Issue 3 - Taking on the Main Stream

Review the horace mann

Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology - Viewpoints

Taking on the the

Main Stream

Issue 3:

Taking on the Main Stream Domestic

4 Palin in the spotlight once again

by Andrew Demas

Viewpoints

34 ...Or leaning toward libertarianism? by nathan raab

6 Underserved once more

32 Pushing for communism...?

7 The true cost of victory

31 Easier on the system

8 The changing face of

30 No way to teach a test

by dorin azerad

by david zask

the Republican Party

by harrison manin

International

10 The Wall by ethan yaro

by cyryl ryzak

by vivianna lin

by samantha rahmin

Science and Technology Economics

28 Taking the “A” train to Profit-land by alexander familant

24 Nailed under debt by daniel elkind

13 Together at last by stephen paduano

15 Dishonest or deceptive? by samir nedzamar

Features 16 The dilemma of modern media

33

by yvonne cha

18 A fascination with sensation

by Emily Feldstein

20 Don’t stop the press!

Is media too sensational these days? Explored on page 16.

by jacob gladyz-moranski

22 The sound-bite generation by susannah cohen

2

Cover photo taken by Camille Knop and edited

by Aradhna Agarwal.

Model: Harrison Manin

HM Review Vol. XIX

.

Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XIX , Issue 3

Letter from the Editor

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief

Nicholas Herzeca Jason Sunshine Executive Editor

Dan Temel Nancy DaSilva Henry Hoglund Dan Shapiro Features Editor James Yaro Starlyte Harris Aradhna Agarwal Spencer Penn Will Dubbs Editorial Director Production Manager

Jordan Federer Freddie Adler Antonia Woodford Ben Marks Mario Alvarez Eric Schwartz Business Manager Hill Wyrough Senior Columnists

Alex Falk

Chief Copy Editor

Camille Knop Aylin Gucalp Photo Editor

Board of Trustees Maximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary Freyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani, Venkat Kausik, Zachary Malter Production Assistants Seth Arar, Elisabeth Stam Associate Editors Deependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei, Andrew Demas, Aaron Goldman, Danielle Ellison, Victor Ladd, Daniel Grafstein Staff Writers Dorin Azerad, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Jessica Chi, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Alexander Familant, Emily Feldstein, Matt Fox, Adela Kim, Christine Kim, Alex Ma, Andre Manuel, Avital Morris, Jacob MosconaSkolnik, Zoe Rubin, Rebecca Segall Contributing Writers Jacob Gladysz-Moranski, Stephen Paduano, Vivianna Lin, Samatha Rahmin, Matthew Meltzer, Jessica Bernheim, Samir Nedzamar, Daniel Elkind, Katherine Wyatt, Alex Posner Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School.

Please contact The Review for information on advertisements at thereview@horacemann.org.

Visit The Review website at: web.horacemann.org/review/

December 2009 HM Review

Dear Reader, I want to welcome you to the third issue in Volume XIX of the Horace Mann Review.

We are bombarded with media every day. Whether through your daily perusing on your laptop, the advertising you see on the subway, the television news that begins at 10 each night, or through even this magazine you are holding, the media has the effect of engaging you, drawing your attention to a featured object or theme, opinion or fact. And so, as is custom with the Horace Mann Review, we take a step back and look at the bigger picture of media coverage.

Yes, we are part of the media, and ironically, we have chosen to focus on the ways mainstream media distorts information or sensationalizes it to draw attention and maximize viewership. You can see these opinions expressed in the four wonderful features articles that I am proud to present this month. Yvonne Cha and Emily

Feldstein, for instance, focus on the sensationalization in media as a trend, while Jacob GladyzMoranski discusses the effect disappearing newspapers may have on knowledge in the United States. Susannah Cohen looks into our development as a sound-bite generation.

Our other sections feature some fascinating topics, ranging from art theft internationally to a discussion about AP curricula to an examination of libertarianism and communism, two systems of thought. Meanwhile, Ethan Yaro delves into the history of the Berlin Wall at the twentienth anniversary of its collapse.

I hope you enjoy the third issue of the Horace Mann Review, an issue that our staff has worked hard to get you. Happy reading!

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief Volume XIX 3

Domestic Palin in the Spotlight Once Again

times online

Straight talk on the podium Palin giving a speech in the 2008 presidential election.

4

by andrew demas At the center of one of the most intriguing political stories in the past decade is a native Alaskan named Sarah Palin. She was selected as John McCain’s Vice Presidential running mate for the 2008 election, and the reaction to her was immediate and electric. Many Republicans who shared her convictions embraced her as the long-suppressed voice of the Conservatives. Equally passionate about Palin were the Democrats, who dismissed her as a brainless beauty queen and gun-carrying poster child for the NRA. The only thing that Democrats and Republicans seemed to agree upon during the election was that Palin ignited the political landscape, eliciting feverish attention and explosive response. The media coverage was staggering, and tabloids went to town on the controversies that surrounded Palin and her extended family. Palin was launched like a meteor from political obscurity to national and international prominence. So what went wrong? Why did she abruptly resign?

And will she overcome her sudden and embarrassing exit in order to become the face and voice of the Republican Convention in 2012?

Palin’s deep ignorance concerning most aspects of foreign and domestic policy led to her downfall; she was simply unprepared. Her refusal to participate in interviews with the national media emphasized her inadequate political knowledge and engendered skepticism that she was incapable of fulfilling her duties. Unflattering press reports about her inability to coöperate with the campaign, her daughter’s pregnancy, and her $150,000 post-selection shopping spree further bruised her reputation.

McCain’s choice of Palin worked in the limited sense that she sparked new HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic

December 2009 HM Review

longer continue as governor, because the responsibility came at “too great a cost,” saying it was a “waste of time and money.”

Palin also used the excuse that she could do more for the causes she believed in out of political office and away from the intense scrutiny. Many see her “distractions” as simply the pressures that come with a public life. Sick of the complaints and the unnecessary spending made in order to prove frivolous charges fallacious, Palin decided to hang up her spurs.

“Something else might have been eating at Palin too. Call it boredom or impatience: Juneau must seem awfully small compared with the national stage,” said David Drehle of Time.

Despite the tremendous firestorm that surrounds her, Palin has acquired some traction within a political party currently bereft of strong leadership. Her incredible gut instinct for politics and her ability to seize opportunities that others ignore have enabled her to remain prevalent in political discussion. “Palin is the sexiest and the riskiest brand in the Republican Party,” said Purdum. For those who share her convictions and resentments, her appeal is profound. She is undeniably an incredible force and as a celebrity with such extraordinary

popularity she commands huge sums of money, earning as much as $100,000 per speech. Her book, which was released in early November, set the record for most non-fiction presales. For the pro-life movement, this mother of a Down syndrome baby is a rousing affirmation. For the gun-rights movement, she’s a glamorous, moose-hunting shot of adrenaline.

She is dedicated to supporting the troops, despises the media, and she is going to continue to spark excitement in the conservative Republican base. Gallup recently surveyed Americans and reported that adults have become more conservative in recent years. Thus, being “strong with the right” is a powerful place to start for Sarah Palin, a woman of such ambition. She is one of the most commanding Republicans at the moment, and even in spite of her resignation, her influence may pole-vault her to the presidential stage once again. The question remains: will she rise to the occasion? We can only wait to see if Americans can look past her thin resumé and accept her quintessential Alaskan message: “The past is irrelevant, the rules are suspended and limitations are for losers.” HMR

jeffhead

interest in the nation, standing out as a female voice in the Republican Party.

Her presence captivated people’s interest in spite of her unimpressive resumé, yet made others reluctant to rely on capabilities, because some people viewed her as just another pretty face. Her appearance aside, Palin was doomed from the beginning. President Barack Obama expressed that Palin would never have time to truly get up to speed on foreign and domestic policy: “I don’t care how talented she is, this is really a leap.” McCain’s campaign attempted to justify his selection, referring to Palin as a fresh-faced reformer who had taken on big oil companies, but these claims were never more than superficially true, according to Todd Purdum of Vanity Fair.

No political principle or personal relationship is more sacred to Palin than her own ambition. Her combative personality slowly emerged as the media attacked her image, family, and (lack of) breadth of knowledge. After all, she is the woman who “kept a pregnancy secret for seven months, flew all the way home from Texas to Alaska with a near-full-term baby while leaking amniotic fluid, and then finally drove the 45 minutes from Anchorage to a hospital in Wasilla, all so that the child could be born in the 49th state.” Instead of ignoring hostile bloggers as do more experienced politicians when they fall under fire, she was consumed by the flames and combed the internet for inflammatory posts, reported Jay Small of Time. Even after the campaign drew to a close, the barrage of criticism did not cease. “She made the mistake that every time someone attacked her, she’d fight back,” John Coale, said. “She rises to the bait every time,” said Gregg Erickson, editor-at-large of the Alaska Budget Report.

“People often questioned Palin’s self-interest,” reported Purdum, saying that her “pervasive pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy” fit perfectly with the definition of a narcissistic personality.

Immersed in controversy and condemnation, Palin was overwhelmed by the spotlight and ultimately chose to resign. The “distractions” as she calls them “ramped up” the moment she was chosen as McCain’s running mate. Palin described to Time that she decided to no

Cohorts Sarah Palin and Senator John McCain greet crowds together in McCain’s bid for presidency.

5

Domestic

For years, Native Americans were neglected by our government.

How we can help. by dorin azerad

6

from typical American society has forced them to rely on an unsteady source of income. Many reservations around the country depend upon tourism and the sale of traditional First American artwork to support the residents of the reservations. Because of the United States’ no gambling policy, casinos are placed either on islands off of the United States or private settlements close to First American reservations. Casinos do allow reservations to make a living, but a poor one-- in reality, almost all First American families living on reservations live in poverty without the luxuries of an everyday American.

There are many steps to be taken to mend the First American situation in America. The United States government should address a formal apology to First Americans. First Americans currently have access to all fundamental American rights, but the years of oppression they have faced have left them bereft of many opportunities to achieve a better style of living. The United States government must intervene to help First Americans achieve positions in the workplace and better education.

Hundreds of years of oppression have left First Americans without many will to excel in American society. For a country that supposedly gives all of its citizens the power to accomplish a better lifestyle with hard work, we, their fellow Americans, have failed to give the people who were in this country before us the privileges they deserve. HMR

Justice for All Above: A festival artist in Arizona.

He, and other Native Americans, is owed the rights he deserves, as shown on the right by the condition of the home of a family living on the reservation.

wizbangblue

In the United States of America, everyone is born with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness-- everyone except First Americans, that is. For over two million First Americans living in the United States, the prospect of achieving the “American Dream” is small and near inconceivable. While First Americans are considered full American citizens with the right to vote and own property, circumstances have lead to the separation of First American tribes from modern United States government and culture.

From the arrival of Christopher Columbus to the 20th Century, First Americans have faced persecution in what is truly their homeland. The actions of European settlers have led some tribes to extinction and others to isolation. This discrimination against First Americans has been directed by United States presidents and congressional leaders, from Benjamin Hawkins, signer of the 1785 Treaty of Hopewell, to Andrew Jackson, a strong believer in complete First American eradication.

First Americans currently live fenced off from the rest of the world in reservations established by Andrew Jackson as a way to further segregate and distance First Americans from the “truly” American citizen.

These strict decrees of isolation, which at times forbid First Americans leaving the reservation, has increased the social and cultural gap between First Americans and the rest of America. Because children are forbidden to leave, they are educated on premises, but poorly educated native teachers do not provide youth with many opportunities to excel academically. In fact, some adults living in reservations are illiterate.

The segregation of First Americans

about

Underserved Once More

HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic Having a ball The Yankees play against the Phillies in Game 1 of the 2009 World Series.

The True Cost of Victory As the Yankees celebrate their victory in the World Series, a writer looks at the exorbitance of the government’s spending.

seattletimes

O

by david zask

n Friday, November 6, 2009, New York City held an enormous celebratory parade in honor of the Yankees’ World Series victory, but at what cost? New York’s government pays as much as it can for its most successful sports team. The combined Yankees payroll comes to an astounding 200 million dollars. The New York Yankees draw on city money to pay the stadium maintenance crew, stadium employees, as well as for team equipment, travel, and a brand new stadium.

The new Yankee Stadium cost an enormous amount of money-- 1.5 billion dollars to construct. The Yankees were unable to afford it on their own, especially considering the large volume of other Yankee expenses. To pay for the new staDecember 2009 HM Review

dium, New York City chose to provide the Yankees with an extra 370 million dollars in taxpayer dollars, as well as an extra billion dollars in tax-free bonds. The parade alone cost around $331,000, $307,000 of which was paid for by the government.

The Yankees do pay for themselves.

They have a lucrative trade in ticket sales, concessions, endorsements, and televised broadcasting. The Yankees are an investment just like any other, with the possibility of either a high or low return. Even though the Yankees are generally successful, these tough economic times exemplify just how difficult it is to get a return on an investment. Many believe that the government should not be gambling with their money, but Mayor Bloomberg said that the recession would not “rain on the Yankees parade.”

The problem with this is that the government’s generous donations to the Yankees largely consist of taxpayer money diverted from funds for other projects.

To fund the construction of the new Yankee Stadium, the government cut funding for programs for Alzheimer’s patients, slashed the capital budgets for schools, drew on resources for police and fire service, and closed public libraries an extra day per week.

New York City’s government needs to cut back on Yankees funding. Even the most successful franchise in the history of baseball isn’t worth sacrificing city programs that teach children, protect citizens, and improve the quality of life.

HMR

7

Domestic

The Changing Face of the Republican Party The two recent Republican victories in New Jersey and Virginia could signify a shift in the ranks of the Good Ol’ Party. by harrison manin

E

lection Day 2009 saw Republican victories in the New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races for Chris Christie and Robert F. McDonnell, respectively. The results of these elections are not as grand a triumph as Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, who dubbed the victories a “Republican renaissance,” suggests, and are certainly not indicative of one party prevailing over the other. The importance of the Republican gubernatorial elections rests in the futures that they

8

have created for the Democratic and Republican parties.

The elections’ greatest impact on the country will be on geography. 2010 marks the 23rd National Census, which (among many other things) counts the number of people in every state. The main political effect of the census is that it calls for the remapping of districts (known as redistricting) by state legislatures. McDonnell’s governorship grants Virginia Republicans the authority in drawing these lines. In New Jersey, Christie’s governorship gives Republicans a majority voice in the process, but not as much influence

will be delegated to Republicans due to a Redistricting Commission that strives for bipartisan input. This authority allows in each state Republicans to gerrymander.

Gerrymandering is the drawing of geographically odd boundary lines that try to ensure that a particular party (in this case, Republicans) will be the majority in as many districts as possible.

When elections for the House of Representatives occur next year, the districts will have been redrawn. New Jersey and Virginia currently have 24 combined House seats. New Jersey’s thirteen consist of eight Democratic representatives

conservative snow

HM Review Vol. XIX

e snow

Domestic and five Republican representatives, and Virginia’s eleven consist of six Democrats and five Republicans. Since Republicans will have the opportunity to redraw district lines in their favor, the conclusion of Election Day 2010 will likely see New Jersey with a split number of Republican and Democratic representatives and Virginia with a Republican majority in their respective House delegations.

Democrats currently make up 59 percent of the House of Representatives, but even with this majority it is still difficult get any proposed Democratic legislation passed, as seen by Obama’s healthcare bill that passed the House by a margin of five votes. In this context, the gubernatorial elections will likely result in the failure or impediment of progress for Democratic initiatives, giving some of Obama’s 2008 momentum to the Republican Party.

Christie and McDonnell modified

Voters are abandoning out radical leaders and seeking bipartisan cooperation in the hopes for a unified nation, returning American politics to an “Era of Good Feelings.” their platforms in order to win the governorship. Both men maintain conservative ideals, but during their campaigns, they made a point of almost exclusively stressing economic policies. Christie centered his stand on lowering New Jersey’s property tax-- the highest in the nation-- and reducing spending. McDonnell made job creation and opportunity the focal point of his campaign. By setting aside extreme ideals, Christie and McDonnell were able to get conservative Democrats and Independents as well as registered Republicans to vote Republican.

The moderate Republican ideology appeals to fiscally conservative Democrats and social Conservatives, especially

A new voice On the right, Governor-elect Robert F. McDonnell gives a speech at a gathering during the Virginia GOP Convention 2009.

December 2009 HM Review

haddonfield

Right in New Jersey Mitt Romney endorses candidate Chris Christie for the gubernatorial race in New Jersey against Corzine. as the economy is the issue of greatest substance in the current recession. Modeling this, Michael Bloomberg, a social Democrat and a fiscal Conservative, ran on the Republican ticket this year for his third term as New York City Mayor, defeating Democrat Bill Thompson. McDonnell made sure to maintain a moderate persona during his run for office.

He refused to permit Sarah Palin to campaign on his behalf, emphasizing to the press that he never asked her to do so.

These trends may indicate a Republican reawakening, but in truth such a rebirth is a false notion. Along with the November gubernatorial and mayoral races, a special election for New York’s twenty-third district occurred. The candidates were ‘grass roots’ conservative Douglas Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens. Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh all showed support in varying degrees for Hoffman, but he lost the race even though the district had con-

sistently voted Republican for the past two decades.

The New Jersey and Virginia gubernatorial races can be used as a means to diagnose the American political condition. They point not to a Republican revival but to realignment in political parties. The Republicans will likely consist of current moderates, Independents, and fiscally conservative Democrats, and the Democrats will consist of present liberals.

The Conservatives will either dissolve, devise a new party, or be forced to compromise their views in order to remain a Republican faction. In turbulent times, people yearn for stability. Voters are abandoning out radical leaders and seeking bipartisan cooperation in the hopes for a unified nation, returning American politics to an “Era of Good Feelings.”

HMR

9

International The Wall Dailysoft.

The history and sociopolitical impacts of the East-West Divide in Germany

T

by ethan yaro

wenty years ago, on November ninth, the Berlin Wall was constructed by the East German Socialist Unity Party of Germany (the SED) to keep the people of East Germany from getting to West Berlin and the part of Germany that was not controlled by the Soviets. At the end of the Second World War, the city of Berlin, the capitol of Germany, was divided into four parts: the British sector, the American Sector, the French sector, and the Russian sector.

Berlin was in the middle of East Germany, surrounded by the Soviet controlled zone. Like a Soviet satellite, it was ruled by the same iron fist that controlled all of the countries in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

In 1953, after the death of Stalin, the East German people held a labor strike, which was promptly put down by Soviet troops and tanks. This attack left many Germans dead and many more once

10

again unwavering in respect for the power of the Soviets. Over the next fifteen years the situation of the East Germans became increasingly difficult; the economy floundered, and professionals left in large numbers. In 1960, 200,000 individuals escaped, including hundreds of doctors, dentists and engineers. In 1961, the rate of the fleeing Germans increased to 207,000 by midsummer. By August 1961, one fifth of the East German population was over the border in West Germany or elsewhere. The SED decided it had no choice but to restrain the people of East

by jumping and cover of night. On the twenty fourth of August 1961, Gunter Litwin became the first escapee to be killed by an East German border guard when he was shot and dragged back to the East side, where he died of his wounds. That week, two more were killed while trying to cross over to West Berlin. These were the first of more than 250 individuals to be killed while making attempts at freedom.

Then the wall as it was at the end of 1989 began to take shape. First a cement barrier was constructed. This was later

Without the Berlin Wall it is likely that the iron grip of communism over Eastern Europe would have held on much longer.

Germany.

On the night of August twelfth, the East German People’s Police, acting under the orders of Khrushchev (the successor to Stalin), placed coils of barbed wire stretching all over the border between East and West Berlin. People still escaped

taken down to make way for twelve-foot high slabs of concrete topped by a steel pipe, making a high, foot thick, gripless wall. These slabs stretched ninety-six miles across Berlin as the impenetrable final obstacle in an escapee’s path. The end of East German territory would see HM Review Vol. XIX

Paradox The Brandenburg Gate, built as a symbol of peace, stands desolately in the no man’s land created by the Wall, waiting for the end of the Cold War with a concrete panel wall about ten feet in height, which marked the start of the border zone. Following this there was a barbed wire fence with a signal in it, so if anyone tried to scale it, a signal would run down the line to the nearest watchtower, of which there were 302 in total, each manned by two to six men, heavily armed, and ready at all times. After this fence there were a series of mats covered in spikes, fondly named “Stalin Grass”.

Then there were three or four rows of tank traps and tripwires, rigged to set off signal flares at a nearby location to show an escapee’s location to the guards. After all of these deterrents, there was an open run of anywhere from 40 to 80 yards of spotlight lit, open fields with a path on it so guards could easily pass through the borderland. At the end of the field, there were another series of tripwires for another signal flare and then vehicle ditches, which were then topped off with the final twelve-foot wall. In the twenty-eight years of the Berlin Wall’s existence, more than 5,000 attempted escape, and over 250 died in the attempt.

As the years passed, protest increased, and the Soviets began losing their grip on East Germany and the surrounding countries, beginning with the opening up in the border between AusDecember 2009 HM Review

tria and Hungary in August of 1989. On November ninth, Gunter Schabowski, a member of the East German Politburo, attended a press conference discussing possible new changes that would allow East Germans to visit the West and to reach people on the other side of the wall.

Schabowski stated, “Personal travel can be applied for without any given requirements, the relevant passport and registration departments are instructed to promptly grant exit visas for permanent departure.” At 6:57 P.M, the NBC anchorman asked Schabowski in English, “Do you mean to say that the border is now open?” to which Schabowski responded, “Yes.” And that was all it took. Within the next half hour, the West German television channels were broadcasting that passage was now legal over the wall, and that the people of Berlin were once again unified. When these broadcasts reached the East side the news spread like wildfire. People went outside and celebrated, but at the checkpoints the border guards were still unsure of what was happening.

They had not yet heard the new rule and remained loyal to their old orders to kill anyone who tried to cross. By ten o’clock, the checkpoints were mobbed on either side by thousands of Berliners. The order was finally given to open the gates, and

at 11:14 pm, the East Germans passed through the walls that had held them in for so long and were met by rejoicing West Berliners. The people of Berlin were once again unified. In the first day alone, 800,000 East Berliners crossed the border. Over the next few months the wall was slowly taken apart piece by piece and destroyed. For 200, the twentieth anniversary of the fall, the citizens of Berlin set up a chain of domino-like slabs stretching along a part of where the wall had once stood. These were knocked down on the ninth of November at 11:14 PM to symbolize the fall of communism and the end of the Berlin Wall.

The Berlin Wall has sparked many discussions on how it changed Europe, with each position hotly contested by countries according to their ideological points of view and theories. One of the biggest questions is who gets the credit for its end. In the US, the credit is given to Ronald Reagan and his aggressive attacks on communism and military spending aimed at defeating it. Another perspective from the European point of view is that the Americans caused the downfall by being soft, not overly aggressive, and spreading globalization and democratization. These actions led to unrest and the expression of opposition

German Information Center Pretoria

csail.groups.mit.edu

International

Unlikely Catalyst German Spokesman Guenther Schabowski responded to Western journalists by giving East Germans the right to enter to West Germany freely 11

International To say that the wall was a total negative would also be a lie. The wall played a major part in the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Soviet communism. In the end, it could be said that Khrushchev’s great plan to restrain the escape of his people resulted in the downfall of his own government. The walls of Berlin and East Germany alike gathered the attention of many countries that opposed communism all over the world. As the number of speeches against the cruel rules of the East German Government grew from the first speech given by John F. Kennedy to dozens internationally, the people of the Soviet satellites began to see that there was backing and support for the destruction of the Soviet empire.

One by one the chinks in the Iron Curtain over the satellites grew and the Soviet empire was no more.

Declaration Against the Wall U.S. President Kennedy was one of many Western leaders who came to Berlin and spoke out against the Wall. opinions in the Soviet satellites, causing the fall of communism. Another controversial question is who was the final victor in the Cold War. The Americans think that they are, but many Russians do not see themselves as the losers and believe that their borders were just pushed back. One thing can be certain: the fall of the wall and the end of the Iron Curtain forced communism out of and propelled the advance of capitalism into countries where the Soviets once had a firm hold.

Several problems arose with the collapse of the Soviet rule. Eastern European countries lost thousands of jobs. During the years following the fall of the Berlin Wall, former East Germany was stricken with a 40% unemployment rate; with many of the factories shut and most of the communist era jobs gone, droves of spies and informants were now without a job (at one point there was one informant for every sixty-four people in the half of the country, making for a total of 90,000 secret police and 175,000 paid

12

informants for a population of seventeen million). These new losses left the already shaky economy in disarray and divided the people of Germany. At its peak the unemployment rate was almost fifty percent. This divide is still present in Ger-

The people of Russia amounted to nearly a half of the population of the Soviet empire, and the size of the Soviet Empire fell by over a quarter of its original size as the satellites and minor provinces seceded one by one. When Gorbachev came into power, he was saluted and greeted as a hero, but as he lost control over his people and satellites, he became the enemy as the public demanded more and more freedom. As this occurred, the chaos and turmoil caused by a dysfunctional government emboldened the people to demand reforms, increas-

To say that the wall was a total negative would be a lie. The wall played a major part in the fall of the Soviet Union and the defeat of Soviet communism. many, where unemployment rate is 7% in the west, and 12 % in the east. These problems have hurt the development of former East Germany and slowed down its progress in achieving parity with the former West Germany. The former East Germany’s economic woes continue to exacerbate a division between the people of Germany. Although the recent generations see themselves as neither Eastern nor Western Germans, their parents do, and they tend to trust those who originally from their side, fearing too much change in the other side.

ing the rate at which the Soviet Union fell into disarray. On Christmas Day of 1991, Gorbachev resigned from office, and the red Soviet flag was taken down, replaced by the flag of pre-revolutionary Russia.

Without the Berlin Wall it is likely that the iron grip of Soviet communism over Eastern Europe and the countries of the Soviet Union would have held on much longer. HMR

HM Review Vol. XIX

International

TOGETHER AT LAST daylife

by stephen paduano

I

n 1534, the infamous King Henry VIII decided to break away from the Roman Catholic Church, bringing his British subjects with him against their wills. Parliament soon passed The Act in Restraint of Appeals of 1553, officially transferring religious jurisdiction from the papacy to the King. From this the Church of England was born, converting all of England to the newest form of Protestantism: Anglicanism.

Despite the vocal protests of the (admittedly politically powerless) British populace, Anglicanism was nonetheless able to flourish under the jurisdiction of the English royal house for the next four hundred and seventy-five years.

The Anglican Church has begun to crack in recent years; the political binding fell through, and the liberal branch of the religion began to fight for the ordination of homosexual and female priests.

With no central governance analogous to the papacy of the Catholic Church, Anglicanism began to fall into complete disarray. While Archbishop Rowan Williams sided against the proposals of liberal laypeople and clergymen, the matter was never officially rejected. The clergymen and laypeople alike had nowhere to turn. Then, like a bolt from the blue, for the first time in nearly five centuries, the Roman Catholic Church extended its December 2009 HM Review

hand to its ailing English counterpart.

Pope Benedict XVI and the rest of the papacy began working toward the unity of the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Benedict, despite being criticized for his conservative ways, continued what began during Pope Paul VI’s reform of the Catholic Church. In the 1960s, Pope Paul VI established Vatican II, the first major reform in over one thousand years. During this, he rid the church of many archaic rituals not mentioned in the Bible. The papacy at the time also began working on the revolutionary “Anglican – Roman Catholic International Commission.”

Unfortunately, this would-be conclusion to four hostile centuries between the two Churches stopped shortly after it started.

Forty-three years later, Pope Benedict

newsweek

XVI picked up where Pope Paul VI had left off.

Within days of Pope Benedict’s announcement, meetings were arranged between the Holy Pontiff and the senior ranking member of the Church of England, Archbishop Williams. These meetings led to the Catholic Church’s greatest compromise since its conception. The two religious leaders announced that the Anglican-Roman Catholic International Commission, or ARCIC, would attempt to find common ground between the political and religious beliefs of both churches and allow people to be both practicing Anglicans and practicing Catholics. As a result, the Church of England has announced that it will accept and abide by the major governing doctrines of the Catholic Church. However,

newsweek

Religious Leaders: Queen Elizabeth II (left) and Pope Benedict XVI (right), the leaders of the Catholic Church and the Anglican Church are captured on candid camera.

13

International Pope Benedict XVI has not budged regarding the issue of the ordination of gays and women. Although it seemed that the Church of England would never willingly acquiesce to being governed by the Papacy, thus far the Archbishop has expressed little opposition, and no moderations to Pope Benedict’s plan have been made.

This plan is a major leap for practicing Christians (both Catholic and Anglican) throughout the world. We must ask ourselves: is it a leap in the right direction? Since the separation of the English and Roman Catholic Church in 1534, few attempts have been made toward reunion. Which church is in control in this scenario? The answer publicized by leaders of both congregations is that neither church is using the other to its advantage, and they are working together to better the members of their Churches. People in both churches have spoken up regarding this claim. One of the most notable claims was made by the Roman Catholic Cardinal Francis George, an American, insisted that these potential Catholics must undergo the same education as all Catholics and be able to engage in mundane tasks such as “clarify[ing] questions of truth of faith and of accountability or community.” He went on to state that the education must be required for the people who would enroll in the Papacy’s

proposed plan, referring to them as “all those who claim to be part of the Catholic communion.”

George’s statement demonstrates yet again that what occurs in these religions is only being controlled by the people at the top of the ecclesiastical hierarchy, higher than the rank of a Cardinal. We must also ask ourselves if it is the laypeople of the religions who are being taken advantage of. If this process leaves out the people of both churches, as King Henry did in 1534, what its purpose? The sole purpose of this process, should no laypeople have a say, would be for the Catholic Church to make an alliance with the Church of England by getting it back on its feet. But if the Church of England-- supported by the United Kingdom-- can fall once, it can fall again. The Roman Catholic Church strives to better its members and the people of the world, so in theory, their plan is in line with their morals—but not with those of the Anglican Church. King Henry and his daughter Queen Elizabeth, the founders of the Church of England, took a firm stance against the dominion of the papacy. If the Anglican Church were to ever again submit to be controlled by the Catholic Church, it would essentially be undoing the tenets on which the church was founded.

The Roman Catholic Church will be reclaiming its diocese in Britain it lost many years ago should the Church of England accept what the proposal.

Though this is beneficial for the Catholics, the Anglican opinion is entirely ignored. Until the Catholic and Anglican churches reach a proposal specifically addressing which rituals from which church it will accept, the political and religious doctrines it will accept, what will happen to the Anglican clergy, how the papacy will govern the Anglican church, any money that will be exchanged, and any other matters pertaining to either church, the proposed plan made by the ARCIC will be faulty and disadvantageous to clergymen and laypeople of both churches. HMR

demandvideo

It is safe to say what soon followed came out of the blue. No one had expected it, and no one had prepared for it. For the first time in 475 years, the Roman Catholic Church extended its hand to its ailing counterparts in England.

14

HM Review Vol. XIX

International

Dishonest or Deceptive?

A Discussion of Art Theft and Art Forgery

A

by samir nedzamar

rt theft and forgery constitute a large portion of the international art trade.

Forgery—or more accurately, imitation-- has a long and extensive history dating back to ancient civilizations. The Greeks adopted elements of Egyptian art into their own; the Romans frequently duplicated Greek marbles and bronzes. In many cases, the Roman copies are the only surviving examples of Greek art from certain periods.

Roman copies provide contemporary historians with information regarding Greek society and culture. Most people educated in the subject will agree that the work of Roman “forgers” has proved indispensable in reconstructing antiquity.

There are plenty of reasons to steal art. Many thieves are motivated by the fact that a large amount of valuable artwork is worth millions of dollars and weighs only a few kilograms. Transportation is simple, as only minimal damage to the painting is necessary to cut it off the frame and roll it into a tube carrier.

Another important consideration is that although most important museums are very secure, many institutions hosting priceless works do have disproportionately poor security measures. These establishments are susceptible to art theft slightly more complicated than a typical “smash-and-grab”. The threat of theft strains museums’ already-thin budgets.

Furthermore, since the art market is relatively small in scale, one major theft from a museum or gallery can offset the owner(s) by millions of dollars and significantly reduce value over the entire market.

Forgery is different. Unlike art thieves, forgers are usually skilled artists who have failed to produce successful original art. Modern forgeries of preDecember 2009 HM Review

19th century art are easy to identify with today’s advanced forensics, including paint analysis, X-ray, and carbon dating.

Forgeries of modern works are harder to detect. Modern and postmodern art are for the most part executed with much lower technical expectations than were the artworks of the Renaissance, easing the way for prospective forgers. Even though some forgeries have proven to be an important window into the past, most forgers aren’t working to preserve and archive the great works of their time but out of financial self-interest. The economic ramifications of forgery resemble those of theft, except that instead of removing goods from the market, forgers

Many thieves are motivated by the fact that a large amount of valuable artwork is worth millions of dollars and weighs only a few kilograms. add fakes, inflating prices and destroying confidence among possible buyers.

Forgery and theft were just as pervasive and widespread in antiquity as they are today. During the Renaissance, apprentices usually learned the artists’ trade by copying the works of previous masters.

Oftentimes the students would sell these as originals. Like the Romans, though, these students unwittingly offered second lives to these great works, and it is thought that many “medieval” works are really late-Renaissance copies.

Stéphane Breitwieser is a prime example of the art thief. Most consider him to be the most prolific art thief of the modern era. He stole over 239 paintings and artifacts from museums and collections. Sadly, in an attempt to destroy incriminating evidence against her son, his mother destroyed approximately sixty

valuable works of art. In contrast to Roman copies, which unintentionally provided a great boon to society, Stéphane Breitwieser took away many relics of the medieval world. Although there have been many high profile thefts from museums across the world in the modern age, most stolen pieces were found in a matter of months. A unique case is that of the “Frankfurt Theft” in 1994, when two paintings by J.M.W. Turner and one painted by Caspar David Friedrich were stolen from an art gallery in Frankfurt, Germany. The police used an interesting method to recover the piece; Sir Nicholas Serota, curator of the Tate Museum, which had originally loaned the paintings to the gallery, bought the painting from the thief (who was later arrested). Similar fates befall most stolen works. There are stolen in a poorly planned, often violent heist and are found months later, often damaged beyond repair.

There is no single reason why art theft and forgery flourish in such a secure world; most claim that the combination of the “name based” art world with the relative ease of theft from galleries and museums makes fraud a very lucrative enterprise for criminals to enter. In addition to the economical effects of theft, most stolen the works are damaged beyond repair due to poor handling and storage. However, in certain cases, particularly in those of the Classical era, forgery helped to provide a reconstruction of the societies of the pieces that were imitated.

While some forgeries were inadvertently helpful, for the most part they inflate the market and provide altered versions of history. HMR

Stolen Masterpiece Self Portrait by Rembrandt van Rijn was itself stolen in 2000 and recovered in 2005. codart

15

Features

Features

Dilemma of Modern Media: Informative Truth or Sensationalized Entertainment?

T

by yvonne cha

oday’s media seems to be more concerned with Britney Spears’s latest meltdown than the growing economic crisis. “I’m Miss Bad Media Karma/ another day, another drama” is a line in Spears’s “Piece of Me,” and it is acutely relevant. We all know that when Spears first shaved her head and beat a car with an umbrella, the stories flooded newspapers, television, and the Internet.

The media currently profits from focusing on the exploitation of scandals and notorious events concerning famous (or infamous) people in America. But was it always this way?

16

Media comes from the plural of the Latin word medium, meaning an intervening agency, means, or instrument.

By definition, it is the media’s job to intervene and investigate both serious news and celebrity sensations. In this day and age, the media is no longer constructed to deliver real news. We have come to the time at which the “news media” impersonates genuine fact-based reporting to conceal its true nature as another form of entertainment. News corporations exploit and publicize stories for profit more than for the sole purpose of providing the general public with pure, direct news.

On November 8, 2009, Saturday Night Live did a parody of Fox News’s

news observer

Election Coverage. Dripping with satire, the show expertly depicted just how Fox News was more entertaining than informative. Fox has been notorious for making news programming profitable by broadcasting raucous reports on controversial topics to attract watchers instead of providing viewers with the unembellished facts. Compare two people who get their news from different sources; one individual watches MSNBC, and the other watches Fox News. They will almost certainly have different perspectives on the same issue, because while media is supposed to be merely the medium that delivers news, it has transformed into another form of elaborate biased entertainment.

HM Review Vol. XIX

bserver

Not all news is fabricated or inaccurate. There are many reliable sources.

The type of coverage on which news broadcasting companies focus often distracts us from the informative news we should be hearing to help us make good decisions and judgment as citizens.

While Michael Jackson tributes flooded news-broadcasting stations, Goldman Sachs on Wall Street bought risky house mortgages, put them into trust funds, and sold them off as bonds to insurance companies and pension fund companies.

The decline in house mortgages dropped and buying houses anywhere in America became extremely risky. However, this significant issue didn’t reach the public and homebuyers were not notified about this important information. So who is to blame- the public or the government?

Does the government even allow the media to intervene and investigate?

If anyone can trace back to the promises President Barack Obama made during his 2008 Presidential Election campaign, you will remember that he assured us the health care issue wouldn’t be settled behind closed doors and emphasized transparency in creating affordable health care for everyone. The new reformed Health care plan has finally been passed, but investigators can’t find any evidence of Obama and his administration’s transparency discussing and resolving this issue except for the meetings held in Congress.

Suspiciously enough, the Vice President’s visitor log has been available to the public only at the end of this October, because of, said one of the visitors (whose members included Gary D. Cohn, the president of Goldman Sachs), “security reasons.” The reality is that while our government tells us that matters are being settled for all to see, large corporations with a big say in the media also exert influence in the world of politics. These corporations financially fund political campaigns in the hopes that when their candidates win, the newly appointed politician-- in this case, President-- will return the favor and work towards the desires of these companies.

But perhaps we’re not giving the government enough credit in controlling the media. The president still created the FCC-- the Federal Commissions Committee-- a group of five commitDecember 2009 HM Review

tee members appointed by the president to regulate and prevent large corporations from monopolizing the media. But here’s the catch: FCC members don’t stay FCC members for life. If they open ways for these corporations to buy more media and get bigger, they can leave their

...perhaps we’re not giving the government enough credit in controlling the media. term and join these companies, generating more financial gain for the company of choice, as well as for themselves. Still, along with Nancy Pelosi and President Obama himself, the FCC has been quite active this year by passing laws concerning the net neutrality issue, ensuring that one company owning an Internet appliance does not have the right to prevent a product user from using another Internet appliance from a different company at the same time.

Aside from the FCC, non-profit organizations Mediachannel.org and Freepress.net are also fighting for a public voice and better media policies to ensure that people become aware of and understand the influence of the media, and find out what’s really going on. In addition,

there are things we can do to help make sure news is more informative. Being involved in spreading awareness about this issue is crucial. People are able to comment concerning policy directly to the FCC (on the FCC website). The FCC members will in turn directly tell you that they get so little public commentary that it is extremely difficult for them to know what the public is thinking. Generally, the only comments they receive are from big corporations that encourage their customers to comment on the FCC about certain laws that would benefit them. Within Horace Mann, we have the half-credit course Media and Culture specially designed to educate us about various issues within the media and the influence from and on politics and major corporations. As Horace Mann students, we are fully capable and equipped with the knowledge and resources to increase awareness and make a difference concerning these issues. Teachers eager and willing to champion any cause or movement we are passionate about surround us. As students in the 21st century, we’re connected to every available resource on the Internet. There are infinite ways to get the word out. So let’s get started. It’s time for a reform in the media, a transformation in democracy. HMR comera

a:

Features

Mass of media With the great amount of media available now, when do we cross the line between information and sensational entertainment?

17

Features

A Fascination with Sensation

In a time of world-changing events, should town gossip really be the priority of news broadcasts?

I

by emily feldstein

s a cat climbing on a policeman’s shoulder while he gives a ticket truly worthy of a spot on the five o’ clock news? The news networks can only draw out important news stories for so long. What happens when there are still ten more hours to fill?

When there isn’t enough real news to fit allotted broadcasting time, the media, primarily news stations, often turn to personal stories, creating celebrities over night such as Levi Johnston and the balloon boy. Ordinary occurrences are sensationalized to provide “filler” news stories. Due to the need to fill time and the incredible power of technology, stories that were once small town gossip become national concerns. At times, the people in the stories are tangentially related to the news, but they really are no more involved than the viewers.

Take Levi Johnston. He was thrown into the spotlight when the grandmother of his child, Sarah Palin, was nominated for vice president. He remained in the spotlight, though, long after Barack Obama and Joe Biden had secured the presidency and vice presidency respectively. With a war in Iraq and another in Afghanistan, as well as a recession, sensational news continues to grab headlines.

On April 19, 2009, Wolf Blitzer of CNN’s ‘The Situation Room’ found the time to ask, “This is the young man who is supposed to marry the daughter of Governor Palin. That didn’t exactly happen. What’s going on right now?”

CNN Correspondent Dan Simon also found the time to respond with a piece that interspersed his voiceover with clips from the Tyra Banks show. In Mr. Simon’s words, “The images during the Republican National Convention of a

18

teenaged seemingly in love couple are now a distant memory for Levi Johnston and Bristol Palin. Appearing on the nationally syndicated Tyra Banks show, Johnston says the relationship has become ‘poisonous.’”

‘The Situation Room’ is “the command center for breaking news, politics, and extraordinary reports from around the world,” according to its website. It is meant to emulate the atmosphere of the White House Situation Room where the most pressing issues of the nation are discussed, presumably not including the state of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston’s

There is only so much information that we can retain.

The news has the power to inform us; it is their decision.

Why shouldn’t they choose to educate us? relationship. On a network that is supposed to focus on breaking news, this story seemed out of place, especially considering the fact that it was preceded by the news that “more than 150 people are dead after the deadliest earthquake in Italy in almost 30 years.” Levi Johnston’s insignificance on the world stages provides stark contrast to the world disaster.

There was also the infamous altercation between Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates and Sergeant Crowley of the Cambridge Police in July of 2009. This incident provided the foundation for an interesting discussion of the way Americans perceive people, especially based on race, which would be apropos considering the recent election of President Barack Obama. The issue was sensationalized. The personal attacks under-

mined the inherent issue. Even President Obama’s involvement was personal.

In the cases of both Levi Johnston and Gates’ arrest, the stories somehow stemmed from more serious news (the presidential election and the possible bias against a black individual). The same principle applies to an even more recent story: the balloon boy. These three words are probably enough to summarize days of news coverage. We were all inundated with reports of the boy who had seemingly floated off in a homemade balloon.

Soon, we were overwhelmed by discussion of the new development, that the entire thing was a hoax. While at first a search for a little boy was troubling and an acceptable story, it soon became somewhat ridiculous. The hoax was used to gain national attention. Instead of discussing on relevant and pressing issues facing the country, the media focused on a juvenile attempt for publicity. The television media could learn from Mr. Nicholas Kristof, two time Pulitzer Prize winner and columnist for the New York Times. He often uses real life stories, but, instead of sensationalizing these specific stories until the issue becomes completely distorted, he uses examples to support a broader point and illuminate a larger issue. His recent column, Dad’s Life of Yours? You Choose, published October 3, 2009, concerned the healthcare debate.

Endless discussion on the healthcare bill may be tiring to some, and the facts can come across as rather boring. The exact necessary policies do not seem particularly compelling when the issue is not made in some way personal. Mr. Kristof uses one real life story to humanize, and therefore make more accessible and interesting, the issue of healthcare reform.

While some columnists or newscastHM Review Vol. XIX

Features

December 2009 HM Review

about

zimbio worldpress

ers try to display their vast knowledge on the issue, Mr. Kristof uses one individual example that very clearly demonstrates the need for change in our healthcare system. He writes about the Waddington family. David Waddington is afflicted with polycystic kidney disease (PKD).

Each of his two sons, Travis and Michael, has a fifty percent chance of having PKD. When David Waddington’s kidney failed, he needed a transplant. Both of his sons wished to give him a kidney, as they were likely to be the closest genetic matches, but they could not.

Why? It was not because they had preexisting conditions and were sick themselves. It was because they needed to be tested before donating the kidney. If either of them was found to have PKD, their insurance premiums would skyrocket.

Mr. Kristof uses this relatively short anecdote to exemplify the issue that is being faced by countless Americans. He does not attempt to create celebrities or martyrs. The story is not overly dramatic; in the end, David Waddington is able to receive someone’s kidney, and, although Michael has been diagnosed with PKD, all of the Waddington are reasonably well. The story is not taken over by the emphasized personalities of its subjects.

It serves as a vehicle to spread a message.

This is the way in which the media needs to use personal stories. Stories should serve to emphasize and underscore an important issue in today’s society. All of the various individual sob stories dilute those that are truly helpful to convey a message. There is only so much information that we can retain. The news has the power to inform us; it is their decision. Why shouldn’t they choose to educate us? HMR

newsimagined

Minutes in Fame Individuals such as (counter clockwise from top) Falcon Heene (“balloon boy”), Sergeant Crowley, Henry Louis Gates, and Levi Johnson have become household names as a result of the media sensationalizing their personal stories, often in place of significan national news.

19

Features

Don’t Stop the Press!

The Growing Tide of American Anti-Intellectualism doobybrain doobybrain

doobybrain

by jacob gladysz-morawski

N

ewspapers across America are dying. United States newspaper circulation has fallen by 17% since 1990; only 40% of adults say they read a daily newspaper. The New York Times has posted 7% losses in their circulation between 2008 and 2009 alone.

Some newspapers such as USA Today have lost as much as 17% in circulation in the same time frame. Some major newspapers like The Denver Post have reported 61% gains, but this growth is only because the major competitors have folded, funneling remaining readership into the one remaining gazette.

The fall of the newspaper can be directly linked to modern, more efficient and convenient means of communication-- the advent of the Internet has created a kind of “PEZ-dispenser” of information.

United States history is inextricably intertwined with that of the newspaper. Newspapers have facilitated and allowed one of the most basic rights that Americas allows: Free Speech. Dissent granted the US its statehood. During the Revolutionary War period and the time leading up to it, the newspaper upheld the rights that the revolution stood for. The ability for newspapers to publish

20

freely was established in 1735 with the trial of John Peter Zenger. Zenger was tried for slanderous libel when he printed facts about then-Governor William Cosby’s corruption. Zenger was acquitted with the help of his lawyer Alexander Hamilton despite the fact that Cosby handpicked the judge.

This decision set a precedent for the freedom of the press. Throughout the history of the United States, free speech and the press have been the tools with

which democracy was sustained.

It’s hard to believe that such a long-lived bastion of American life is under threat from the deceptively harmless soundbite.

Many factors contribute to the current decline of the newspaper industry.

The recession is forcing Americans to tighten their belts, and many choose to sacrifice their subscriptions. The paper itself feels thinner and lighter than it used to be. Advertising—the main source of

Do you read newspapers?

The Review Polls HM Students.

- Poll Conducted by Jessica Chi, Andrew Demas, Daniel Elkind, Jacob Gladysz, & Samir Nedzamar

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features news mindset is now infecting children, who cringe at the very mention of the words “book” or “read”. This is because it is easier to absorb sound than actually read-- or think.

The soundbite is responsible for the United States’ dismal global standing in

People would rather take an opinion from his or her favorite drug addled radio host than cold facts from a reliable newspaper. reading, mathematics, science, and problem solving. The US does not even place in the top twenty countries. According to a study done by the National Science Foundation, only 47% of adult Americans know that the earth revolves around the sun. In Europe and Asia, Americans are stereotyped as incompetent lamebrains.

The fall of the newspaper is directly linked to the new American culture

that breeds contempt for fact. For ages, the newspaper has been a source of true knowledge of the surrounding world. It is depth and quality of the newspaper that makes it the supreme resource for current events. It is the power of freely chosen words that are written in newspapers that makes America a great democracy. Over American history, the newspaper has served as a fourth branch of government, keeping the power of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches in check.

Without the freedom of the press, the United States would slip into the mire of totalitarianism, as seen in China. To save America, we must first save the newspaper. Give newspapers to children so they might foster the love for education future generations need to keep America strong.

HMR

camille knop

revenue for papers, far outstripping subscription—is being stretched. The drop in readership and the suffering companies unwilling to pay for advertising has radically reduced the amount of advertising in print. But the reason for the decline of the newspaper is far more complicated than just the recession.

The fall of the newspaper can be directly linked to modern, more efficient and convenient means of communication-- the advent of the Internet has created a kind of “PEZ-dispenser” of information. Opinion has become an acceptable substitute for fact, noise a palliative for thought. People would rather hear an opinion from their drug-addled radio host of choice than obtain their news from a reliable newspaper beholden to fact and quality. This is not to say that radio and the Internet are bad things-- far from it—they allow access to information with greater speed and convenience than ever before, but their capacity to distract a population is dangerous. The instant

December 2009 HM Review

21

Features

wired

depts

Myprsite

The Sound Bite Generation: We want it all, and we want it now!

Is oversimplification of news for quick and widespread consumption a helpful development or a harmful distortion of the truth? by susanah cohen

D

o you tweet? “LOL! OMG! I’m IMing you right now!

Why is my computer so slow? I don’t have time for this.” These are just a few of the phrases common to our language today. As members of the “instant gratification generation”, we expect things to happen at the push of a button. In our grandparents’ time, news took weeks to cross oceans and countries. With all the new technology in our society, people have gradually lost their patience for any sort of, well, patience. Let’s be honest-- we are impatient. We want it all, and we want it now! The media has taken the initiative by simplifying long stories into one or two sentences. Quick, pithy, bumper sticker sound bites appeal to busy Americans with short attention spans, but getting news this way can be detrimental to society at large.

Sound bites can be useful for engaging busy people who will not spend the time on in-depth reading. Neither the hard-working waitress working two shifts to keep her kids in school nor the hedge fund manager following the ups and downs of the Dow Jones has the time to read an eight-page in-depth article on current events. The lives of these typical, busy Americans simply do not have time for leisure reading. But these individu-

22

als still want to stay informed. The waitress might read the cover of the Post and the manager might look over the news headlines in the elevator. The media has evolved, adapting to the changing tastes of its target audience by perfecting the art of instant news and the sound bite.

But sound bites can do more harm than good. It is easy to distort the message of a thirty minute speech if it is reduced to two sentences. Do you remember the exact details of President Obama’s Health Care Reform Bill? Neither do I. But we all remember Sarah Palin’s fright-

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

hongkiat

ening “death panels” composed of faceless bureaucrats deciding who shall live and who shall die. Palin’s misinterpretation of the bill became the focus of the debate and was picked up by major media outlets. If you review the articles published during that time, you will see a lot of coverage of the fictitious death panels, but far less detail describing the actual fundamentals of the Health Care Reform Bill. In this way, sound bites are an easy platform to promote rumors and push propaganda. How can you know the full story behind a comment if you only hear a few carefully chosen words?

Sound bites do travel more efficiently than do long articles over the Internet and reach more people, keeping them informed to some degree, even if minimally and superficially. During the recent presidential election, rumors circulated that Barack Obama was a practicing Muslim. In our society, unfortunately, being Muslim is equated with being antiAmerican and possibly a terrorist. The story spread like wildfire, giving people no time to sort fact from fiction. To this day, some Americans still believe that our president is a practicing Muslim, even though evidence has clearly proven the rumor false. The damage is already done; catchy sound bites tend to adhere longer than detailed information. After all, you can’t put policy discussion on a bumper sticker.

Sound bites can be used against a person by their enemies. When Hillary Clinton was running for president at the end of 2007, she made some comments concerning her view on taxing the rich: “I believe America did really well when we taxed the rich more and taxed the midDecember 2009 HM Review

worldpress

worldpress

dle class less.” As a whole, this quote seems reasonable and potentially beneficial to her campaign. However, if you omit the last six words and have her state, “I believe America did really well when we taxed the rich…” the quote has an entirely different meaning and could infuriate many people who would see their hard-earned income disappear into taxes. This would be completely unfair to Clinton, but would seem believable to the public. It will be interesting to see if this statement comes back to haunt her and affects her credibility in the next election. Sound bites, because they have no surrounding context, can be disastrously deceptive.

When people are exposed to less information, they become less curious. If people never read more than three sentences or listen to more than a couple of minutes of a story, they can lose their curiosity over time and become completely apathetic. When the population as a whole loses interest in finding out new things, research and progress will grind to a halt.

If you don’t constantly question the origin of the sound bites that bombard you daily, your voting behavior, buying behavior, and other daily decisions are all at risk of being manipulated by someone with an agenda. So the next time you pick up a newspaper or watch TV, please be inquisitive!

Read the news behind the sound bite, and question the source of everything you hear. HMR

23

Domestic

Economics

Nailed Under Debt The Good, the Bad, and The Ugly of Deficit Spending

Wendellgeek

Gizoo

by daniel elkind

24

T

he nature of the issue with the financial meltdown of 2008 and continuing economic crisis pushing our country precariously close to another Great Depression, our expeditiously skyrocketing national debt has been thrust into the forefront of economic issues. It is projected that our national debt will exceed $12 trillion by the end of fiscal year 2009. This accounts for approximately 90% of our annual Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or approximately $41,500 per citizen.

During President George W. Bush’s eight year tenure, our national debt increased by approximately $5 trillion from HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics ses which have occurred in Third World countries. The People’s Republic of China is currently estimated to own approximately 25%, or $800.5 billion, of the total foreign holdings of U.S. government bonds, while OPEC countries (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) including Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates own a combined 6% of the foreign holdings, or near $200 billion, of our national debt. These foreign purchasers of United States debt are becoming increasingly troubled by our out-of-control debt levels. During an overseas trip to Asian countries undertaken in November by President Obama, officials from China focused much of their interaction with the President on how the United States plans to repay China on their investments in our debt and how our counYourWorldUnspun

57% of GDP in 2001 to 70% of GDP by the conclusion of 2008. This increase occurred primarily as a result of ongoing wars in the Middle East, for which studies placed our weekly spending at $1.8 billion by 2006 and the frivolous rescue packages necessitated by the 2008 financial collapse.

Because of our skyrocketing national debt, many have asserted that fiscal stimulus measures enacted by the Obama administration to revive our economy are unaffordable, and have utilized ballooning federal debt as a rallying cry against measures intended to rebuild our national economic footing and to reduce national health care costs.

Without question, our national debt is reaching crisis levels and must eventually be reduced, especially since Medicare and Social Security will produce significant additional deficits over the next decade. Our national deficits require the country to borrow funds needed to operate from foreign nations, weakening the ability of our government to fund needs and placing the entire prospect of our economy in the hands of foreign nations.

Deficits cause the value of the dollar to decline and result in long-term inflation.

If foreign nations were to cease purchasing our government debt, we would face an economic crisis unprecedented in U.S. history and comparable to financial criDecember 2009 HM Review

try plans to control its budget deficits.

Today, the overriding question we face is not whether we need to cut our deficits. It is instead whether in the midst of a recession, having scarcely escaped a disastrous financial collapse, if we can afford to do so. Notwithstanding the potential crisis posed by such an immense national debt, Democrats and Republicans alike have historically recognized that deficit spending is required to stimulate the economy during periods of economic instability or recession. Administrations from both parties have pumped money into our economy with deficit spending during recessionary times. During the first six years of the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt flooded money into the economy in order to rescue our country from economic collapse, thereby incurring substantial annual deficits. Nevertheless, after the economy had begun to improve in 1937, Roosevelt cut back on deficit spending with the result that our economy once again plummeted into a deeper economic depression.

World War II necessitated enormous levels of military spending and led to unprecedented national deficit spending which finally brought a conclusion to the Great Depression.

The History of United States Debt To comprehend the extent of the problems which our national debt poses to

Our national deficits require the country to borrow funds needed to operate from foreign nations, weakening the ability of our government to fund needs and placing the entire prospect of our economy in the hands of foreign nations. our economic stability and appropriate remedies for this issue, it is crucial to understand the history of our national debt and recognize how we came to be in this position.

Between 1930 and 1941, our Gross Federal Debt, which includes the national or public debt plus debt owed by government programs like trust funds for Social Security and Medicare, increased from approximately 17.75% of GDP to approximately 38.6%. This growth in federal debt came primarily as a result of deficits incurred by the Roosevelt administration in its effort to stimulate our economy and resurrect the United States from the Great Depression. With the massive expenditures necessitated by World War II, by 1946, Gross Federal Debt skyrocketed to its highest levels to date, 121% of GDP. After World War II, as prosperity replaced the Great Depression, every President, Democrat and Republican alike from Harry Truman to Jimmy Carter, reduced federal debt as a percentage of our GDP. Between 1946 and 2000, our Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP dramatically declined from 121.2% of GDP to 31.9%. When Republican Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as the 40th President of the United States, this pattern of federal debt reduction came to an end. President Reagan entered office proclaiming deficit spending as “out of control.” In his first inaugural address, he stated, “For decades, we have piled deficit upon deficit, mortgaging our future and our children’s future for the temporary convenience of the present.” However, national debt skyrocketed under his administration, unlike in the four decades previous to his Presidency. Under President Reagan, who professed conservative values and smaller government, the Gross Federal Debt soared from 32.6% of GDP to 53.1% of GDP, an increase of

25

Economics

Ning

Zfacts

Wikimed

Charting Our Debt Gross and public debt skyrocketed because of World War II but came down significantly from those levels. However, debt as a percentage of GDP has trended upwards over the course of the last twenty years. more than 50%. Although Reagan battled a recession during his first three years as President, the deficits which Reagan amassed after these recessionary times were a result of his tax cut policies while revenues were insufficient to pay our national expenses. The Congressional Budget Office estimated Reagan’s tax cuts enacted in his Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 to cost approximately 5.6% of GDP in 1983, accounting for much of the accumulating debt during Reagan years.

His actions contradict his first inaugural address, in which he referred to deficit spending, saying, “To continue this long trend is to guarantee tremendous social, cultural, political, and economic upheavals.”

Under Republican George H.W. Bush, Gross Federal Debt ballooned from 53.1% to 66.2% of GDP. This brought the total increase in our Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of GDP under the conservative fiscal policies of Presidents Reagan and Bush to 100% of its level prior to President Reagan taking office.

Since Reagan took office, the only Presi-

26

dent who reduced our Gross Federal Debt as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product was Democrat Bill Clinton.

President Clinton cut Gross Federal Debt from 66.2% of GDP to 57.4% of GDP. He acknowledged reducing our national debt a critical element of fiscal planning in preparation for sizable deficit spending which experts projected would be incurred by Medicare and Social Security programs in years to come.

Under President Clinton’s successor, George W. Bush, the Clinton fiscal policies on deficit spending and debt veered to Republican economic ideals, and Gross Federal Debt skyrocketed to approximately 75.5% of GDP. A substantial portion of the increased national debt incurred as a result of sizeable tax cuts at a time when we were simultaneously spending vast sums on wars in the Middle East and our 2008 financial rescue programs. Confronting the Issue With our economy still shoulder deep in a severe economic recession, we can not afford to duplicate Franklin Roosevelt’s mistake in 1937 of attempting to cut our

deficits before our economy had completely stabilized. Only a short while ago, our national unemployment rate soared past 10%, not including people who stopped searching for jobs and the underemployed. Our current administration must continue to pump money into our economic system in order to prevent a complete financial collapse. Although this policy will continue to increase deficit spending and result in long-term debt levels; it will, as the success of World War II spending during the Great Depression demonstrates, eventually resuscitate the economy.

Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman wrote in a September, 2009 New York Times op-ed piece entitled Crowding In, “anything that improves the state of the economy, including fiscal stimulus, leads to more investment, and hence raises the economy’s future potential.” In describing the necessity of increasing deficit spending in our current recession, Krugman wrote, “you could argue that the worst thing we can do for future generations is not to run sufHM Review Vol. XIX

Economics

When our current economic recession subsides, however, reducing stimulus spending and federal debt must become an urgent priority, given its potentially devastating longterm effects on our economy.

Wikimedia

Owners of Our Debt Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama speaks at the World Economic Forum. Japan is the second largest holder of U.S. foreign debt after China. ficiently large deficits right now.” Warren Buffet also stressed the importance of allowing our economy to recover before attempting to significantly reduce deficit spending. “We want to put out the fire,” Buffet told Charlie Rose in an interview.

“Then we want to quit squirting water on those buildings. We have to know when the fire’s out.”

Deficit spending should be spent on long-term investments for our country which will provide a substantial return in the future, including investments in alternative energies, public transportation, and education. Deficit spending should also focus on expenses which have been deferred but which will have to be incurred in future times, like investments to replace or repair our aging infrastructure. Such investments will provide jobs to millions of Americans, thereby re-stabilizing our economy, and will pay dividends to our economy in the future.

When our current economic recession subsides, however, reducing stimulus spending and federal debt must become an urgent priority, given its poDecember 2009 HM Review

tentially devastating long-term effects on our economy. In order to do so, it is crucial that our government and voters recognize the need to cut spending and elevate taxes to cover national expenses; rather than continue to pay for national expenses with money borrowed from other countries. Tax increases will prevent future generations from encountering problems, such as inflation and a devalued dollar, caused by our inability to diminish our national debt. As lessons of the Great Depression and World War II demonstrate, immense national debt can be reduced after an economic crisis if our country is willing to focus on the task.

In 2004, conservative talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, seeking to justify the George W. Bush tax cut policies, said of our national debt, “It’s not a big deal, and it’s coming down. We’re growing out of it. We grow out of every deficit we have.

It’s not a monster. It’s not going to kill us. You are falling prey to talking points enunciated by ultra-liberals who do not have the best interest of this economy at heart anyway.” Five years after this com-

ment, a national debt approaching 100% of Gross Domestic Product and forcing the entire foundations of our economic system to become reliant upon foreign countries like China threatens the United States. We cannot become persuaded by philosophies like Limbaugh’s and other ideologies amongst our nation. They will paralyze us from acting on a crucial issue with potentially devastating long term repercussions. Ideology should not prevent us from reducing our national debt and from enacting taxes needed to assure we will pay expenses which we incur one our economy recoverws. However, we must be cautious and not cut our debt prematurely because individuals pressing an ideology seek to utilize deficits as a means to attack President Obama’s stimulus measures. Therefore, the solution to our national debt crisis must be based on sound economic policy. HMR

27

Economics

Taking the “A” Train to Profit-Land Berkshire Hathaway’s Acquisition of Burlington Northern Santa Fe

Flickr trains4america

by alexander familant

W

hen most Americans are rearranging their stock portfolios, they search for the hottest, most speculative ones that every major investment firm is listing as “buy” and CNBC analysts are raving about at the moment. When the world’s wealthiest investor, Warren Buffet is shopping for stocks, he avoids those that everyone is overhyping and instead scouts out the companies that he knows the most about. According to Buffett, “It’s far better to buy a wonderful company at a fair price than a fair company at a wonderful price.” The most recent addition to Buffett’s investment vehicle Berkshire Hathaway is a 77.4% stake in the railroad giant Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation in addition to the 22.6% of the company that Berkshire already owned.

28

The acquisition, which will eventually cost Berkshire $34 billion when it accounts for all of Burlington’s debt and pays off its shareholders, stole financial headlines when it was announced on November 3. This deal is so important to Buffett in that he was willing to split Berkshire’s class B shares in a 50-to-1 ratio in order to finance the purchase (B shares are a considerably cheaper version of the company’s $100,000 A shares), something that in the past he vowed never to do to in order to prevent increased speculation about his company. Buffett’s pledge to never split Berkshire’s shares has been so strong that even today, after 44 years of existence, he has never split Berkshire’s class A shares, which stands as the most expensive stock in the world being worth $100,000 each.

The acquisition may seem unusual to most people in that the railroad indus-

try peaked at the turn of the century and has recently been rather stagnant. However, the Burlington Northern purchase perfectly reflects Buffett’s investment philosophy. While the so-called “Oracle of Omaha” admits that he believes that he realized the benefits of entering the railroad industry later than he should have, the industry is still not thought of as a popular investment for the general public. The billionaire also knows a considerable amount about the train industry already given the fact that he owned 23% of the railroad before acquiring it.

Furthermore, Omaha, Nebraska, where Buffett has lived for his entire life, has historically been crucial to the evolution of the cross-country railroad and today is where the headquarters of numerous railroad companies are located. The investor even attributes his interest in railroads back to when he was a child as he HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics

Flickr

merica

December 2009 HM Review

lette that has since merged with Proctor & Gamble, Coca-Cola, American Express Company, and car insurance giant GEICO, all of which have turned substantial profits for Berkshire over the past two decades. Perhaps Berkshire’s most impressive recent statistic is the fact that the company has returned an average annual return of 18.8% to its investors, which is about double the returns of the Standard & Poor’s Stock Index over that same period.

Berkshire’s Acquisition of Burlington Northern is not entirely flawless. Many analysts have downgraded Berkshire’s credit due to the large amount of money he will need to spend on the railroad.

Buffett has even been credited with saying that the deal is by no means a bargain.

Nonetheless, as mentioned earlier, Buffett prefers buying good stocks to cheap stocks. Warren Buffett is rarely wrong about his investments and especially when he makes one of this magnitude.

By acquiring Burlington Northern, Buffett is making a bold statement about the prosperity that he believes the United States will experience not in the next year but in the next ten years. HMR

Always Cheery Warren Buffett, at a recent Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, behaving modest and light-hearted as usual. rocky mount telegram

was quoted saying that “this is all happening because my father didn’t buy me a train set as a kid.”

When asked about his decision to increase his already large stake in Burlington Northern, Buffett responded by saying that the acquisition is “an allin wager on the economic future of the United States.” Burlington Northern transports a wide array of products ranging from television sets to coal to corn.

It is especially significant to the prosperity of the chemical industry since trucks are not permitted to carry most hazardous chemicals on highways meaning that trains are responsible for most chemical shipments. Burlington’s success also correlates to American trade with Asia since railroads are responsible for transporting Asian goods to the East Coast.

Berkshire’s investment in the railroad indicates that Buffett believes oil prices will stay high in the future as well. Buffett sees opportunity particularly in the railroad industry when oil prices are high.

Railroads are more fuel-efficient than trucks and cars and therefore, cheaper to use. Buffett was especially interested in Burlington Northern given their track record of spending money on developing new technologies to increase the speed of their trains and make their trains greener.

Moreover, the “Oracle” sees little competition against Burlington Northern since it would be difficult for new, successful competition to emerge a since it would be nearly impossible for a competitor to establish an entirely new cross country railroad. This decision reflects the billionaire’s philosophy of always buying into companies that are already well managed, developed and prosperous.

Burlington Northern is not Berkshire’s first major acquisition during the recession either. Throughout the past year, the company made headlines after it purchased preferred stock in General Electric, Wrigley, and Goldman Sachs, all of which were struggling in the recession, for a total of $14.5 billion. Since Berkshire’s purchase of Goldman Sachs last September, the once-struggling investment bank’s stock has surged by over 25%. In addition to the investments just mentioned, Berkshire Hathaway was one of the first major companies to recognize the potential of razor-manufacturer Gil-

Investing in Railways The initial reaction to the news that Warren Buffet was investing in the Burlington Northern Santa Fe railway, below, was positive.

silobreaker

29

Viewpoints by samantha rahmin

The main purpose of a school is to foster students’ passions through motivating classes, thought provoking projects, and absorbing extracurricular activities. There are many ways schools can excel. One way is having teachers devise their own curriculum with the students in mind to teach more than just important material, but fundamental skills teaching students how to learn. Having courses designed around a specific test shifts the focus of a class away from understanding the material and toward doing well on a test.

Recently, courses tailored towards tests have become very popular in high schools across the country. Students have shown an interest in Advanced Placement courses (APs) along with International Baccalaureate courses (IBs). AP courses began when the College Board of New York initiated a program with Advanced Placement classes for high schools, which give students the opportunity to participate in college level courses.

International Baccalaureate courses, which have also become increasingly popular, are a two-year pre-college diploma program. Both APs and IBs require the student to take a test in May, and both tests have a separate grading system, with minimum passing grade. Most (if not all) of class time is spent preparing students to succeed on these tests.

AP and IB courses came into vogue because of a few advantages. These courses give college credit with a passing grade on the exam (for some colleges). Certain administrators believe they are more ef-

30

and teachers both benefit when classes are not taught around a test.

One main reason high school students choose to take AP classes is to ensure that they are prepared for college. The fact that students who have not taken AP classes still succeed in college has proven that this is not as relevant at Horace Mann. Therefore, students should revel in the privilege to be able to take whatever classes truly interest them, without worrying about being prepared to take college level classes.

As mentioned earlier, AP and IB

newlibs

No Way to Teach a Test

ficient because a certain amount of material must be covered in the year in order for students to pass the test. These courses serve to standardize the curriculum for many schools. These boons do not compensate for the disadvantages.

Students often lose sight of the fact that there are many reasons not to take AP and IB courses. For example, curricula crafted by people who understand the students-- such as their teachers-tend to honor students’ interests much more than do classes revolving around a test. Having a set curriculum hinders the

AP/IB Tests Although AP/IB classes may foster competition, many fear that AP/IB cours students and the teachers, who lose their right to change the direction of the class.

They can even become slaves to the test when under pressure to ensure that they cover all the material. Classes revolving around a test do not always have time to go in depth about interesting subjects. If teachers are not teaching for a test, they are able to design curricula, which appeal more to students. Teachers also have the liberty to slow down the pace of the class to add additional thought-provoking information to enrich the class. Students

classes are popular because if pupils pass the test, they receive college credit.

Nevertheless, in some schools, students taking AP classes do poorly in the class and do not pass the test. This defeats the purpose of taking the rigorous class. Unfortunately, the number of people performing poorly on AP exams is growing.

In order to gain college credit from AP courses, most colleges require students to obtain a score of a three or higher.

According to the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, as of HM Review Vol. XIX

Viewpoints 2007, the number of students passing the AP tests has decreased from 67.6 percent to 59.4 percent.

This could mean that students enrolled in the courses are not ready to take APs. Alternatively, if students in one specific class have particularly weak scores, this could mean that their teacher is not prepared to teach the class. Adversely, certain trends have been found involving the race of students taking AP classes. For example, disproportionately small numbers of minorities, especially African American students, are enrolling in AP classes. Certain minority groups, such as Hispanics, have a proportionate number of students enrolled in the classes, but not enough students passing the test. As a whole, both Asian and white students reach higher scores than both African American and Hispanic students.

Many people do not see the drawbacks of taking AP or IB classes. Some people do not realize how these classes tend to be less interesting to students. Teachers also are

Easier on the System by vivianna lin

AP courses are one of the many topics of conversation in high school life.

Some students go so far as to claim that they live for their APs. As high school students, we worry about our futures, going to good colleges, and our possible future professions. Over 90% of all 4-year colleges in the U.S. provide students with course credit for qualifying scores on AP exams, but AP classes have additional benefits most students don’t immediately realize.

Normal high school courses do not provide the first-hand experience in college-level learning that AP courses do. More demanding than standard high school classes, AP courses provide chal-

IB courses limit the learning experience in schools across the country. forced to become slaves to the tests. Classes are not supposed to be about passing a test; they should be about understanding concepts and learning valuable life skills-- most importantly, critical thinking. HMR

December 2009 HM Review

newlibs

lenge students to strive and delve deeper into the subject matter. Without challenge, students become unmotivated and uninterested. By encouraging students to take the initiative to learn more independently instead of simply doing assignments, AP courses prepare students for college, giving them insight into the level of college classes. This way, students will be more prepared for college workloads, enabling them to get more out of their classes.

AP courses help students save money

by taking fewer required courses at college. If the college provides credit, students can phase out of required courses with a qualifying score on an exam. These students can take higher-level courses for their majors and electives they might otherwise not have had the time to enjoy.

Some students can even fulfill a college’s credit requirement and graduate a semester or two early. Getting ahead in college means that students have the freedom to learn more without the burden of taking required courses. During the current economic recession, it is essential to save money everywhere we can. AP exams currently cost $86 each to take. What a student spends taking four AP exams is nothing compared to the money spent on an extra year of college. College students will be able to get their degrees sooner and go on to graduate school or employment, where they will have freedom to answer the call of opportunity.

AP courses by no means taken solely for the purpose of testing. AP courses go much deeper than do their non-AP counterparts, challenging students to truly understand the material. The 37 different AP courses guarantee students can choose the course which most interests them. Students will not enroll in an AP course merely to get credit; they also get the satisfaction of being an AP student.

Nor do AP courses do not produce an unreasonable amount of stress. If a student manages their time efficiently, there is no reason why he or she should be unable to complete his or her studies within a reasonable amount of time. External factors such as Facebook and AIM contribute more to students’ inability to complete work than do the difficulty level of an AP course. Another way to finish is to do work at school. Students normally have enough free periods to complete some of their work.

AP courses are helpful to students because they allow students to save money, encourage further academic exploration, and motivate students. Every student should take at least one AP course, because students learn more from them and are challenged in ways that normal courses do not. The AP course is meant to attract students who want to achieve and excel. Why not strive? HMR

31

Viewpoints

Pushing for Communism..?

Although history has tarnished the world’s view of communism, once again the ideals of Communism will emerge to provide a fairer future.

H

by cyryl ryzak

ow can we envision a society in which humanity is emancipated from exploitation and injustice, free of savagery and barbarism, in which man is free and equal relative to his fellow man? This vision of society, of freedom and equality and of radical emancipation is simple, yet has a bloody history.

This ideal is that of communism. The idea lies within the pages of history, the hearts of men, and the minds of thinkers.

Unfortunately, it has been blackened by the events of the twentieth century, during which every state proclaiming itself communist turned out to be a bureaucratic, totalitarian regime. The crimes of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot are proof for many that communism is an evil, totalitarian, ideology, whose promises of freedom and equality were just pretexts for a regime, abandoned by their government, and died with the fall of the Eastern bloc. Now more then ever, we are reminded what a terrible ordeal communism was by those committed to sustain the capitalist state and by those who apologize for its crimes.

The communist movement must analyze and reinvent in order to realize the emancipation of humanity itself. We can no longer be intimidated by the moral blackmail of the neoliberals, nor can we repeat our mistakes. In the reinvention of communism we must not repeat the patronizing “what is dead and what is alive in communism” analysis, but we must consider it (for want of a better term) an eternal idea. That is to say communism is not eternal as an abstract ideology that we can apply to any situation, but that it is an idea that constantly reinvents itself depending on the historical context. Radical emancipation has reinvented itself from Spartacus and the slave revolts in Rome to the Haitian

32

Revolution to the October Revolution in 1917. To quote Lenin: “Communists who have no illusions who do not give way to despondency, and who preserve their strength and flexibility ‘to begin from the beginning’ over and over again in approaching an extremely difficult task, are not doomed.”

In article in the New Left Review, the French philosopher Alain Badiou stated the communist hypothesis nicely: “What is the communist hypothesis? In its generic sense, given in its canonic Manifesto, ‘communist’ means, first, that the logic of class—the fundamental subordination of labor to a dominant class, the arrangement that has persisted since Antiquity—is not inevitable; it can be overcome. The communist hypothesis is that a different collective organization is

practicable, one that will eliminate the inequality of wealth and even the division of labor. The private appropriation of massive fortunes and their transmission by inheritance will disappear. The existence of a coercive state, separate from civil society, will no longer appear a necessity: a long process of reorganization based on a free association of producers will see it withering away.”

Many contemporary thinkers believe that the communist hypothesis is no longer relevant. After don’t we live in the “end of history” where all ideological conflicts have been settled, with liberal democracy as the victor of the struggle.

Everyone regardless of gender, class, religion, or race is now tolerated and the benevolent invisible hand governs the market for the best of humanity. This attitude

firestonebpe

Rising China China has long been a proponent of communism and has shwon its relevance through its recent success.

HM Review Vol. XIX

Viewpoints was prevalent through the west among intellectuals, politicians, and even the masses. For the majority of westerners, the question of socialism and capitalism was resolved in the Cold War. If only the truth were that simple.

After the fall of the Eastern bloc, former communist countries went through a period of liberalization, turning the planned economy into a free market economy. Healthcare, education, and social security were taken from the masses and put into the hands of a few unaccountable oligarchs. Boris Yeltsin’s accomplishments include widespread corruption, economic collapse, and numerous social and political problems. In fact, he is said to have had an approval rating of 2% when he left office. In Poland, the successor party to the former Polish United Workers Party (the communist party of Poland, which ruled it from 1948 to 1990) was elected and reelected. In former Yugoslavia, violence broke out among religious and ethnic groups, scarring the Balkans. Anna Makolkin, a Canadian scholar, points out that in the Soviet Union, “...every worker could openly and fearlessly critique one’s supervisor, challenge the procedures, the attitudes and working habits of the coworkers, without fear of being dismissed,” but when they joined the Western labor force, they “...had to be very constrained in one’s expression in daily life, they found themselves totally unprepared for the atmosphere of a blind obedience, an unquestionable subordination, passivity and silence in the work place.” One could argue that the workers in theory could speak out against their boss; capitalism gives everyone freedom of choice-- the choice between subordination or starvation. So much for economic freedom, which in reality means, “let unaccountable private organizations do whatever they want.” Ironically it is “everybody else” that must be subject to the harsh realities of the free market system; private tyrannies have the nanny state to bail them out whenever they are in trouble.

It seems as if the communist hypothesis is more relevant today then ever before. In fact, in his exaggerated description of 19th century capitalism in The Communist Manifesto, Marx paints an image of capitalism closer to how it apDecember 2009 HM Review

pears today than its form at the time.

The first task of the communists is to acknowledge that our love affair with so-called really existing socialism (that is to say, the centrally planned economy model of the Soviet Union, China, etc.) is over. Marx described socialism as “vulgar communism” in which public property is just universalized private property and centrally planned economies are capitalist economies defined by public power yet focused on profit nonetheless. What socialists don’t understand is that there cannot be a just or egalitarian management of capital-- the existence of capital demands exploitation.

The political philosopher Antonio Negri described modern socialists in the following terms: “These socialists of ours are nothing but rascals: they have gone from fetishism of the Soviet Union and real socialism to the total abandonment of any prospective transformation of life and society. The awful thing is that the bureaucratic interpretation that these gentlemen gave to the ideas and the expressions of real socialism has rapidly transformed into cynicism: they have re-

It seems as if the communist hypothesis is more relevant today then ever before. In fact, in his exaggerated description of 19th century capitalism in The Communist Manifesto, Marx paints an image of capitalism closer to how it appears today than its form at the time. mained Stalinists, but they aren’t socialists anymore.” Metaphorically speaking , socialism has lost its soul, the revolutionary transformation of society for the benefit of the working class. It has become a twisted reflection of its past, no longer the noble emancipation of the working class but the bureaucratic control of the means of production. The irony is that this soulless socialism has essentially become a tool of capitalism. State intervention is used by capitalist governments to save themselves, through projects like bailouts, socialized healthcare, and the nationalization of banks. The modern liberal capitalist economy resembles the

Freudian conception of the mind, the id (or the wild drives of desire) being counteracted by the superego (or the mechanism which makes the human act in socially acceptable ways), while the ego (the mediator between the id, superego, and reality) satisfies the id and superego. In the same way, wild free market neoliberalism (id) is counteracted by progressive socialist policies (superego) and is mediated by the capitalist ruling class itself (ego) acting in its own interests. People often say that France and Britain are “socialist” in comparison to the “normal” capitalist United States. It is in fact France and Britain that are the normal capitalist countries, while the United States is simply the id driven wild child of the litter, which only now sees the benefits of socialism and public property to defend the interests of capitalism.

Socialism now is not an ally of communism but possibly its biggest threat. It has failed to emancipate the working class, and social democratic policies are simply there to appease the people-- to alienate them even further from their labor, to use an old-fashioned Marxist term.

The question facing the left today is how can we bring about a truly emancipatory revolution to bring an end to capitalism? The task ahead of us, the reimagining of our program, must and will be done. Our struggle for emancipation has only just begun, and communists will have to mobilize the grave diggers of capitalism, whether they are workers, students, or minority groups. For those who tell us it cannot be done, let’s remember that it took several centuries and brilliant mind to create a flying machine. Eventually, with hard work, insight, and imagination, man learned to fly. In the same way, we will learn to change our flawed society into a communist one and free ourselves. HMR

33

greenferret

Viewpoints

..Or Leaning to Libertarianism?

Lib·er·tar·i·an: One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. by nathan raab

L

ibertarianism bases itself around a single concept: everyone owns their labor and themselves. To pretend otherwise is to place all of mankind in perpetual slavery to a tyrant who, by the grace of God, allows us to claim some of our work; a slave is, in fact, someone who does not have that inalienable right to himself and his work. It makes no difference to the slave how many masters he has, or if they vote on what he may and may not do, or even if they are slaves as well. He still does not have the dominion over himself the right to make his own decisions and take that which he has earned—given to him at birth. Taxation, then, is merely slavery by degrees. What distinguishes a slave who can take nothing of what he has earned from one that can take only a dollar, from one who can take two dollars, from one who can take only half, from one who can take three quarters? In each case he does not enjoy the full fruits of his labor. Libertarians

34

reject this conclusion that all men are by necessity slaves and instead take another tack—everyone deserves full autonomy and can take all that they have earned.

No other political system frees men and women from this slavery. Instead, they all in some manner or another bundle everyone’s rights together and put them under the control of some group, usually the majority rule of democracy. Yet just

The Libertarian laissez-faire system is not only the most free, it is also the most prosperous. because someone’s rights are owned by a majority does not mean he is free. Instead this is just tyranny of the majority; dictatorship by other means.

The upshot of all this is there are some things government cannot do. No state can arbitrarily redistribute wealth, no matter the cause; to do so is

to confiscate from some to give to others.

Similarly, no government can regulate the personal lives of its citizens, denying them the right of complete self ownership and regulation in their most intimate decisions and instead handing them out to a bureaucrat or the general public. Thus, laws banning consensual sex or drug use, just like laws taking away freedom of thought or religion, are unquestionably immoral. Banning trans-fats, certain financial products, or other risky activities is also immoral, as it is a government intervention into a personal decision.

Does all this increase a society’s wealth gap? Yes. But the alternative is losing all the rights that differentiate us from a dog begging before its owner.

That being said, of course, there are some things government must do: it is the duty of the state to provide the framework for liberty. Government, then, must be always able to repulse foreign invaders, especially tyrants, who wish to destroy our freedom. Similarly, a nation HM Review Vol. XIX

Viewpoints must provide a stable and fair court system that protects and enforces contracts, the written record of people exercising their liberty by making deals with other people: if one man agrees to do something in return for something else, but later refuses to do that thing, that is fraud, albeit a more sophisticated one than the theft described above. In a similar manner, the state must ensure transparency and truthfulness in all corporations to protect against the same kind of dishonesty and fraud.

Not only is the libertarian nation described above—one that uses government only to protect against force and fraud—the only ethically sound nation, it is also the most efficient. First and foremost, it eliminates the massive waste and abuse government creates: according to The New York Times, ten percent of U.S. spending is lost via incompetence or fraud. Secondly, it protects against many of the misplaced incentives produced by government programs. Look at garbage collection. Currently, house owners pay a flat fee—property taxes—for trash pickup. As a result, they have a significant incentive to throw out as much as possible, leading to environmental degradation and overflowing landfills. Privatizing garbage collection, on the other hand, would be more efficient overall. The flat costs

associated with having multiple garbage companies would soon even out (due to the different types of costs involved, the company serving more people would be able to charge less, eventually winding up with a monopoly in garbage, but the threat of competition would keep prices down) and most likely be cheaper than before because of the competition introduced by private enterprise. At the same time, such a company would have to rent land for landfills. Thus, to minimize its costs and maximize its profits, this hypothetical company would charge by the amount of garbage thrown out. Then, much like how they turn off the lights to save electricity, people would throw out less and conserve more so that they could save money. As a result, privatization would have increased the efficiency of a market.

Most importantly, a libertarian nation is the only nation that can set (via a free market) accurate prices. The only way a price can be accurate is if everyone who wishes to buy or sell communicates to one other their intent and the prices they are willing to pay. In a free market, like a stock exchange, this happens naturally. When government sets prices, on the other hand, they do not—and, because of the complexities involved, cannot—communicate with every prospec-

tive buyer and seller. Instead, they make educated guesses about how much supply they need and at what price they need to sell it to get rid of the supply. These guesses are invariably wrong. When the government sets a price too high, then they are stuck with a surplus of goods and have wasted time and money making them. If they set a price too low, too much demand emerges, and a shortage results. Thus, alternating cycles of prosperity and deprivation are necessary in a planned economy.

Overall, the libertarian laissezfaire system is not only the most free, it is also the most prosperous. In such a system, everyone owns themselves; there is not the trend toward tyranny seen in most political ideologies, notably socialism, in which everyone’s rights sit grouped together, ripe for the taking. This great future is within our reach today. To achieve it, we need only to work to scale back the scope of government, reset our expectations of our leaders, and recognize that these inalienable rights—the right of self ownership and all that associated with it—are ours for the taking. HMR

truthandliberty

December 2009 HM Review

35

The Horace Mann Review Horace Mann School 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, New York 10471

36

HM Review Vol. XIX