The Brunswick School Review
Congressional Reform Hypocrisy of the Left Aid to Ukraine? Vendetta Against Meat
The Review
STAFF
Editors-In-Chief
Henry Putnam
Kiran Marsh
Andrew Tu
Junior Editors Writers
William Fels
William O’Reilly
Connor Crosby
Tony Zhu
Leo Simon
Neel Behringer
Anthony Sayegh
Henry Wise
Faculty Advisor
Brian Hoffman
Volume IX• Issue 1
Contact:
review@brunswickschool.org
100
Foreign Policy Political Reform
Why the US Must Continue Aid to Ukraine By Tony Zhu ’25
The Failed Border Bill: What is Wrong With Congress? By William O’Reilly ’25
Prime Minister Biden: Why the US Should Transition to a Parliamentary System By Henry Putnam ’24
Does America Need a Third Party? By Leo Simon ’25
Reforming the Senate - Why the Fillibuster Needs to be Removed By William Fels ’25
Political Culture Lifestyle
The Hypocracy of the American Left By Kiran Marsh ’24
Victim Mentality in Modern America By Neel Behringer ’26
Aim, Fire, Jammed: The Growth of Toxic Attempts to Control Firearms By Anthony Sayegh ’26
America’s Demonization of Raw Milk By Henry Wise ’26
Red Meat: Not the Enemy By Andrew Tu ’24
Test Optional? By Connor Crosby ’24
Why the US Must Continue Aid to Ukraine
By Tony Zhu ‘25
TheRussian military strike on February 24th, 2022, was the most significant attack on a European country since the Second World War. Two years later, Putin-led Russian aggression killed more than 70,000 Ukrainian service members during the conflict. Although hard to estimate, nearly 500,000 total casualties on both sides were recorded six months ago, in August of 2023. Recently, Ukrainian personnel have lost the critical Eastern town of Avdiivka and have retreated on that front. They face shell shortages and persistent airstrikes as Russia threatens to add to the 18% of Ukrainian territory they possess. Russia, a country with a population of 143 million, has appointed a new commander
in chief as they intensify war efforts against 42 million Ukrainian people. Now more than ever, Ukraine needs more money to bolster its chances of pushing back Russia. Increasing US aid for the war is the best way to help without risking American lives.
One certainty in the chaos is the American commitment to aiding Ukraine, as President Biden’s administration has funneled more than 75 billion USD to this end. However, this may change, possibly dooming Ukraine to Vladimir Putin’s mercy.
Polls indicate that American opinion on the war has changed significantly. 41% of Americans feel that the US is “doing too much” to help Ukraine, which has risen from 24% in August. 62% of Republicans
and 44% of Independents agree that the US has gone overboard. A sizable faction of House Republicans led by Speaker Mike Johnson has made efforts to block a 95.3 billion dollar bill that includes over 60 billion USD in aid to Ukraine. Johnson claimed there was “no rush” to pass the bill in the House, even suggesting that he would not bring the bill to a vote. In addition, Donald Trump has openly urged Republicans to oppose Ukraine funding and criticized NATO. This shift in thinking on Ukraine could jam the gears of Ukraine’s war effort.
Detractors of aid for Ukraine argue that supporting Ukraine fails to benefit America and that the war is not the US’s business. The affairs of
American aid remains one of the key reasons why the Ukrainian military has been able to hold off Russia for so long.
Ukraine and Russia are, on the contrary, quite relevant to American interests. The erratic actions of Vladimir Putin, a dictator who commands control of almost 6000 nuclear warheads, warn us of his intentions. Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, and who knows if he will stop if he seizes it. In 1999, Putin, who was the Russian National Security Advisor at the time, attempted to move forces into Kosovo ahead of NATO. Russia ended up pulling out, but this clearly shows Putin’s grand ambitions for Russian expansion. He has quashed political opposition in Russia, effectively destroying democracy in his country. His greatest enemy, free speech advocate Alexei Navalny, died mysteriously in a Russian prison on February 16th after he survived a previous assassination attempt from a Soviet nerve agent in 2020. Putin is a danger to the democratic way of life and peace in Europe. As long as he lives, the fabric of Europe and the world is at risk. Past aggressors like Adolf Hitler, who killed millions and occupied tens of countries, have taught us that we should not let minor problems develop into significant issues.
As Russia gains momentum, the US must combat a massive conflict in the future by helping Ukraine eliminate the Russian war machine. It is cheaper to halt them now than to deal with the ramifications of a continued assault on NATO allies in Europe. If Putin crosses NATO, we could have a new world war on the horizon, and America would have to defend its allies. The US could be dragged into a global conflict. We cannot reward Putin’s hostility towards free countries like Ukraine by peeling away aid. Ukraine could lose not only their men and women but also their
way of life if Russia prevails. Russia and authoritarian China are among the biggest expansionists and threats to democracy, and stuffing Russia’s invasion discourages China from annexing sovereign nations like Taiwan. Finally, a recent study shows that 90% of aid to Ukraine spending stays in the US, creating tens of thousands of US jobs and boosting the US economy. These funds help build defense manufacturing facilities in America that build almost all of Ukraine’s munitions. The conflict has helped the US defense industry
and NATO countries’ respective weapons industries, which lessens monetary burdens on America since NATO is contributing more than ever to Ukraine’s aid. Most importantly, contributions to Ukraine are a reassuring sign to American allies that we will always be there for our democratic allies, strengthening key European relationships and partnerships that benefit US trade and military objectives. It is now or never to help Ukraine; at the end of the day, the US must stand up to bullies like Putin.
House Republicans led by Speaker Mike Johnson have provided roadblocks to this aid.
Pres. Biden has remained committed to providing aid to Ukraine throughout the war.
The Failed Border Bill: What is Wrong With Congress?
By Will O’Reilly ‘25
On February 7, after months of negotiations, a bipartisan border protection bill was finalized, combining aid for Ukraine and Israel with much-needed border security measures. The bill seemed like a no-brainer—both parties worked together to find a solution to the ever-intensifying border crisis–yet it was killed in Congress by the same Republican leaders who had co-written and voiced their support for it. Overall, this case of congressional gridlock exposes the political showmanship of the current Republican party and the flaws in Congress in general.
It is easy to wonder why the Republicans would shoot down a bill that heightens border security, an issue they have been running on for the past decade. GOP congressmen even stated earlier this year that they would vote in favor of aid for Ukraine only if an aid bill contained border restrictions. Herein lies the hypocrisy of these Republican congressmen. They don’t want to solve the border crisis–they want to politicize it. They want chaos at the border as an issue to run for office. As long as the border remains chaotic, they can blame the Democratic White House and continue to run as the “tough on immigration” party. If the Democrats managed to cook up a quality border bill and pass it, this would strip the GOP of this title.
The politicization of this border bill goes further than aiding members of Congress in their cam-
paigns; it also is clear proof of the continuous adverse effects of Donald Trump’s reach into the Republican party. Trump wanted this bill to be shut down for similar reasons as the GOP congressmen. The border is one of his main attack points against Joe Biden for the upcoming presidential election. A significant part of Trump’s campaign is gone if the Biden administration manages
to pull off a bipartisan border solution. This confirms the notion that the Republican party is very much Trump’s party, even while he is not in office. Trump can tell members of Congress to vote against a bill and, out of fear of being exiled from the party like past Republicans who, while opposed to Trump, were forced to do his bidding. Instead of focusing on actually
Biden’s border remains one of Trump’s few consistent attacks of the President.
Speaker Johnson and Republicans have previously been critical of Bidens border policy.
solving the pressing crisis at the border, GOP congressmen are caught up in the dead-end impeachment trial of Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas for his mismanagement of the border. This is a case of pure political theater. Republicans, regardless of whether his impeachment is justified, know that they will not acquire the two-thirds majority in the Senate to impeach him. Yet, they continue wasting time with the trial.
The blocking of the border bill shows a growing trend of lack of consensus in Congress, which threatens the workings of our government. To lawmakers who shot down the bill hoping to look tough for their constituents, I ask, “What is better, no progress or some progress?” It cannot be forgotten that our nation, and the world for that matter, was built not on change all at once, but on incremental progress. Since the beginning of the United States, compromise has been necessary to create some form of change. Recent events in Congress, such as this border bill fiasco, have cast doubt on whether our government’s principle of compromise and consensus is still alive. The border bill is reminiscent of a similar situation in the summer of 2023 when Connecticut senator Chris Murphy worked out a bipartisan gun control bill in the wake of multiple mass shootings. When it was first introduced to vote, many of Murphy’s fellow Democrats rejected the bill, saying it did not place enough limits on gun ownership. Republicans rejecting the border bill because it isn’t conservative enough– have the same mindset. They want to stand firm on the issue of immigration and wait until they get all of their needs in a bill, something that will never happen. I’ll admit that the border bill is far from
perfect. Still, lawmakers’ mindset of favoring no progress over incremental progress and neglecting the need for compromise in government is no way to get anything done.
So, how does Congress move on fromthis colossal failure to compromise? It starts with Republicans returning to their traditional values and rejecting Trump’s further influence. If the GOP remains in his pocket, there will only be further gridlock and polarization in Congress. The second half of the responsibility is on the people. We were asked in AP US Government whether we believe it is the system or the people that causes Congress to be a gridlocked mess. I genuinely believe that our system is not broken.
We have a republican system that has stood the test of time and has the potential to continue to prove itself to the world. The onus is on media organizations to properly vet candidates and the people to vote for those focused on progress and compromise. Additionally, intelligent candidates must start running for Congress again. Working in government is stigmatized these days as a thankless job, which leads to only strongly polarized candidates running, especially in the House of Representatives. Intelligent people willing to reach across the aisle politically must see it as their duty to run for government so we can resume our progress as a nation.
Secretary Mayorkas was impeached in Februrary by House Republians.
Caravans of migrants crossing the border fuel the GOP’s attacks on Pres. Biden.
Prime Minister Biden: Why the US Should Adopt a Parliamentary System
By Henry Putnam ‘24
If the past 20 years have taught us anything, the current US Political system needs to be revised. Being flawed is an understatement. In 2020, a group of far-right supporters of President Trump stormed the US Capitol, questioning the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. Elections are the cornerstone of Democracy; in the United States, a large group of people still think the US electoral system is unreliable. Entire books can be written
on the shortcomings of the US Political system, but, as a word limit restricts me, I can only focus on the following issues: political legitimacy, political representation, and political autonomy. The solution I propose: the US Parliament. First, we must define the type of parliament the US ought to adopt. Styles of government tend to be entirely customizable, and a Parliamentary system is no different. The most notable of them is the UK System of
Parliament. Although the UK System provides a great deal of political capacity and autonomy– something the US desperately needs– there is a more suitable style to address the US’ problems. The UK may have a parliament, but they use a first-pastthe-post electoral system when deciding representation, just as the US does. In a first-past-the-post system, the winning representative is the one who receives the most votes in the election. While this might seem
The British House of Commons could be used as a model for a potential US Parliament with some minor changes.
like the fairest method, it promotes a two party system on both sides of the “aisle of political ideology.” These parties swallow any “out there” or more polarizing opinions using their size and coverage, leading to a lack of representation of truly different ideas. An electoral system that can solve this is a proportional representation system. The US is far too large to be represented by just two parties. The US is composed of many different ethnicities, incomes, values, creeds, ages, sexes, sexualities, races, and infinitely more identifiers. With a parliamentary system, everyone can be truly represented by the government. Well… maybe not everyone, but it’ll be better than the current system.
In a proportional representation system, voters do not vote for candidates but instead their preferred political parties. After all the votes are tallied, representation is divided amongst the political parties, allowing for far more variation among the parties over a wide range of issues. This ensures that people vote for candidates based on their beliefs and ideologies. Under other electoral systems, neo-authoritarians and neo-fascists can control power as the sole ruling member of the executive branch. They bend their promises and ideologies to benefit themselves. People like Vladimir Putin of Russia and Xi Jinping of China are examples of this. Under this multi-party system, representatives represent their parties and thus their ideologies, not themselves, promoting and reinstating faith in politicians and politics.
In the current US system, voters vote for candidates in hopes that they will best align with and represent their ideologies. To gain as much support
as possible, candidates make many promises on several issues to create as large a voter base as possible. An excellent example of this is President Trump in 2016. Say you’re a voter whose most significant concern is border security. Upon hearing President Trump’s promise for a border wall (that you supposedly won’t even have to pay for), you decide that you will vote for Trump purely based on border security. Jump forward eight years later with no wall and not much done about border security.
Similarly, a voter in 1988 heard then-President-elect Bush Sr. prom-
ising “no new taxes,” then signing an omnibus spending bill raising taxes two years later. The truth is there are just too many issues under two main parties for one party to have a stance on and deal with effectively. Under this multi-party system, parties focusing primarily on immigration, low taxes, or the environment can coexist and succeed in politics. This will make that border-wall-supporting voter in 2016 or the low-tax voter in 1988 feel like politicians care about and can solve the issues they care about.
George HW Bush promised “No New Taxes” but raised taxes just months later.
Kevin McCarthy’s lenghty speaker election demonstrates the severity of congressional gridlock.
From 1947-2012, legislative gridlock in the US Congress increased significantly, with 70% of salient articles of legislation, the legislation that people most care about, sitting stationary in gridlock. As the two major political parties become increasingly ideologically divided, the desire to compromise, a requirement in our political system, continues to diminish. Legislation is being passed at a much lower rate while the problems that legislation can solve remain. With groups like the Freedom Caucus, the Squad, and the Tea Party controlling disproportionate power within their parties, almost nothing of note is passed. The design of a parliamentary system perfectly addresses this is -
sue. The US needs more autonomy, meaning there are so many checks in the US system that everything seems to get done. Forget foreign influences preventing us from carrying out the primary duties of a government; we are stopping ourselves from governing. The majority party controls a parliamentary system in one legislature chamber. If done correctly, there won’t just be one majority party but many more minor parties that will have to unite as a coalition, combining interests and compromising to take control of the government. Under this system, things will get done. The US could have a functioning bureaucracy for once. While it may seem like I believe
the US government system is a failure, I do not. It is an unbelievable system that was thought up almost 250 years ago, has stood the test of time, and has made the US one of the world’s largest and most powerful countries. It has inspired countless other democracies, from Mexico to Nigeria, and the US has stood as the protector of democracy in the World for over a century. I am not proposing treason. I am not saying we need to rewrite the Constitution. A parliament could solve some problems with our system. With how things are going right now, a Parliamentary system of government could solve many of the issues that we still need solutions to. It is at least worth consideration.
Representitives Scott Perry, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and Andy Biggs are all key members of the House Freedom Caucus.
Does America Need a Third Party?
By Leo Simon ‘25
The United States government has a well-established two-party system, and it’s been like that for a long time. Out of the 535 current members in Congress, only two, Krysten Sinema and Angus King are not members of either the Democratic or Republican party. For the last century and a half, the Democrats and Republicans have completely controlled the United States Congress and have been battling to put one of their candidates in the White House. The Democratic Party was founded in 1828 under the 7th President, Andrew Jackson, and 32 years later, the Republican Party started to overtake the Whigs and began to dominate national politics in 1865 following the
victory of the Union in the Civil War. Since Abraham Lincoln was elected the country’s first Republican president in 1860, all presidents of the United States were only products of the Democratic or Republican Party. Third or minor parties have popped up at different times in our country’s history, representing various views and causes. Some examples of minor parties include ideological parties (Socialists, Libertarians), splinter parties (Bull Moose), economic protest parties (Greenback, Populist), or single-issue parties (Prohibition, Green Party). Each type of minor party fights for a specific cause of their constituents or may be a break-off from one
of the major parties. However, no candidates from a minor party have won the presidential election since the Democrats and the Republicans became the two major parties in the early 1860s. A big reason for that is the way the electoral process works. The winner-take-all system of the Electoral College votes discourages voters from supporting a third-party candidate. The long-standing precedent of having a Democratic or Republican president makes voters feel there is no chance of a third-party candidate ever gathering enough votes nationwide to obtain the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency. Most voters today vote for one of the two major party can-
President Joe Biden and President Donald Trump represent the only two relevant political parties in the US.
didates either because they support one or despise the other. It seems foolish that there are only two legitimate presidential options when elections roll around, and many citizens have openly stated they do not like either candidate when the general election comes about. According to a recent poll by NBC, 63% of registered voters would prefer to vote for a third-party candidate; nonetheless, minor-party candidates received only 2.1% of the national vote in the 2020 presidential race. This dynamic portrays how the current electoral system for the United States President does not allow for Americans’ views to be accurately represented by the president. In a recent 2024 poll from February 14th provided by 538, President Biden’s disapproval rate is up to 55.9%, while likely contender President Trump’s disapproval rate sits at 52%. It should not be that our country’s two candidates running for one of the most critical positions in our nation share a disliking of most Americans. A likely issue for this dilemma is the electoral process and the ostracizing features of it that keep minority parties distant from ever winning the presidency.
Our country is divided; the two major parties for the last couple of decades have consistently put up controversial candidates, and it is clear that there is a need for a more significant third-party presence in American politics. It may require a change in the electoral process, which would take more work to implement. Still, gradually, the American desire for more excellent representation of the public’s view will attract a more significant desire for third-party presence in American politics.
The Electoral College ensures that only Republicans and Democrats recieve Electorates.
Poll provided by 538 showing approval ratings for President Biden after his first 590 days.
Reforming the Senate - Why the Fillibuster Needs to be Removed
By Will Fels ‘25
The filibuster is a long-standing obstruction tactic used in the United States Senate. The Senate tradition of unlimited debate has allowed for the filibuster, an action designed to prolong the discussion to prevent a vote on a bill, resolution, or amendment. Senators use the filibuster to block a bill by holding the floor and speaking until the bill’s supporters back down. A senator can speak for as long as they want under the Senate’s rule
of free debate. Before 1917, the Senate rules did not provide a way to end the discussion and force a vote on a measure. That year, the Senate adopted a rule to allow a two-thirds majority to end a filibuster, a procedure known as cloture. In 1975, the Senate reduced the votes required for cloture from two-thirds of senators voting to three-fifths of all senators, or 60 of the 100-member Senate.
In theory, the filibuster can pro-
tect political minorities from the tyranny of the majority by allowing for thorough debate and ensuring minority voices can be heard. In practice, however, this is not the case. The filibuster is rarely used to continue debate over the merit of a bill. Instead, it has become a political tactic invoked by the minority party and does more to undermine democracy than protect it. In recent years, the use of the filibuster has escalated. The filibuster plays a pivotal role in
Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) during his 21-hour fillibuster in 2013 to stop a vote to approve Obamacare.
creating legislative gridlock, which prevents meaningful debate, slows the work of the Senate, and makes it nearly impossible for senators to pass laws. The filibuster promotes obstructionism and partisanship, allowing the minority party to have an outsized impact without a national mandate. In today’s era of intense political polarization, the filibuster has regressed to a tool that a few senators can use to ultimately block important legislation from becoming law. This delays votes on essential issues, discouraging bipartisanship and working across the aisle. Instead of compromising like a functional government, a minority party can block the legislation by talking the bill to death, ultimately leading to further polarization between lawmakers.
Adaptiveness and swift responses to crises are essential in today’s world. The filibuster delays voting on urgent measures needed to address many of these crises, making it almost impossible for Congress to act expeditiously. Additionally, the filibuster undermines America’s democratic principles. Allowing a minority to delay or stop action on legislation contradicts the fundamental principle of majority rule. Additionally, it overrepresents the interests of a small minority. For example, twenty-one states with the smallest population have enough senators to implement a successful filibuster, representing only eleven percent of the United States population. While ensuring the minority has a voice is very important, the filibuster is not the solution. There are ways for the minority’s view to be heard without the need for partisan obstruction used solely to block votes on crucial legislation.
Over seventy-two percent of adult Americans have unfavorable views of Congress. The overwhelming public dissatisfaction with Congress highlights the need for reform. Removing the filibuster would restore efficiency, fairness, and democratic values to the Senate. Such a change would make Congress more favorable in the public’s view and help increase senators’ approval ratings.
Overall, the filibuster, meant to ensure thorough debate and protect minority interests in the United States Senate, has devolved into a tool of obstruction and partisanship that undermines the principles of democracy it was meant to protect. It contributes significantly to legis-
lative gridlock, hinders the Senate’s ability to address urgent issues, and distorts representation in favor of a small minority. Eliminating the filibuster would streamline the legislative process and restore a sense of fairness, democracy, and integrity to the Senate. By removing this outdated tactic, the Senate can better reflect the majority’s will while ensuring that minority voices are heard, creating a more productive and less polarized Senate. This reform is essential for Congress to regain the public’s trust and become a more functional and responsive branch of the United States government.
Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) during his 13-Hour fillibuster on drone strikes in 2013
The Hypocrisy of the American Left
By Kiran Marsh ‘24
The Republican Party and the American right have had a massive transformation over the past decade. The Republican party has changed from a party that was pro-fiscal responsibility and hawkish on national defense to a cult of personality centered around one man - Donald Trump. They have not hesitated to break long-standing norms and often don’t think twice when breaking the rules. As most know, the most significant example was the aftermath of the 2020 presidential election. Donald Trump and a large percentage of Republican legislators worked to prevent the certification of the election by all means possible, both
legal and, in some cases, illegal. This has been widely documented in mass media - rightly so. However, as many supporters of Trump have argued, while left-leaning media never fails to call him out, it systematically fails to cover the hypocrisy of the American left.
In the last decade, the American left has embraced identity politics to draw voters from minority groups that have historically been discriminated against. They champion themselves as the “anti-racist” party while continuing to divide Americans by race for their political benefit. Discrimination based on race is wrong. This is a statement almost all Americans, in theory, agree with. How-
ever, Democrats consistently supported affirmative action until it was recently struck down. In theory, it is a noble effort. Black and Hispanic Americans have been discriminated against for centuries, and institutions like slavery and Jim Crow, as well as policies like redlining, have kept these groups from accumulating generational wealth.
According to the Census Bureau, the median household wealth of a black family in the US (including debt) is just $14,100 compared to $187,000 for white families. It is wrong to argue that wealth does not significantly affect college admissions. Wealthier families can afford SAT tutors, a private education, and
Protesters clash over the debate and Supreme Court decisions on affirmative action.
increased access to essential extracurriculars in an age of holistic admissions. The massive gap in household wealth gives the average white family an advantage over the average black family. In a vacuum, assuming that each person is the average affirmative action seems to make logical sense. The catch is that the household wealth of all black families is not $14,100, and all white families’ wealth is not $187,000. Why should a well-off black student with parents who can afford to pay for a private education and SAT tutors be given an advantage over a white student living in poverty going to an underfunded public school? Assuming that the black population is poor and the white population is wealthy is a racial stereotype - precisely what Americans are trying to get rid of today. To quote Martin Luther King Jr., “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” Why should the color of a student’s skin - which they are powerless to change - give them an advantage or disadvantage in college admissions? Shouldn’t each student be judged by what they can changegrades, sports, and extracurriculars? And shouldn’t their applications be considered in the context of their environments so that students with a more challenging path to success are given an advantage in admissions over students with an easier path to success? Reverse racism is racism, and discrimination against anyone because of their race, be they black, white, Asian, or Hispanic, is wrong. The American left seems to think that by hyper-racializing everything, America can achieve racial harmony.
That is illogical. Racism cannot end until we stop segregating Americans into groups based on their race.
Another example of the hypocrisy of the left is their effort to divide Americans by race concerns voting IDs. Levels of voter fraud are low. But how hard is it to show a valid government ID? Requiring voters to present a valid ID is a low hurdle to clear, and it improves confidence in an electoral system that has seen its confidence levels drastically slip in the past few years. While this seems to be a common-sense measure, Democrats object to it because it supposedly disadvantages black Americans. Supposedly, black Americans are more likely to be unable to acquire a driver’s license. This is frankly insulting. Americans need photo IDs to drive, travel, and purchase alcohol. Modern liberals, while claiming to defend the rights of minorities, insult them by claiming that black Americans are helpless victims of a system that leaves them unable to get IDs on their own.
The Israeli campaign against the Hamas terror group, or as the media
calls it, the “Conflict in the Middle East,” has drawn the ire of many liberal groups in America. They reject Israel’s right to self-defense after Hamas terrorists (not freedom fighters as some might call them) invaded Israel and murdered, raped, mutilated, tortured, and wounded thousands, and took hundreds, including children, hostage. Consequently, hiding in their tunnels under Gaza’s civilian infrastructure, using their fellow citizens as human shields. Keep in mind that these tunnels were built using materials intended for civilian infrastructure in Gaza. Instead of using pipes for upgrading plumbing, Hamas diverted them for use in rockets. In fact, they accidentally bombed one of their own hospitals, killing hundreds, and proceeded to blame it on Israel. Hamas cares little for the citizens of Gaza. It is openly anti-semitic and seeks the destruction of the Israeli state. While what is happening to civilians in Gaza is tragic, it is not Israel’s fault. This offensive is a campaign of survival for Israel. It is surrounded by enemies to its
Pro-Israel and Pro-Palestine Protesters clashing in Times Square.
north, south, and east, and Hamas is a clear and present threat to its existence. Only through the complete eradication of every single member of Hamas can Israel assure the preservation of its sovereignty for generations to come. After initiating the conflict on October 7th, 2023, it is only fitting that they face the consequences of their actions. Fringe leftists still decry the Israeli position and, at demonstration after demonstration, continue to repeat the phrase, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free.” Most likely, most of them have no idea what river they are referring to. This phrase is essentially a call for genocide and the destruction of the Israeli state. It has been less than eight decades since the end of the Holocaust, yet Americans are echoing similar sentiments to those of the Nazis. They ignore the 1200 Israelis who were killed on October 7th and the hundreds in captiv-
ity. They ignore the fact that Hamas has been hiding like military cowards underneath hospitals, using civilians as human shields. And they ignore Hamas’s terrible human rights record. Yet they still defend a regime with a professed goal of genocide and an unfortunate tendency to rape women and kill babies. Where were these people when Bashar al-Assad killed hundreds of thousands of Syrian citizens with bombs, shells, and even sarin gas? And when have they streets to show solidarity with the Uighur minority in China, millions of whom have been interred in China?
The American left has seemingly grown fond of causes like racial discrimination and anti-semitism. While they may try to disguise it as “anti-racism,” their twisted logic is complex to follow. Additionally, many leftists have even given up on the pretense of freedom of speech including and diversity of ideas. How
come the American left sees the prochoice opinion regarding abortion as the only acceptable opinion and the pro-life position, even if it is based on one’s religion, as the objectively wrong one? Acceptance of differences of opinion regarding gender identity is even worse. In some places, it is no longer acceptable to say that only girls should play girls’ sports; stating your pronouns is often a requirement, and one has to acknowledge the existence of an uncountable number of gender identities. Dissent from this line draws the ire of many and even the prospect of social ostracization or the loss of one’s job. The left has firmly entrenched itself in a world of hypocrisy when concerning today’s most pressing social issues. It has even begun to rail against the fundamental American principle of civil discourse.
The Burning of a Prime Minister Bejamin Netenyahu effigy by anti-Isreali protesters.
Victim Mentality in Modern America
By Neel Behringer ‘26
Intoday’s society, the easiest way to Victim mentality is a state of mind in which a person feels that the world is against them. Over the last decade, it has increasingly become more prevalent in American society and politics. Both the Republican and Democratic parties believe that the opposing party has some sort of agenda attempting to pollute the minds of the American people. For example, former President Donald Trump has repeatedly stated and portrayed himself as a victim of his political opponents. Furthermore, during her 2016 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton also complained that she was unfairly targeted and a victim of Republicans. American politics has shifted from getting things done to pointing fingers and accusations. Politicians rely on a victim mentality to gain media attention and secure votes. They repeat this cycle of blame, accusations, and victimization to maintain power. However, in reality, they have yet to solve any problem correctly. America is still divided among every significant issue. Nonetheless, the most pressing matter regarding this new way of politics is how it affects education and the future of America. The American education system is becoming increasingly politicized and is suffering from a victim mentality. Both sides of the political spectrum are pushing their political views into schools, and it is taking away from free thought, something that this country desperately needs.
The Democratic Party has re-
cently been exaggerating the marginalization of minorities for attention and support. A prime example of this victim mentality would be during the Covington Catholic High School Incident in 2019. Senator Warren (D) took advantage of the incident and blamed the students for “racist” behavior even though further investigation revealed that the incident was caused by something beyond race. Her remarks demonstrate there is a victim mindset that the Democratic party is willing to take advantage of. Regarding the education system, The Democratic party has left its mark as more schools begin to adopt its policies. A vital factor of the Democratic platform is increased diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The idea aims to promote and raise awareness of the other side of American history. It portrays the systematic inequalities in the countries and attempts to change them. It promotes
social justice and includes all types of people regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, or creed. Its success cannot be ignored as America is more inclusive than ever. However, it has become more radical in recent years and teaches only a single-sided argument, something it has strived to eliminate. For instance, a former teacher describes this new form of education as propaganda. He claims that “The left uses a combination of propaganda and suppression to push kids into the ensnaring grip of socialism and anti-patriotism.” He further states that “... (the left) actively teaching that America and the West are evil.” The teacher recalls an anecdote of one of his students refusing to list Winston Churchill on a homework assignment because he did not believe in women’s rights. The student only sees him as a villain, even though he played a significant role in stopping the rise of fascism and
Governor Ron Desantis has enacted laws to push forward his “anti-woke” policies.
preventing the Nazi party from expanding across the world. Churchill is simply “not a good guy” (The Heritage Foundation) to her and the future of America. Furthermore, in the New York City public school system, a black father claims that his elementary school-aged son is being taught to see himself and other minorities in his class as marginalized victims. They are not being taught how to form their opinions early but rather how to repeat another person’s views and ideas. (Newsweek) Yes, DEI is crucial to the future of America, but when it is taken to an extreme and forced at such an early age, it does more harm than good. The victim mentality that exists in the Democratic Party is being pushed into the education system and is teaching children to parrot whatever teachers are telling them.
The Republican party is also at fault. Numerous members of the GOP, especially its core members, continue to blame the left for their shortcomings. Trump’s response to the 2020 presidential election is a clear example of how he and the Republican party portray themselves as victims. This problem in politics has also entered into the education system in the form of a “culture war.” The Republican ideology is that the liberal agenda is destroying politics and America. Consequently, they do the opposite. The most salient example of this is DeSantis’s “woke war” in Florida. Over the last five years, DeSantis has made numerous restrictions in Florida public schools, banning discussions regarding race, gender, and sexual orientation. DeSantis has made laws that prohibit teaching “white privilege” as
he wants Florida to become a place “where woke goes to die.” In addition, he is attempting to purge the state of teaching concepts such as Critical Race Theory and other lessons that discuss oppression, privilege, systemic racism, etc. DeSantis and other members of the GOP have created laws to ban books that talk about sexual orientation and transgenderism. These laws have also expanded throughout the country, primarily in the southern states. Texas, Tennessee, Alabama, Virginia, and Arkansas have all adopted similar laws. Furthermore, DeSantis’s actions during the pandemic perfectly reflect the victim mentality that exists within the Republican Party. The Democratic party and the CDC were pushing for mask mandates and vaccinations and to close schools more extendedly; however, DeSantis and other Republicans wanted to immediately eliminate the mandates and open schools. They ignored the science and data that the CDC promoted and instead put the American public at risk. A different perspective threatens the Republican Party. They are afraid of another opinion that could hurt their reputation, so they are attempting to silence it. They justify this by calling themselves a victim, even though these extremist Republicans are the complete opposite. By fighting this “woke war,” they are forcing their agenda and promoting, once again, a single narrative to the future of America.
Victim mentality has consumed politics, media, and now the education system. It is creating a future America in which its population is parroting when they were taught what they were children. This future
will not know how to form decisions, articulate their views, or respect an opponent’s views. America was built around the notion of free thought. It was built on compromise and opposing views coming together to create a stronger country. It was built on principles of civil discourse, in which everybody had different opinions. These opinions and views are not supposed to come from anybody else. They are supposed to go from an individual’s experience in society, not from a teacher, a parent, and especially a politician. Politicians must stop focusing on pressing their individual beliefs on children and simply let them learn for themselves. Schools must provide various sources and methods and let the children think for themselves. The modern education age is failing as it suppresses individuality and free thought. Nobody truly has their own opinions anymore; they just repeat the last thing they heard, and schools need to allow children to learn how to disagree respectfully with others as they learn and experience.
Aim, Fire, Jammed: The Growth of Toxic Attempts to Control Firearms
By Anthony Sayegh ‘26
Protests across the country have sprung up to counter assault rifle bans in states like Washignton and California.
Throughoutthe history of the United States, some of our most significant decisions have been made based on what is deemed constitutional and what is not. The development of our nation has been swayed by these words that were ratified in 1788. Yet, as our country grows as a paramount world power on the global stage, some have questioned the validity and need for change regarding the rights we have held for centuries. The natural rights that allowed and encouraged our citizens and patriots to gain independence in 1776, fight back against Britain’s mainland attack in 1812, acquire the American West from the Mexicans in 1846, and abolish Slavery and unite the nation in 1865. Since then, the
Second Amendment has been gradually encroached on through a series of gun-control laws in states across the country limiting the sale and use of certain types of firearms. Are gun-control laws meant for the good of the public or for the limitation and restriction of the constitutional right to bear arms? Is it practical to eliminate the ownership of guns in a society so corrupt, leaving our citizens with no defense? Is the motive behind these laws’ legislation to support the public’s greater good, or is a crackdown on natural rights embedded in our constitution? And is this crackdown necessary?
It is no secret that there is a growing conflict between those who are pro and those who are anti-Sec-
ond Amendment. With an upcoming monumental election in November 2024, the winner may decide the fate of the government’s role in civilian firearms. Many left-wing states have already taken the initiative in banning the role of guns in their cities. My brother is in the military and is stationed at Joint Base Lewis McCord in Tacoma, Washington. As you can probably assume, Tacoma is filled to the brim with military men and women who believe they have the right to own firearms for protection. Tacoma is a relatively violent city with frequent gang violence and crime. Recently, Washington banned the sale and trade of Assault Rifles, including the model my brother currently owns. The intention was for this act
to limit gun-related crime in cities around the state like Tacoma. 45.7% of gun-related crimes are committed with side arms and smaller weapons, which remain legal in the state, while only 2% are committed with Rifle-grade firearms.
Another controversial ban was California Governor Gavin Newsom’s ban on the public display of concealed-carry weapons in a public setting. Yes, I wholeheartedly understand this law, as California has one of the highest gun fatality rates in the nation. But suppose Newsome wanted to control the use of guns. In that case, he should have made it harder to get one and raise the standard, not limit the ability of his citizens to carry it for the sake of their safety. Countries like Ukraine, Afghanistan, and Vietnam have been prosperous in fighting off against foreign invaders. Ukraine is successfully fending off Putin’s advancements in Crimea because they can stand up for themselves and fight as they should. I am disgusted at the fact that the ATF, in some odd way, thinks that they can manufacture laws and an unconstitutional gun registry to prohibit the use and ownership of firearms, even when they are not a legislative body.
It is apparent that in a society with weapons, there will be a loss of life, and that cannot be ignored or accepted lightly. But there are other ways to control gun use than passing laws and bans to limit the rights that are laid out clearly as day in our constitution. The Second Amendment says this right is protected and “it shall not be infringed.” In a society growing so hell-bent and corrupt in certain areas, it is not only a right but a responsibility to bear arms if you are approved, qualified, and morally responsible enough to use them.
Gov. Gavin Newsome (D-CA) has stood firm in his anti-firearm policies.
States in red illustrate the states where an assault weapon ban is in place.
The ATF (Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms) provides a barrier to gun owners.
America’s Demonization of Raw Milk
By Henry Wise ‘26
In the modern era, Americans continue to struggle with insufficient diets due to the government’s promotion of an irrational agenda. With 42% of Americans diagnosed with obesity– this number only trending upward-- and average male testosterone declining an average of 1.6% every year, it is essential to ask the question, “Why?” How have the American people been betrayed so evidently and left to follow false information detrimental to their sound? The government’s demonizing milk plays a far more significant role in this issue than you may think. While drinking less actual milk sounds harmless on the surface, the natural animal product is practically impossible to replace given that it is one of few accurate sources of many essential vitamins and minerals, notably calcium, which approximately 70% of Americans are deficient in. Some may turn to taking calcium supplements to combat this deficiency. However, the effect of a powder or capsule is not the same as the body only absorbs about 28% of a 1000 milligram dose. One massive problem stemming from this is the danger of calcium deficiency in a mother giving birth to her baby. While babies are known to drink milk after birth, a mother’s calcium consumption through real milk and natural dairy products before birth and while pregnant is just as important. If not taken care of properly, these babies can be born with brittle bones over sensitive nerves and be troublingly sick upon
birth. These dangers can be directly tied to the U.S. government’s demonization of dairy products, significantly milk, as the FDA exemplified in banning raw milk from interstate sale in 1987.
Contrary to popular belief, raw milk has been shown to contain more excellent anti-inflammatory properties, more gut-friendly bacteria, and more bioavailable vital nutrients than its pasteurized counterpart. Additionally, the government’s promotion of substitutes for milk, such as nut and soy alternatives, has added another component to the crisis of American health. Through surface-level scientific inquiry, it can be found that soy milk contains blatant anti-nutrients, and nut milk refines Omega 6 fats through an oxidation process, both causing hindrances to safe digestibility and fostering inflammation. Additionally, without enough protein and Vitamin D, whose bioavailable form is found solely in natural milk, the body slows down its metabolism, struggles to
support sufficient muscle mass, reduces physical strength, stunts growth, and even weakens the immune system. While the choice to consume raw milk and even lightly processed milk over soy and nut milk should be obvious, Americans continue to be misguided thanks to the government’s regulations and never-ending campaigns against milk and the dairy industry. Already tricky enough to attain, raw milk’s inability to be mass-produced on par with its pasteurized counterpart makes it far more expensive, given the economic structure of supply and demand surrounding its sale. As the government advocates for the consumption of processed milk and alternatives such as nut milk and soy milk, Americans continue to be misled into ingesting harmful substances and straying away from consuming an organic, natural animal product, which remains an irreplaceable pillar of human health needed more than ever in today’s age.
Raw milk seen in its pure, untampered form to the left of pasteurized milk.
Red Meat: Not the Enemy
By Andrew Tu ‘24
If you tune into cable news, it will not be long before you hear some statement about climate change. There will also likely be a mention of the agricultural industry as a significant carbon emitter—animals especially. Such an issue seems like it would be based on science, yet there seems to be no consensus. The controversy in the meat industry appears more political than anything else.
Let us assume that climate change is a dire issue and that minimizing the abuse of resources and maintaining a balance of nature are the utmost priorities. Then, according to the claims of Bill Gates
and the like, moving towards a vegan diet is a must for the sake of the climate. However, simply removing animal-based products is neither a simple nor viable solution.
To begin with, what would replaceanimal-based products in the human diet? Plants seem like an easy choice, but it’s not so simple. For instance, protein is an essential macronutrient for human development, and most people get enough from the meat and dairy they consume daily. While plants do have protein, not only is protein a lesser portion of the calories and food mass in plants, most plant proteins are more difficult for
humans to absorb, and the distribution of amino acids is not as balanced as in animal proteins. In practice, one would have to consume a much greater quantity and variety of plants to achieve the equivalent benefit of protein as a steak. Beyond macronutrients, meat, and dairy are brimming with various essential vitamins and minerals for human development in forms much more accessible than those in plants. For example, the oxalic acid in spinach prevents almost all of its iron from being absorbed by the human body; the precursor for vitamin A in carrots, beta-carotene, has a roughly 28:1 conversion rate
Cattle are a scapegoat in the climate change movement while fossil fuel combustion remains the leading cause of pollution.
The Brunswick School Review Lifestyle
in human consumption. This is not to say that the consumption of plants is futile– avocados, for instance, produce very rare yet very beneficial fatty acids for humans. However, it would be ignorant to assume that an average person would live a healthy life by simply replacing all the nutrients derived from animal-based products with plants and supplements without making many more scientific breakthroughs.
If we, as a global population, cannot remove animal products from our diet, finding other means to produce them is a solution. In particular, there has been a recent surge in the popularity of lab-grown meat as an alternative to traditional farms. But is this any better?
Superficially, it seems so; directly growing a steak would be more streamlined than raising a whole cow. However, such a view ignores that a cow is self-sufficient and would not need an intensive external setup. The current optimized visions for lab-grown meat consist of growing meat cells in a nutrient slurry inside a bioreactor. Mix meat cells, growth factors, amino acids, glucose, and salts inside a large metal vessel under very precisely controlled conditions. But this is neither easy nor efficient. For one, a living cow has an immune system that protects it from harmful pathogens. However, just a slight contamination in a bioreactor could ruin the whole batch, wasting thousands and thousands of dollars at a time. In addition, such a process is insensitive to scale. We would need to get nutrients to every cell and remove waste products from the bioreactor with incredible efficiency so that the cells do not drown in their urine. On the other hand, a cow’s vascular system can quickly achieve this, as
every cell is within 50-100 micrometers of a capillary. The lab-grown meat industry has become very expensive and inefficient at satisfying the world’s animal product needs.
Assuming that lab meat production has no carbon emissions, even the most optimistic estimates require at least $1 trillion invested in factories to remove 0.05% of the global carbon emissions. Lab meat factories would, without a doubt, be huge energy consumers– just consider holding many large vats of liquid under specific pressures and at animal body temperatures. Furthermore, the most optimistic estimates place endgame lab meat at $11 per pound to produce. Post markup, it would likely be over $20 per pound in supermarkets, at least four times the price of conventional
meat. Finally, let’s consider the scale required of these factories relative to the pharmaceutical industry. In particular, about 23% of the drugs made globally are also produced in similar bioreactors. To make 0.5% of the global meat demand, we would need about 11-22 times the bioreactors of the whole pharmaceutical industry. Simply put, the current status of lab meat is not a practical possibility for the future of meat.
So far in this commentary, the arguments have been based on the assumption that the meat and dairy industries have an objective negative impact on the climate. After all, why would we seek to remove animal products from our diet or seek alternatives if they did not hurt the environment? However, I claim that many of the figures are misleading
Lab-grown meat is signifigantly worse for the environment than traditional methods.
Lifestyle
Agriculture only represents a very small chunk of US greenhouse gas emissions.
and that the meat and dairy industries do not strain the climate.
A common criticism of the beef industry is the massive amounts of water necessary to grow just one pound. But let’s think about where this water is coming from. The truth is that most of the water used in the beef-making process comes from animal food. In the case of cattle, a large portion is grass, whose water comes from the rain and not human irrigation. As a result, about 94% of a cow’s water footprint is rainwater, which will fall from the sky regardless of whether a cow will consume it. Thus, the metric that matters is the amount of freshwater used to produce a pound of food; beef requires about 122L of water per quarter pound, whereas, for context, rice requires about 90L of water per quarter pound. Let’s also consider that beef is much more nutrient-dense than rice. The meat industry might be more efficient regarding freshwater usage in producing food for society.
Another common criticism of the meat industry is how much animal feed is necessary to grow just a little meat. However, the perspective
of calories is naive. About 85% of all livestock food is non-edible for humans. In many cases, leftover plant matter from crops, such as soybean hulls or oat husks, is used as animal feed, which otherwise would have just been thrown out. Furthermore, for grazing animals such as cows and sheep, over 90% of their food is non-edible for humans. Roughly half of all fertilizer used in the world is animal manure. Thus, the meat industry is, in reality, not a significant obstacle to the potential of global agriculture.
Livestock are also part of the solution to the ongoing problem of food waste worldwide. About onethird of all food made is thrown out. As a result, not only does making that food tax the climate without any benefit, but it also decomposes, releasing greenhouse gasses such as methane into the environment. About 14% of meat and dairy products and about 82% of non-animal foods are wasted. Thus, a world with greater reliance on non-animal food would have more food waste. Hence, it is imperative to keep the livestock industry around for efficiency in the food industry. Lastly, the animal industry does
not use up as much land as the media might portray. Of all the agricultural land in the world, about two-thirds cannot be used for growing crops. In many places, the soil is either not rich enough in nutrients or too rocky, and the land might be too hilly. The only possible use of this arable land for food production is ruminant livestock. Hence, the meat and dairy industries allow us to exploit otherwise unused land.
What inspired this commentary is the misleading and out-of-context figures often cited regarding animal food production. For instance, livestock is expected to make up 15% of carbon emissions. But what does this mean for readers in the developed world? This statistic misses the fact that 80% of livestock emissions come from developing countries with less streamlined meat industries. For instance, the US produces 18% of the world’s beef, with only 6% of the world’s cow herd. In the same vein, the media often mentions the methane that is released by cow herds as some force that will ultimately destabilize the climate. However, methane released by cows decomposes in the atmosphere into carbon dioxide and water in about ten to twelve years, after which the cow consumes the same quantity of carbon dioxide and water. Thus, as long as there is the same number of cows, the level of methane in the atmosphere will not increase. In the US, such has been the case for the past few decades.
The question of climate change, what it means, and what we should do remains murky. Yet, it is clear that oversimplifications such as veganism and lab-grown meat will not be the solutions that save the world and that the meat and dairy industries may not be the villains that some still portray them to be.
Test Optional?
By Connor Crosby ‘24
The SAT and ACT were once staples of the college process.
Foralmost a century, the SAT and ACT have been valuable tools for college admissions to gauge students’ intellectual capabilities. The idea behind offering students the same “standardized” tests worldwide is to provide colleges with a basis for comparison. Many high schools have different grading systems and thresholds—a 4.0 GPA at one school does not equal a 4.0 at another. This variance between schools makes it hard for admissions officers to compare students, hence the desire for a baseline test like the SAT.
However, over the past couple of years, there has been a trend toward colleges being “test-optional” and not requiring the SAT/ACT as a component of a student’s application. Colleges reasoned that requiring the test would be unfair to certain people who may be at a natural disadvantage or not have adequate resources to prepare for the tests. For example,
students whose first language is not English could have a much harder time taking a standardized test that is in English, and they might not be able to showcase their academic might properly. Additionally, students from lower-income households will not be exposed to the same tutoring/practice help that wealthier students can use. Much more simply, some believe putting so much weight on a single test is unfair.
The COVID-19 pandemic allowed colleges to experiment with the idea of making the SAT/ACT optional. Since many students could not go to a test-taking site to take the test, 1,800 colleges removed the SAT/ACT requirement from their applications (Source 2). Since the pandemic, most schools have yet to reinstate the SAT as a requirement despite access to sites no longer being a problem. Yet, colleges should return to requiring the SAT.
While the argument that the SAT is a “wealth test” that more appropriately reflects a student’s access to tutoring than their intelligence is understandable, it is not exclusive to the SAT. Every metric colleges consider in a student’s application could be labeled a “wealth test.” For example, a student’s GPA and essays could have received just as much tutoring aid as their SAT. What about the GPAs? Shouldn’t a student’s grades that they dedicate their entire school year to be more critical than one test? A recent Harvard study by Opportunity Insights revealed that an SAT score better indicates students’ college performance than their GPA. A high score can help someone from any income demographic distinguish themselves from others from a similar socioeconomic status. Additionally, students from lower-income zip codes may not attend schools with AP tests, advisors, or strong college recommendation writers. If this is the case, the SAT would be an excellent opportunity for students to shine.
MIT announced that it would be returning to requiring SAT/ ACTs for all applicants in 2022, and Dartmouth did the same in February 2024, making it the first Ivy to do so. Both schools cited their research and data showing how SAT scores help determine college success and identify worthy students from all backgrounds. I expect many other selective schools to follow in their footsteps.