26-year-old Electronic Frontier Foundation member Aaron Swartz, indicting such a delinquent on a panoply of charges—ones that could have given Swartz 35 years in prison—seemed the best way to set an example for other wayward youths. While Swartz undoubtedly breached the terms and conditions of using JSTOR, the academic database declined to pursue charges against him. The prosecutor chose to pursue the case anyway, adding charge on top of charge until a man who committed the “crime” of sharing academic papers online faced jail time above and beyond that of an armed robber who discharged a firearm during the robbery (without injuring anyone). With such punishment looming, Aaron Swartz hanged himself in his apartment on Jan. 11, 2013. Swartz would have had more luck with the “justice” system if he were a large financial institution that committed heinous crimes. According to Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian, we must reluctantly accept that the wealthy are “too big to jail” if they control assets that—if investigated—could imperil the financial system. Executives of the British banking giant HSBC—which holds the sixth most assets of any financial institution in the world—were recently indicted on providing banking services and money transfers not only for drug cartels in Mexico, but also for Islamist terrorist groups that were actively plotting attacks. Despite that set of executives being complicit in

side to make sure the bank conforms to ethical standards. If these extreme remedies are impossible, then the bank should be broken up into constituent parts and have its value guaranteed by the cooperation of the multiple national governments in whose countries HSBC operates. The likely outcome of actual conviction on fraud charges without securing the deposits is a massive run on the bank, which truly would endanger the financial system. But if investors know that their money is safe and that merely the culpable executives’ freedoms are in jeopardy, the financial system will not collapse. We are taught from youth that no person is above the law. But the differential “justice” adjudicated upon unincorporated humans (even when they commit crimes that do not harm others) versus that adjudicated for the giants of the financial sector (even when they aid murderers) proves that the current law works in favor of the rich, and no one else. Every day without reform inches plutocracy closer and closer toward victory over democracy. ♦

the deaths of thousands of innocents, the US Department of Justice gave them a slap on the wrist. Worse, the executives are still able to make transactions and continue illicit banking practices, many of which investigators probably are not aware. If we are to take the idea of corporate personhood seriously, corporations cannot escape the responsibilities to obey the law. The government cannot claim to fight the War on Terror or the disruption of the cartels without impeding those operations’ finances. While protection of the financial system might have been a priority for the Department of Justice in handling this case, they either did not consider or outright ignored the precedent their actions set. Power players in our society now know beyond reasonable doubt that they can act with impunity—the textbook definition of plutocracy. Neil Barofsky of the SEC has pointed out that the Treasury Department cannot viably harm the operations of a bank this large without putting the entire financial system at risk. But the answer to that predicament cannot be a $1.9 billion fine for an institution that holds $2.5 trillion in assets. The solution here should have been severe, and forced people to sit up and take notice. The group of executives directly involved in these operations should be prosecuted for treason for committing crimes tantamount to “aiding and abetting” enemies of the US. The United Kingdom should immediately nationalize the bank and supervise the training of a new group of executives who Aaron Swartz at a 2008 Creative Commons event. are brought in from out-

Fred Benenson

While most have few options in the criminal justice system, major banks like HSBC get away with laundering money

OPINION

What Constitutes an “Acceptable Quality of Life?” Hunger strikes in prisons and hospitals force us to question institutional competence of care

ould you starve yourself to get a better cellmate? This question is not hypothetical for inmates in prison facing abusive situations. Hunger strikes are drastic actions in which persons deprive themselves of food to effect change in institutional practices. When occurring literally within the walls of an institution, hunger strikes are powerful protests that can draw media attention to the negative practices of the institution, and are proof that reform is needed. We rely on institutions. Institutions feed us, clothe us, clean up our messes, heal us, and protect us. Suggestion of untoward activity at institutions often provokes counter-criticism of “biting the hand that feeds”. Thus, criticism of institutions largely remains the prerogative of academia and the increasingly endangered investigative report. A hunger strike is often the only way to get mainstream media to report on the appalling conditions of certain institutions. French philosopher Michel Foucault devoted much of his work to critiquing institutions. He argued that particular local programs of governance within prisons, hospitals, asylums, the economy, and social security ‘inform individual behavior’ and ‘act as grids for the perception and evaluation of things’ so as to thereby ‘crystalize into institutions’. The decentered study of an institution explores the way in which it is created, sustained, and modified through the meanings and ideas of a host of micro-practices. To improve institutions, we must remember both their past histories and the values with which those histories have imbued the institution. No institution

exists in a social vacuum. The Oct. 2012 hunger strikes in California prisons, for example, raised valid points about the commodification of convicts.

Rashid Johnson

By Nikhil Kotecha, Staff Writer

just because they were convicted.) If the presupposition that most persons can be rehabilitated forms the basis of our penal system, then the system must—at the very least—ensure all inmates can meet certain basic needs: Maslow’s physiological, safety, and self-actualization needs should be secured within the context of limited freedom. If prisoners are willing to forego something as essential as food, then something serious is remiss in the prison system, and at the very least, prisons should be opened to more sincere public scrutiny so that positive reform can be made. As John Locke said, if conditions are not upheld by the state, then the individual has the right to rebel. Prisoners who partake in a hunger strike are rebelling in the limited means available to them. The situation becomes decidedly more complicated with the question of mental health. The argument employed in this article operates under the assumption that an individual is mentally healthy and capable of choosing to undergo a hunger strike and is not committing suicide. Hunger strikers need to be separated from those who are attempting suicide. I firmly believe that every life, regardless of circumstance, has meaning and value, and by allowing suicide to occur for incarcerated or hospitalized individuals, the institution is neglecting its mandated duties. Once again, reform needs to occur to care for the mental health of incarcerated and/ or hospitalized persons. Hunger strikers in hospitals who intend to effect institutional change should explain their stance to media outlets to avoid conflation with the debate over euthanasia. We need to inform the public of what is occurring in the institutions upon which we rely. We must make transparent the practices of institutions, and let the public decide on the course of action. We are a democracy, after all, and our institutional practices should reflect equality and justice. ♦

This drawing was used in the public solidarity campaign for the Pelican Bay Hunger Strike. Some pundits opined that the prisoners had committed crimes, and they deserved to be punished, and had the right to starve themselves to death if they didn’t like the punishment. Others took the stance with which I agree: Sure, the guilty convicts committed crimes and deserved to be punished, but they also had the reasonable right to demand a fundamental quality of life that should be afforded to all human beings. (Not to mention not all of them were guilty

OPINION

Off the Cliff, Anyway

Pete Souza

What the fiscal cliff deal really means for your pocketbook

President Barack Obama meets with former President George H.W. Bush in the Oval Office, Saturday, Jan. 30, 2010.

By Ben Goldblatt, Staff Writer

he high-drama fiscal cliff negotiations in December focused on whether the wealthiest Americans should pay more in income taxes. Pundits and congresspersons seemed to discuss solely this aspect of the talks, largely ignoring other ways to raise revenue. For a time, the president delivered speeches in the White House Press Room every few days where he implored members of Congress to raise income taxes on top earners to shield others from being afflicted by a higher tax burden. After all, raising taxes on the wealthy—and only the wealthy—was a central theme of his re-election campaign. Ultimately, the top marginal income tax rate for the top two percent of income-earning Americans jumped from 35 percent to 39.6 percent while the Bush Tax Cuts for the other 98 percent of taxpayers remained in

place. President Obama heralded this deal as a great success, saying that it “protects 98 percent of Americans and 97 percent of small business owners from a middle-class tax hike.” The problem with this statement is that it’s not actually true. In reality, the fiscal cliff deal also allowed the payroll tax cuts to expire, resulting in tax increases for 77 percent of Americans. As UC Berkeley’s own former Clinton cabinet secretary Robert Reich put it, consumers are “bummed

The fiscal cliff deal also allowed the payroll tax cuts to expire, resulting in tax increases for 77 percent of Americans.

out” over Congress allowing them to lose up to $100 a month while salaries continue to flatline. The payroll tax, which funds Social Security, is made up of a 12.4 percent tax on wages up to $113,700. The 12.4 percent is split evenly between employer and employee. For the last two years, however, workers only paid 4.2 percent of each paycheck to the Social Security fund, rather than the usual 6.2 percent. According to estimates from the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, the return to a 6.2 percent rate means that households making between $40,000 and $50,000 per year will pay an average of $579 more in taxes, and households making between $50,000 and $75,000 will pay about $822 more. Lawmakers first enacted the payroll tax cut to stimulate the economy and provide financial relief to workers. Evidence suggests that this endeavor was largely successful. A recent New York Federal Reserve study found that the payroll tax cut has been extraordinarily helpful in boosting the economy, as about 36 percent of the extra income workers received from the payroll tax cuts was spent. The payroll tax is regressive in that it disproportionately affects middle and lower income people because of its cap on income over $113,700 (e.g. someone making 10 times that amount with plenty to spare pays the same in payroll taxes as a household’s sole income-earner supporting four children on that salary). For this reason, it’s especially astounding that the president, with his “fair share” crusade, did not seek to extend the payroll tax cut or modify the cap. Although it shouldn’t be too big of a surprise that politicians don’t keep their promises, especially when it comes to tax issues. The first President Bush famously declared, “Read my lips. No new taxes!” during his campaign before being elected to the presidency in 1988. Within a couple of years, Americans were experiencing a series of excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco and gasoline. Excise taxes are a form of regressive taxation because middle and lower income people spend a larger percentage of their paychecks on goods than wealthier people do. Some commentators think these tax increases may have ultimately cost Bush re-election in 1992. It seems President Obama learned quite a bit from President Bush: he waited until being re-elected before slapping higher taxes on the middle-class that helped put him in office. ♦

OPINION

The Enemy Without The fabled litany of burgeoning US economic foes has never thus far materialized

tage. The percentage of Chinese GDP devoted to the military has remained constant for the past decade at two percent. In the US however, this figure has increased from three percent to four percent. Why then, the media’s insistence on a threat that isn’t acBy Nashilu Mouen-Makoua, Staff Writer tually there? Throughout the list of fabled foes, each rising menace has had he poptwo characteristics in common; ulation economic growth, and an unsavory of the governmental regime. In the 1950s, US may be exCommunism was labeled a global cused for feelissue, threatening to spread from ing that they the USSR and Mao’s China to engulf are repeatedly the world at any moment. Throughoutliving their out the 1960s, American school impending dechildren cried themselves to sleep mise. Between nuclear Soviet fearing that Khrushchev’s Soviet nuobliteration and Chinese ecoclear strikes would annihilate their nomic domination, the last 50 neighborhoods. By the early noughyears have seen threat after ties, America awaited the nuclear fatal threat inch the US toward strike brewing in Saddam’s Iraq a doom that has yet to actually that would wipe them off the grid occur. As media outlets build forever, unless they neutralized it China up to be the present ecofirst (which Bush Jr. and Tony Blair nomic and military menace, a ostensibly attempted to do, only to little context will show that this “find” that it had never been there). foe is just the latest in a long line Since 2006, the UN—under US guidof predecessors, each more duance—has implemented crippling bious than the last. sanctions against Ahmadinejad’s According to the econoIran for a WMD program that might mists, China—which became well be as authentic as that in Iraq. the world’s second largest econAmerica continues to mistake omy in 2010—is set to overtake defiance for menace, as each of the the United States in 2030. Or is above nations first and foremost reit 2015? Maybe 2020? According fused to accept the made-in-Amerto the media, China’s military ica export of democracy. The spending is dangerously spiralfear of these foes lies more in ing out of control. Before we their political autonomy than know it, the aggressive supertheir military unpredictability; power will soon rival the US in the truly rogue North Korea is weapons expenditures, sending just as much a thorn in China’s us all running for the hills as red Workers at Seagate Wuxi Factory in China on 6 November side as everyone else’s. In the third drones cross oceans to take aim 2008. Though their jobs are plentiful, their economic powpresidential debate last year, as above our heads. Obama and Romney competed to Unfortunately for the apoc- er does not rival the United States in the way some media level the most damning accusations alypse obsessives, the reality reports suggest. of Chinese economic piracy, their is far less entertaining than the solutions to the economic insecurinarrative. While these fluctuatty verged on military action. If the ing predictions propagate fear of that of the average Dominican than almost Chinese domination, they also mask the fact anyone but the very poorest in America. In threat of economic domination is as strong that this expected growth is inconsequential internet-obsessed-collegiate-terms, only 38 as the rhetoric suggests, the US should emto the relative development between the US percent of the Chinese population has ac- bark on a policy of collaboration, guaranteeing its own growth by sharing the powand China. Although it is true that the Chi- cess to the Internet. er rather than attempting to monopolize it. nese total GDP is growing at an exponential Militarily, China also poses less risk than rate—nearing almost half that of the US at the news media would have us believe. China’s economy is indeed booming and $7.2 billion—this seven-fold increase over Though the rising superpower is increas- their influence may also be expanding, but 10 years belies the fact that China’s GDP per ing its military might, US total expenditures I invite you, with me, to question the hegecapita remains $5,417. This figure puts the dwarf Chinese ones at $711 billion to $182 monic hype. ♦ average Chinese citizen’s wealth closer to billion—a nearly fourfold American advanRobert Scoble

JUST THE FACTS Stressed out Americans

In a poll of 751 North American workers, more than one-third of employees eat lunch at their desks on a regular basis. More than 50 percent assume they’ll work during their vacations. However, spending more hours at work (as opposed to resting) does not equate to higher productivity, and is in fact one of the best predictors of on-thejob burn-out.

Reduction of CO2 emissions

Trade volume of

trillion

Together, the US and the EU account for almost half of the globe’s GDP and a trade volume of $5 trillion.

billion pounds

In 2009, Biotechnology (GMOs) helped farmers reduce CO2 emissions by 39 billion pounds (equivalent to removing 8 million cars from the road for an entire year).

To date the Bavarian brewery Weideneder has produced a beer especially dedicated to Bavarian native Pope Benedict XVI. It is unclear if the “Papst-Bier” (pope-beer) will continue to be produced going forward.

Matsui Lecture 2013

Can the

World

Feed 9 Billion People?

A Global Agricultural Development Initiative Wed., March 13 Banatao Auditorium Sutardja Dai Hall UC Berkeley campus 4:00 - 5:30 pm Reception to follow

Douglas Bereuter Former Nebraska Congressman and Asia Foundation President

Co sponsored by: http://igs.berkeley.edu/matsui-center/matsui-lecture