Review THE HORACE MANN
Volume XXIII - December 2013
POLICE POWER 6 8
10
Issue
4
Review
Letter From the Editor
THE HORACE MANN
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief
Samuel Henick Executive Editor
Will Ellison David Hackel Sahej Suri
Jenny Heon* Mihika Kapoor Isaiah Newman
Managing Content Editors
Managing Design Editors
*Chair of the Senior Board
Catherine Engelmann Senior Editor - Features
www.bbc.co.uk
Ben Greene
Senior Editor - Domestic
Hana Krijestorac
From police brutality in Egyptian riots to the authority of our own police force here in New York City, police power has become an increasingly important issue on international and domestic radars. Perhaps this fact is particularly evident in the revived discourse ushered in by Bill de Blasio’s win of NYC’s mayoral race and the end of Ray Kelly’s term as Commissioner of the NYPD. Stop and Frisk controversy and police response to Banksy in New York are just some of the points of tension that our writers examine in Issue 4. And as they explore the capacity of our own police force, they analyze the power of the police abroad, evaluate the police’s influence on the media, and question whether or not that authority is justifiable. At what point does individual liberty outweigh public safety? To what extent should the federal government intervene in state-controlled police functions? And ultimately, how far can and should the police go to protect our civil affairs? Our writers answer these questions and many more in our Issue 4 Features section on “Police Power.” In our other four sections, they address topics ranging from JFK’s legacy and the consequences of agricultural subsidies to human labor atrocities and medical ethics associated with Guantanamo Bay. It’s hard to believe that the 2013-year is almost over, and that we’re already halfway through this Review volume. Yet I am immensely proud of the time and effort our writers have dedicated to this magazine so far. They deserve plenty of praise for their creativity in formulating compelling Features topics and developing these complex issues so extensively. I’d also like to thank our junior editors, who coordinate with our writers behind the scenes and spend many hours laying out their articles at press nights. They really are the backbone of The Review, for which Sam and I are very grateful. Many thanks to Mr. Donadio, Dr. Delanty, Dr. Kelly, Dr. Milkes, and the rest of the administration for all of their support.
Senior Editor - International
Jonah Wexler
Senior Editor - Economics
Jacob Haberman
Senior Editor - Science and Technology
Daniel Baudoin Hannah Davidoff Henry Luo Mohit Mookim Kelvin Rhee Namit Satara Lenn Uchima Jacob Zurita Senior Contibutors
Neil Ahlawat James Megibow Edmund Bannister Adam Resheff Jenna Barancik Harry Seavey Lauren Futter Brett Silverstein Matthew Harpe Ikaasa Suri Laszlo Herwitz Nathan Tillinghast-Raby Emily Kramer Mitchell Troyanovsky James McCarthy Elizabeth Xiong Junior Editors
Charles Cotton Samuel Fisch Robert Hefter Sam Stern
Enjoy the issue and happy holidays!
Associate Editors
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief Volume XXIII
2
Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor Adobe Cover Illustration by Mihika Kapoor
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 more information at www.cjkwebdesign.com/review.
Table of Contents
36
Fifty Years Later: The Legacy of JFK page 4
DeBlasio: A Change for Better or for Worse? Lexi Kanter
page 10
The Commerce Clause Alex O’Neil
INTERNATIONAL
14
20
page 12
Spencer Slagowitz
Vaed Prasad
page 36
page 14
page 40
Family Comes First Ikaasa Suri
page 42
Human Labor Atrocities Cassandra Kopans-Johnson
“Let’s Make a Deal” Eric Stein
The Ailing U.S. Dollar
Three Billion Dollars... Is it Enough?
ECONOMICS
Daniel Rosenblatt
page 44
Perils of the Farm Bill Daniel Jin
page 46
China’s Democratic Future Miranda Bannister
page 16
The Perils of Gated Globalization Natasha Moolji
Guantanamo Bay: A Violation of Medical Ethics? Eric Pretsfelder
page 18
The Egyptian Police’s Revolution Anne Rosenblatt
50
page 20
SCI-TECH
DOMESTIC
4
page 50
Lethal (Printed) Weapons Alex Karpf
page 52
China’s Pollution Threat Zachary Troyanovsky
page 54
Banksy Strikes Again Matthew Parker
page 22
The Media’s Police Portrayal
FEATURES
Peter Shamamian
page 26
Domestic Drones: Spies of the Skies Anna Kuritzkes
page 28
Stop and Frisk: Two Perspectives Laszlo Herwitz & Ray Fishman
page 30
NYPD: New Tactics, Safe Streets William Scherr
page 34 www/stencilrevolution.com
3
Domestic
Fifty Years Later:
“A man may die, nations may rise and fall, but an idea lives on.� -President John F. Kennedy Daniel Rosenblatt
4
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Domestic
The Legacy of JFK
N
ovember 22, 1963. Excited onlookers crowd Dallas. The city is known to hate Kennedy, yet it welcomes the president with joy and applause. Kennedy, a charismatic leader, delays his plans to step out of his limousine and shake hands with the viewers, but by 11:50, the president’s motorcade is back on route, traveling downtown. It turns off Main Street and onto Houston. The crowd cheers. Kennedy waves. His charm has finally won over the people. For a few moments, Camelot seems real. Perhaps Kennedy has done the impossible. Suddenly, shots are fired. The president falls to the side. His wife screams, scrambling frantically to hold her husband. Confusion ensues. The president has been assassinated. The nation is stunned.
December 2013
5
Domestic
Fifty years have passed since the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, and the nation still struggles with the event. We still have not agreed upon the story behind his death. New conspiracy theories circulate from year to year as Americans try to comprehend how one person may have altered the course of an entire nation. While the controversies surrounding Kennedy’s death are both significant and interesting, they wrongfully overshadow his presidency. They also have altered the way in which his presidency is viewed, blindly turning the years of segregation and political tensions into a utopia. Kennedy was simply not a perfect president. Like others, he made mistakes and was subject to the adversities of his time. Still, he was a strong politician and leader who learned and developed throughout his term. Before the assassination that would shock America for decades, Kennedy dealt with economic problems, civil inequality, and maintaining America’s power during a time of international tension. His legacy should be that of his struggle and leadership, not of his death, for it is within these that we find the most important lessons for modern day politics. Though we are now in a very different
social, economic, and political environment, we today face similar issues and can learn from his successes and his failures. The 1960s marked the height of the Civil Rights Movement. During Kennedy’s presidency, Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his famous “I have a dream” speech, the 16th Street Church in Birmingham was bombed, and the nation struggled to implement the Supreme Court’s ruling of Brown vs. Board of Education that prohibited segregation in the public schools. The greatest issue of this era was undoubtedly legal equality. African-Americans, in practice, did not universally have the right to vote or to receive a fair trial. They were not allowed in many Southern public areas and were discriminated against in terms of employment, education, and housing across the nation. In the years leading up to Kennedy’s presidency, the movement to expose and eliminate these inequalities grew rapidly. Movements against segregation rallied the public, especially the young, and the process of integration began. The legal backing and the support of the nation, however, were not present, and discrimination continued. Kennedy entered office on January 20, 1969, but his fight against prejudice started
6
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
far earlier. Hoping to be the first Catholic president of the United States, he was attacked for religious beliefs and their potential influence in decision-making. He addressed this is in a famous speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association in September of 1960, saying, “It is apparently necessary for me to state once again—not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me—but what kind of America I believe in.” This vision of America was far from reality; Kennedy immediately faced the deep issues of racial discrimination within the nation. He was a strong believer in equality for blacks, but he did not, at first, take any strong legislative action. Kennedy recognized that he did not have complete national support; he had won the election by only 100,000 votes. Rather than confronting Congress with the issue, he took executive actions on an individual basis. For example, Kennedy pushed the judicial system to enforce desegregation in specific southern cities and tried to set an example by encouraging the appointment of African-Americans to government positions. He also established the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity, which aimed to decrease inequality within the jobs market. The impact of these
Domestic actions was, and still is, debated; it is clear, however, that no truly significant change was made, and discrimination continued. Looking back, it is evident that for the beginning of his term, President Kennedy was reluctant to take a vocal stance against racism in America. He was hesitant to take action and, sometimes, just to speak out because he feared upsetting his opponents within the government and the nation. Because his presidency and life were cut short, we will never know what goals he would have achieved. Some recent historians have stressed his fear of aggressive action, yet Kennedy’s action in the last months of his life did result in a great impact on society and should be recalled in his legacy. In 1962 and 1963, Kennedy was faced with new challenges. The University of Mississippi and The University of Alabama both refused to integrate their schools, news spread of police brutality against Blacks in Birmingham, and a bomb in a church basement exploded, killing four innocent Black children. Kennedy changed course. He sent federal marshals and troops to the University of Mississippi when the college denied access to James H. Meredith, Jr., an African American Air Force veteran, to ensure integration of the school and to stop the resulting riots. Also, in response to Birmingham City Commissioner Eugene “Bull” Connor violent suppression of protests and the governor of Alabama’s strong opposition to desegregation, Kennedy stepped up military force in the area and worked with congress to craft a legislative solution. On July 2, 1964, seven months after Kennedy’s death, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act, the bill that had been pushed forward by Kennedy. The bill outlawed segregation of public spaces, stopped discriminatory practices in voting, increased equality of employment, and authorized the Attorney General to file suits against organizations not abiding by these laws. Kennedy’s legacy in the Civil Rights Movement is defined by this document. In this sense, Kennedy’s legacy lies in successful political action. The passing of this bill was a result of Kennedy’s firm support of the Civil Rights Movement, and therefore, we should view the president’s work as successful. To understand JFK as an individual, we must recall his relationship with the Civil Rights Movement and recognize his early and perhaps excessive caution, his evolving policy, and his eventual success in taking the necessary action for the good of the people. Surely this idea translates to modern
politics. Like Kennedy, President Obama has focused much of his attention on highly controversial issues, such as the government shutdown and Obamacare, but has failed to take any action on immigration reform and tax breaks for the elite, issues which he voiced such great concern for during his campaign. In order for President Obama to have a lasting legacy, he will need to commit to solving problems that he believes are plaguing the nation. In doing so, Obama would inherit one of Kennedy’s greatest strengths: his growth towards action. While his effort regarding domestic issues is questioned, John F. Kennedy is certainly remembered for his focus on international relations. His presidency was shaped by the Cold War, as the nuclear superpowers, the United States and the Soviet Union, struggled against each other. This political instability, however, also presented Kennedy with challenges unrelated to the Soviet Union; he, as addressed in his inaugural speech, hoped to “renew our pledge of support” for the United Nations and “prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective.” He attempted to work with developing nations to increase positive sentiment abroad towards the United States and to uphold the nation’s values of liberty and humanitarianism. Kennedy created the Peace Corps, an organization of Americans who were sent abroad to impoverished nations to help the people. They worked to improve education, medical aid, and economic systems. In doing so, they promoted the American ideals of democracy and freedom. Kennedy implemented this organization with two goals. First, the organization would benefit the poor and provide humanitarian aid. The people of America recognized the conditions of life in Latin American, African, and Southeast Asian nations and were enthusiastic about joining the fight against global poverty. Meanwhile, there were obvious political motives. Many of the developing nations had unstable government structures, and some were in the midst of unrest or revolution. The Soviet Union had already created plans to aid these countries with the hope of spreading communism and increasing Soviet influence. Kennedy counteracted this by implementing the Peace Corps and encouraging the spread of democracy. In this way, Kennedy strengthened the nation’s image abroad, thereby increasing America’s own power; the United States, now and then, has rightfully emphasized this approach. Despite Kennedy’s success in the inter-
December 2013
The Presidency of JFK January 20, 1961:
JFK sworn in as President of the United States
March 1961:
JFK announces the establishment of the Peace Corps
April 1961:
Attempted USbacked invasion of Cuba ends in disaster at the Bay of Pigs
June 1961:
JFK and Nikita Khrushchev hold a summit in Vienna
August 1961:
October 19, 1962:
The US obtains photos of Soviet missile emplacements in Cuba, bringing about the Cuban Missile Crisis
US and Latin American nations join in the “Alliance for Progress”
October 22, 1962:
JFK announces naval quarantine of Cuba
October 28, 1962:
Soviet Union agrees to remove its missiles from Cuba
June 1963:
JFK calls civil rights struggle a “moral crisis” for America
August 5, 1963:
US and Soviet Union afree to a nuclear test-ban
November 1963:
November 22, 1963:
US-backed coup overthrows the government of South Vietnam, and replaces it with a military dictatorship
JFK is assassinated while riding throgh the streets of Dallas, Texas.
7
Domestic national realm, the Cold War environment challenged Kennedy; ultimately, most of his actions, both successful and unsuccessful, were in response to this setting. Among the unsuccessful was the Bay of Pigs, an invasion of Cuba by a group of Cuban exiles who were supported by the US government. On April 17, 1961 the group, named Brigade 2506, attempted to overthrow Fidel Castro’s government, failing within three days with the capture or death of almost all of rebels. On April 20, President Kennedy addressed the nation, denying American involvement but emphasizing the dangers of communism’s infiltrating the western hemisphere. He said, “Should it ever appear that the inter-American doctrine of non-interference merely conceals or excuses a policy of nonaction—if the nations of this Hemisphere should fail to meet their commitments against outside Communist penetration—then I want it clearly understood that this Government will not hesitate in meeting its primary obligations which are to the security of our Nation.” The failed invasion of Cuba was an embarrassment for the United States, and Kennedy could not rectify this. Kennedy should have recognized the poor planning and intelligence before the attack, and for this reason, the moment will forever be seen as a great mistake. Still, the essence of JFK’s speech applies today. Despite faults, the United States will continue to maintain its safety. Inactivity can be harmful, but the balanced use of diplomacy and military force will lead the country to its goal. In October of 1962, the tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union escalated to their peak: the Cuban Missile Crisis. After American intelligence found that Soviet missile sites were being created in Cuba, nuclear war threatened the nation. Kennedy deployed ships to block-
ade Cuba, and Khrushchev responded aggressively in a confrontation that escalated until October 28, when Khrushchev consented to halt the construction under an agreement that the United States not invade Cuba and remove weapons stored in Turkey. Interestingly, the American side of the deal was not revealed to the public until far later. Because the public was not informed of the deal between the two superpowers, Americans viewed this as an overwhelming success. In the words of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, “We were eyeball to eyeball, and the other fellow just blinked.” In reality, this was not the case, as we now know concessions were made. For this reason, the interpretation of the event is divided. Some attribute Kennedy’s success to the use of the threats and the potential of military action. On the other hand, diplomacy and compromise, originally hidden from the public, were essential to reaching an agreement. In reality, both forms of strength were at play, and one could not work without the other. Kennedy’s balance was crucial. Similarly, JFK’s views on the nation’s arms arsenal evolved with the political environment. In the beginning of his presidency, Kennedy increased government funding of arms production. At the very end, he signed the Limited Test Ban Treaty, which disallowed the US, UK and USSR from testing nuclear weapons above ground or in the water. These policies need not be viewed as contradictory; rather, they demonstrate Kennedy’s flexibility. Today, the US faces similar, though not identical problems, specifically in its relationships with Iran and North Korea. In any prolonged diplomatic conflict, there will be points of strain and points of strength. As Kennedy did, each event should be dealt with in an individual manner. Still, throughout the entire pro-
8
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
cess, the leaders of the Unites States must maintain and assert our nation’s strength. Until recently, this was achieved with Iran with the enforcement of stiff sanctions. The effectiveness of sanctions in terms of economic burden is frequently questioned, but its diplomatic pressure is surely great. As Kennedy said after the Bay of Pigs, we cannot stand idle. So after Iranian attempts to increase uranium enrichment, President Obama must stand firm and maintain the option of aggressive intervention. After legitimate Iranian cooperation Obama can, and should, reach out for diplomacy, but maintaining a strong front as Kennedy did with the Soviet Union. This balance is also key in the modern dispute regarding North Korea. In February of 2012, the US and North Korea reached an unprecedented agreement in which North Korea would halt uranium enrichment and certain military tests, and the US would provide food aid to the struggling nation. However, just two months later, North Korea violated the agreement by launching a rocket and declared that it would abandon the deal. Surely, in the future, the United States cannot hope that the country will stand by its agreements, and resolutions will have to be more binding. In the two situations, President Obama struggles to maintain a balance between threats and diplomacy, just as Kennedy did in the Cold War era. Throughout these many conflicts, Kennedy worked to increase American prestige on the broad international stage. He said in his inaugural address, “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge and more.” This image of firm leadership and morality, in coor-
Domestic dination with his diplomatic approach, embodied the balance that Kennedy reached for: an America that both leads and supports the international community. Ultimately, because of the turbulent nature of the time, the impact that Kennedy made on domestic and international affairs can be seen as either greatly positive or negative. In 1973, the New York Times called the death of Kennedy “the beginning of the end of an era filled with the ebullient optimism and confidence identified throughout the world with the spirit of America.” Since this time, the period from January 20, 1961 to November 22, 1963 has been termed “Camelot.” Yet, the portrayal of this era has changed dramatically. On November 10th of this year, the New York Times reported on textbooks’ increasingly negative portrayals of Kennedy. While in 1968, a textbook by John M. Blum expressed, “Kennedy’s words and actions brought about a great new release of critical energy throughout American society,” the description soon changed. Textbooks began to express Kennedy’s failure to put substance before speech, and recently they have turned to directly identifying Kennedy’s failures. For example, one book stated, “Writers have drawn attention to Kennedy’s recklessness in world events, such as authorizing the Bay of Pigs invasion and C.I.A. attempts to assassinate Cuba’s leader Fidel Castro.” Also, while early textbooks assessed Kennedy’s actions on civil rights as primarily executive rather than legislative, more recent textbooks called his stance weak and evasive. Events such as the Bay of Pigs have always been viewed as failure. Meanwhile, the creation of the Peace Corps and the space program are often portrayed in a positive light. Historian Thomas Brown insists, “Kennedy’s murder has taken on a retro-
“His legacy should be that of his struggle and leadership, not of his death, for it is within these that we find the most important lessons for modern day politics.” spective significance because of the period of war, political scandal, and domestic turmoil that followed it.” Following the assassination on November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was killed, and then Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. were assassinated. Soon, opposition to the Vietnam War skyrocketed, the Watergate scandal occurred, and division over a violent Civil Rights Movement increased. Many then ask: was the disastrous turn of events following Kennedy’s death an impending result of his actions or did his tragic exit from power leave America hopeless? Due to the lack of a concrete answer to this question, the turbulent time following the Kennedy’s death has undoubtedly affected his image. It has glorified his term and changed the perception of the political environment that truly existed in the 1960s. Yet, in response to this idealization of the time, recent critics have ripped apart the presidency, calling it everything but the perfect Camelot. Many have criticized Kennedy for focusing too much on his political career. Often, they think, Kennedy simply pleased the people, without solving the problems at hand. Perhaps this is true. Some fault him for interacting with the crowds, shaking hands, and waving rather than taking political action. Today, we think about his image, not his presidency. He was a celebrity. He had a 70% approval rating in office, and at few other times, if any, was the American public
December 2013
so inspired by its government. This pride existed despite the Cold War, a violent struggle for equality, and strong political division within the nation. So, while Kennedy may not have totally been the pragmatic president he seemed to be, he knew how to rally the public and unite a divided nation, a skill that most US politicians lack today, but is a skill that, in times of conflict and distress, is most needed by our nation. After Kennedy’s assassination, his legacy would change forever. At first, Camelot was created. More recently, criticism of his inaction has grown most prevalent. Because of his inability to create lasting change for the Civil Rights Movement and his failure of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy did not appear ideal. However, because of his eventual change in policy on civil rights, his later successes in Cold War negotiations, and his strength as a leader, it is clear that Kennedy grew during his term. Additionally, his constant search for a proper balance between power and dialogue allowed him to be flexible in crafting solutions. There was no Camelot, but there was a president who worked very hard to create one. Today, we should not see Kennedy as the perfect leader whose life was cut short, nor as the celebrity who feigned a political career. Rather, his legacy should remain in his struggle to balance his roles as President of the United States of America: diplomat, legislator, commander-in-chief, and leader of this great nation. HMR
9
Domestic
DE BLASIO: A CHANGE FOR BETTER OR FORKanter WORSE? By Alexandra LEXI KANTER
M
ichael Bloomberg has been the mayor of New York City for 12 years now, and New Yorkers have grown accustomed to his vision for and governance of the Big Apple. As the newly elected Bill De Blasio takes his place as mayor this coming January, New York will begin to see some drastic changes some of which may not be for the best. There are a few reasons that warrant skepticism of the mayor-elect and what he will bring to the city. First of all of all there hasn’t been a democrat leading City Hall in two decades. This is not to say that a democrat cannot run the city effectively, but in the past, democrats have proven themselves ill-equipped and incapable of running New York. In contrast, the republican ad-
ministrations of Giuliani and Bloomberg have brought stability to the once troubled city. They have placed a greater emphasis on the police department, increasing the police presence in crime ridden areas and enforcing more active and aggressive policing strategies, for example. This has, in turn, caused a substantial reduction in crime rates. Between 1994 and 2013, during the mayoral terms of Giuliani and Bloomberg, annual homicides have gone from 1,561 to 414. In addition, as a result of the city’s counter terrorism programs developed by Bloomberg’s administration as a response to the 9-11 attacks, at least 16 attempted terrorist strikes have been foiled. New York has become one of the safest major cities in America. New York has also become increasingly prosperous.
10
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
According to the Economist, the number of private sector jobs in New York City rose by 4% since 2007, even while the nationwide average fell by 3%. Infrastructure has also been improving, with billions going to infrastructural projects, such as parks and new subway lines. Bill De Blasio conducted his campaign in a distasteful manner. Clearly, De Blasio’s goal was to gain middle class and minority votes. This is perfectly rational and frankly necessary to win any election, as demonstrated by the “lopsided” vote of 76% for De Blasio, 24% for Lhota. But, the way that he went about gaining minority and middle class votes was something that should not be commended. Bill De Blasio has made some unrealistic campaign promises in order to gain minority
Domestic
and middle class votes. He vowed that he would close the income gap, solving income inequality in the city. This is an extensive problem that, although important, is going to be very difficult to resolve. Even if he had the drive to succeed, his authority has limitations. As Julia Vitullo-Martin of the Regional Plan Association said, “it is very hard, if not impossible for a local jurisdiction to redistribute income.” De Blasio also promised to raise the income tax on those earning more than $500,000 a year to help fund citywide pre-K classes. This proposal would have to be signed by lawmakers in Albany, and, not only is this highly unlikely, but some state leaders have gone as far as to say that the proposal would be, “dead on arrival.” In addition, he frequently used the phrase “we are a tale of two cities” during his campaign. He is pitting different social and financial groups against each other, with an “us against them” attitude, the “them” being the wealthy portion of the population. On several occasions, he called himself the “mayor for the working people”, not referring to doctors, lawyers, bankers, as if those who are known as the “1%” don’t work hard nor contribute to society. He used financial and racial disparity to his advantage, pandering to marginalized peoples and promising them unrealistic expectations. As New Yorkers prepare for a may-
oral shift to the left, many worry that Bill De Blasio will return the city to the era of “dangerous streets and dysfunctional government” which had prevailed during the 1970’s, 80’s, and early 90’s. Unlike the previous administrations, De Blasio has not made security for New York a clear priority. With issues pertaining to the police department, he seems to be solely concerned with the discontinuation of stop and frisk and removing Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, instead of also focusing on concrete plans to keep New Yorkers safe. We cannot take the level of security that has been achieved for granted. It has taken focus, determination and a great deal of attention to make New York City as safe as it is now. There is no doubt that without maintaining the standard set by Giuliani and Bloomberg, the level of safety will rapidly deteriorate. In addition, focus will be taken off of Manhattan, and redirected to the other boroughs. In no way, should Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, or Staten Island be ignored or neglected, but Manhattan is where a large portion of the money to support the city is made. According to the official NYC website, 50.9 million tourists visited New York City this past year, the vast majority visiting Manhattan. $34.5 billion was generated in travel and tourism spending, saving the average household $1,350 in taxes as a result.
December 2013
Should Manhattan suffer as a result of the new mayor, there will be a significant economic impact on New York City. Bill De Blasio’s lack of experience and knowledge in the private sector is also concerning, considering he is going to be running the financial capital of the nation, if not the world. The Economist cautioned, “By choosing Bill de Blasio, New Yorkers have taken a risk with their city’s prosperity.” Bill De Blasio has promised changes for New York City that have led some to call him the “anti-Bloomberg”. It has been made clear that the majority of New Yorkers want some change, but in their quest for it, they have lost sight of what real change will bring. “Anti-Bloomberg” is not a good thing; Bloomberg has done some great things for the city. And, although it might not be right to continue with everything that Bloomberg has done, it is certainly not right to regress from everything either. New York City is an incredibly diverse place, and extremes will simply never be successful. With Bloomberg, the lower class felt ignored. With De Blasio as the mayor-elect, the upper class is feeling overwhelming angst, in fear of the city turning into an “urban kibbutz”, as the New York Times put it. At the end of the day, we are all New Yorkers, and we should focus on our common goals of creating and maintaining a safe, prosperous, and vibrant city. HMR
11
Domestic
THE COMMERCE CLAUSE:
AN OVEREXTENSION OF FEDERAL POWER Alexander O’Neil
F
or centuries, historians and politicians alike have debated the legitimate extent of Congress’ federal enforcement power. Many argue that Congress, our country’s legislature, should be free to impose all the laws that apply to the entire country. Yet, in fact, such arguments are flawed: the Constitution, to which Congress must precisely adhere, outlines specific instances in which Congress may interfere with local law enforcement. The Commerce Clause, known to be the most controversial of such provisions, only allows Congress to interfere when interstate trade is inhibited. Thus, as it does now, Congress should only have the power to punish offenders for economic infractions and not more serious crimes, like murder,
rape, and assault, even though the latter generally carry more lengthy prison sentences and sometimes warrant execution. Congress has a history of overextending its enforcement power. In 1995, Alfonso Lopez, Jr. was charged with possessing a firearm on school grounds, pertinent to the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, which was passed to reduce the number of high school students recruited by or involved in gangs. A conviction would have cost Lopez, a high school senior, $5,000 sent him to federal prison for five years, and prohibited him from ever owning a gun. All of this on the grounds that Lopez’s carrying a gun, which wasn’t his, affected interstate commerce. The federal government argued to the Supreme Court that
12
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
guns lead to violent crime, which is true; however, lawyers took that a step further and said that the violent crime would raise insurance costs throughout the nation and discourage potential visitors from traveling to the affected area. Such a jump is appalling: the government could use that argument to justify illegalizing any type of behavior, whenever and for whatever reason. Another example of congressional overreach is the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. The government passed the legislation with admirable intentions, in the hopes that doing so would decrease the number of rapes, sexual assaults, and generally gender-related hate-crimes in late 20th century America. Yet the justifi-
Domestic cation for the act was, to be frank, utterly ridiculous. Congress claimed that after being victimized, women become introverted, reticent, and unwilling to spend, which is often true. But a small group of people’s inaction in the national market does not constitute interference in the American economy. After United States v. Morrison, in which the Rehnquist Court overturned the legislation, women’s rights advocates around the world cried foul and pressured legislators to pass a similar set of laws. Overall, however, it seems that states can better deal with rape than the large national government. Localized enforcement and planning gives law enforcement agencies greater opportunities to prevent rape and help victims, through specially tailored programs and services, like those offered by our very own NYPD. Blanket solutions provided by Congress, like the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, are helpful but fail to truly fix problems. In a similar manner, the federal government continues to overregulate and over-police many important parts of our daily lives. For instance, the Supreme Court recently approved the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) as constitutional. It did so even though the main and most controversial component of the bill is the individual mandate, which requires that all Americans purchase health insurance. Such legislation, while helpful, is an extension of the idea that the government should provide the most protection possible, regardless of its effect on our liberty. In theory, such a system works, but at what point does the government begin to sacrifice our liberty for non-essential commodities and services? To me, that occurs as soon as Americans become obligated to spend their own hard-earned money on anything that they can live without. Forcing citizens to buy health insurance, like making seatbelt use and the purchasing of car insurance compulsory, assumes that doing so is convenient for policyholders. Yet it seems that mandatory policy-holding is much more beneficial to major companies, hospitals, and wealthy insured Americans who want to keep their premiums down – when uninsured people get sick, they often use the emergency room to escape high costs but still receive treatment. Doing so costs American hospitals billions of dollars per year and forces medical institutions to drastically increase
costs to patients and insurance companies, which in turn charge policyholders higher premiums. Thus, Obamacare, while obviously helping those who can’t afford healthcare, clearly benefits rich Americans and insurance empires. This does not seem like the right way to resolve commercial impediments. Instead, Congress should leave the enforcement power of Obamacare and more specifically, the individual mandate, to states and municipalities, so that local leaders can decide whether or not the plan benefits the small groups of businesses that together comprise our national economy. The federal government has also grossly overreached into anti-drug enforcement. Sweeping legislation has been passed year-after-year, allocating millions to the Drug Enforcement Agency, in addi-
involves the purchase of fuel, a vehicle, and other supplies, like maps or GPS devices. Just to clarify, in no way am I arguing for the legalization of dangerous narcotics – I’m just pointing out that Congress should not have the jurisdiction to illegalize them. Shifting jurisdiction from federal to state and local drug enforcement would be tremendously helpful in many ways. Primarily, it would make planning and confiscating drug paraphernalia simpler by eliminating the trickle-down of enforcement tasks from the DEA to smaller subdivisions. For larger cases, involving more than one state, state police agencies could coordinate with the FBI. Secondly, shifting total control of drug laws to states would eliminate confusion over legislation, especially relating to the use of marijuana. As
“The federal government continues to overregulate and over-police many important parts of our daily lives.” tion to the preexisting and massive efforts by municipal and state police forces to destroy the illegal drug trade. Though such drugs are obviously illegal for a reason, statistics show that for all the manpower Congress employs in this “War on Drugs,” federal agents only confiscate a fraction of the narcotics imported into the US. Thus, it seems that change is in order, and coincidentally, such a change is not only made possible, but practically dictated by the Commerce Clause. The national government justifies drug enforcement on the grounds that the narcotics trade inhibits commerce and affects public health and welfare. Though drugs are obviously harmful, federal illegalization of substances is another example of the gray area between governmental protection and violating citizens’ liberty – at what point is the government crossing a line? In a similar fashion, the drug trade’s effect on interstate and international commerce has been questioned. The business is huge – with billions of dollars in annual revenue – but does that really inhibit commerce? Common sense would dictate that selling drugs actually benefits the economy. For instance, drug dealers and traffickers use cars or other modes of transportation to move their commodity. Doing so
December 2013
of November 2013, Colorado and Washington (the state) have legalized marijuana consumption, but federal law still prohibits it. Thus, federal enforcers are still legally permitted to arrest anyone who uses marijuana. Such a conflict is certain to lead to unfair arrests and drawn-out legal battles, and must be dealt with as soon as possible. From the information available, it seems like the best way to deal with this problem would be removing Congress’ jurisdiction and placing it in the hands of states and localities around the nation. HMR
13
International
“Let’s Make a Deal” Eric Stein
I
ran’s nuclear program began in the 1950s, led by Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, under an agreement with the United States, in which the United States agreed to provide a nuclear research reactor in Tehran. The U.S. and Israel began to forcibly delay the nuclear program in Iran with the use of cyberattacks in 2008, in addition to the previously imposed economic sanctions on the country. In 2011, the United States expanded its sanctions on Iran’s central bank, commercial banks, and also companies involved in Iran’s nuclear industry. In April 2013, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced the country’s plan to expand its uranium production. On June 15, 2013, voters elected Hassan Rouhani as president of Iran. In August, inspectors said that Iran slowed its gathering of enriched uranium. In September, Hassan Rouhani said that nuclear weapons have no place in Iran’s future and that his major concern is the ending of sanctions on Iran that have crippled Iran’s economy. Finally, in November, inspec-
tors said they saw evidence that the Iranians have stopped their nuclear expansion. Recently, with the election of President Hassan Rouhani, talks between the U.S. and Iran on Iran’s nuclear program have intensified. Now is the time to finish a long term deal with Iran on its nuclear program. President Rouhani and Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, are the most moderate leaders Iran has had. Rouhani and Zarif are prepared to limit enrichment to 3.5 percent, an enrichment level that falls short of weapons grade uranium and plutonium. They would also like to make a deal with Western Powers involving the reduction in the number of centrifuges and placement under international supervision. They aim to find a solution on the heavy-water plant Iran is building at Arak (that can produce plutonium) and convert Iran’s 20 percent enriched stockpile by converting it, under international supervision, into fuel pads for the Tehran research reactor. In return, Iran seeks sanctions relief to help
14
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
support its economy and recognition of the right to enrichment. On November 24, 2013, Western Powers and Iran signed a six-month deal that halts Iran’s nuclear program. Although it is a temporary solution, the treaty is a major step in relations between the United States and Iran because this is the first formal agreement between the the two countries in 34 years. This deal, however, has unsettled a longtime ally of the United States, Israel. Israel is outraged because, under the deal signed on Sunday, Iran is not required to stop enriching uranium or dismantle centrifuges. However, Israel must realize that any realistic proposal must allow for a limited Iranian enrichment program as Iran is not willing to completely halt its enrichment. Since Iran now knows how to make a nuclear weapon, the objective of the United States is to convert that acquired capability, so its use can only be peaceful. Iran has reached a point where they have enough advanced knowledge on how to make a nuclear weap-
International
“THIS TREATY IS A MAJOR STEP IN US-IRAN RELATIONS -- THE FIRST FORMAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES IN 34 YEARS.” on. Since it is almost impossible to destroy the knowledge that Iran has accumulated, the United States needs to make big steps in the near future to prevent Iran from manufacturing a nuclear weapon. In this deal, the United States needs to make sure that Iran’s nuclear facilities are contained and controlled by international forces. This objective of the Western Powers is shown the new treaty’s requirement, which hold Iran’s low-grade uranium at current levels, eliminating or diluting twenty percent enriched uranium, stopping installation of new centrifuges, halting construction at the Arak heavy-water reactor, and intensifying international inspection. Members of congress, predominantly Republicans, are concerned with this agreement. Rep. Ed Royce, R-California, said, “Instead of rolling back Iran’s program, Tehran would be able to keep the key elements of its nuclear weapons-making capability. Yet we are the ones doing the dismantling – relieving Iran of the sanctions pressure built up over years.” In addition to the relaxation of sanctions, many members of congress are unhap-
py with this agreement because it allows Iran to continue enriching and sets a bad precedent. Many skeptics think that this deal shows other rogue states that if they want to go nuclear, that they can lie and cheat for a decade and eventually get the United States to simply give up. The skeptics should be aware that signing no treaty at all would certainly allow Iran to eventually go nuclear. This agreement slows the nuclear program, maybe not to the extent that many representatives want, but it does more to halt the Iran nuclear program than sanctions do. At present, both the United States and Iran are diplomatically vulnerable which makes this an ideal time for a long lasting deal to be made. Iran’s economy is suffering greatly from U.S. sanctions. Iran’s currency lost more than half of its value in 2012. Iran’s GDP shrunk by 5.8 percent last year, the amount of investment in the industry sector decreased by 29 percent, and their industrial production index decreased by 9 percent. At this moment, Iran is primarily focused on its poor economy, so the United States must
December 2013
take advantage of this weakness and halt Iran’s nuclear program. The United States has been recovering from wars in the Middle East for more than a decade, and the American public is growing tired of the United States’ foreign intervention. Since a deal between these two countries could prevent decades of hostility, the U.S. urgently wants to make an agreement. The problems in these two countries call for a pressing need for an agreement. A long-term agreement made between the United States and Iran would signal a shift between military might to diplomacy. Peace making and effective negotiation need to once again become the centerpiece of American foreign policy. The completion of a lasting nuclear deal would show that international conflicts are best solved through compromise than through military intervention. Although it is harder to get the American public to rally behind a multilateral negotiation than a missile strike, diplomacy is the best way to solve our nation’s international problems. HMR
15
International
China’s Democratic Future How the Country’s Middle Class is Killing Communism
MIRANDA BANNISTER
T
he Rise of the Communist Party of China has gained a lot of international attention. For many years the Party has ruled China with an iron fist, preventing the private sector from expanding by manipulating the economy with massive state owned enterprises (SOE’s). The Party has prevented the media from circulating any information that might contradict the Party’s actions or call to mind its sordid past. It has used its SOE’s as a means of profit while violating the rights of the working class laborers within its facto-
ries. In response to the Party there have been many riots, most notably the 1989 Tianenman Square Massacre, but ultimately the Party has survived. However, the middle class in China is growing in size- and awareness of the Party’s harms to the economy and economic opportunities. The middle class will stand against the Party in years to come, not only for this reason, but because wider communication with the Western world is allowing for new ideals and knowledge about the Party to circulate. The middle class in China is growing
16
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
rapidly, foreshadowing civil conflict in China’s future. According to McKinsey and Company, “In the decade ahead, the middle class’s continued expansion will be powered by… the rising role of private enterprise, which… help more income accrue to households.” Within ten years the middle class population will extend to 54% of urban households, bringing higher levels of education, thus social and political demands to concentrated population centers. The consequences will be devastating to the Communist Party, because the urban middle
International class has been responsible for many of China’s largest riots in the past. The Tienanmen Square riot and subsequent massacre was China’s largest bout of civil unrest in recent years; moreover, it was student led, beginning at the funeral celebration of Hu Yaobang, a moderate Party leader. As the middle class becomes larger, wealthier, and better educated it will find more spheres in which to criticize the government; there will be many more events like Tienanmen in the future. The Communist Party’s support of state owned enterprises is driving the upper middle class against the system of state capitalism currently in place. Although companies are allowed to exist outside of the government’s control, many of the most powerful companies are SOEs. These SOE’s are awarded more benefits, more subsidies than other companies, crushing their competitors. Furthermore, many of the opportunities for leadership in these large SOE’s, such as Sinopec, are offered to the children of Party leaders, not middle class citizens. According to the Economist, China Mobile and Sinopec combined earn more than China’s five hundred largest private firms put together. Some argue that the Party’s evolution into this state capitalism has accommodated the growth of the middle class and corporate China, by allowing ambition and a form of capitalism, but the opposite is true. The Chinese government will never part with its tight grip over the economy, and until government owned corporations stop strangling the private sector, violent protests stemming from the middle class will loom ahead. The Communist Party will not survive because many of the ideological aspects that the Party insists upon holding onto are being called into question. The Central Party Office released a report on the dangers to the Party’s ideology, being generated from Western nations and those within the country. This document, “Document Number Nine” as it has been called, alludes to Party’s well justified fear of spreading dissent within the nation. According to the New York Times, the Document warns many are “promoting ‘universal values’ of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market ‘neo-liberalism,’ and ‘nihilist’ criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.” Professor Yuezhi Zhao of the Canadian School of Communication described the Chinese system of media as “commercialization, without privatization,” meaning that the Chinese government controls the content of all independent media within the country. There is no representation of the peo-
ple in the media though. For example, a UN Security Council report showed that out of five hundred different news articles published in China about its entry into the World Trade Organization, not one working class or middle class citizen was interviewed. The opinions circulated by the Chinese media are controlled by the government, legally and in application. There is no way for the Party to magically transform into the democracy that the people crave, nor do any party leaders desire to do so; there must be conflict in the future in order for the Chinese people to be satiated. Despite the Party’s control of the media, better communication with the West has allowed the ideals of “media independence” and better human rights to take route amongst the upper middle class in recent years. According to the Diplomat, one in ten upper middle class Chinese travel abroad annually, and 26 percent of the upper middle class speak English proficiently. Although the media’s influence is limited within China, international travel allows the privileged access to information about every silenced injustice that that the Party has committed over the past seventy years, and the stark contrast to the conditions in other countries. While the average citizen has no idea about any of the 1989 events at Tienanmen Square, the Party’s role in the economy, or about any of human rights violations in SOE’s, this knowledge can be easily found while traveling abroad or reaching communication with foreign nations. This is why the Party kept China locked off from Western travelers and ideas until the 1070’s. Those days are over though, and now that there is more freedom for the Chinese to travel from the country and for Western nations to travel into the country Western senti-
December 2013
ment against Chinese human rights violations is spreading throughout upper middle class, and will affect the entire country. Although the middle class will play the largest role in future political changes in China, the working class will also be a significant factor in anti-Party mobilization. The 262 million rural migrant workers in China could easily unite against the Party’s ideology, because they are making more and more demands for human rights in SOE’s, better wages, and the right to urban welfare programs to which they are often denied access. SOE’s benefit from the highest profits possible by lowering wages for workers. Duanjie Chen from the University of Calgary wrote, “Chinese competitive advantage… comes with not just lower wages for workers but also behaviour that would be considered irresponsible in a Western context.” In other words, the government benefits from human rights violations. Additionally, the government does not restrict private corporations such as Foxconn, a Chinese manufacturing company infamous for its human rights violations and workers’ suicides, because the government benefits from the taxes on the company, and would not try to enforce any laws against such a powerful manufacturer. Furthermore, there is no way for these workers to receive aid in addition to to their wages. Laborers are largely from rural areas, but when they migrate to the city to live and work for these companies, they are often denied the urban welfare benefits. This would be too expensive for the government. If any organized movement against the Chinese government developed, the working class would leap at the opportunity to free themselves from the oppressive nature of the Party’s role in the economy. HMR
17
International www.fxweek.com
The Perils of Gated Globalization
Natasha Moolji
M
erriam Webster’s definition of globalization, which is “the development of an increasingly integrated global economy marked especially by free trade, free flow of capital, and the tapping of cheaper foreign labor markets,” is an oversimplification. Definitions and explanations of the word globalization such as this fail to demonstrate the controversy over this issue. After the global financial crisis in 2008, there was an immediate fear that countries would return to protectionist policies found in the 1930s, with increased tariff barriers and quotas. However, the return to protectionism was quiescent. Instead, the world has been experiencing a period of gated globalization. Leaders and policy makers are pickier about what enters their countries. This mindset includes prudence about the capital coming into countries, immigrants who are allowed to move into the country, the types of countries that leaders would make trade agreements with, and federal rules that are imposed on banks. Gated
globalization is not a reversal of the globalization that has occurred in the past few decades, but it is an interventionist style policy. Although some of these policies may be beneficial, if the mechanisms of gated globalization are misconstrued and there are barriers on free trade and the free flow of capital for too long, this version of globalization will be detrimental to the development of the global economy. After the financial crisis of 2008, sand in the gears of globalization was inevitable. The situation was similar to that of the Great Depression. The Great Depression and a need for the country to remedy economic problems had bred protectionism in the United States in the 1930s. The U.S. government was pressured into trying to create more jobs and increase exports. One way to do this was to limit imports and to limit the country’s dependence on foreign nations, because when countries are more self-reliant, they are less subject to the caprice of other countries. The crisis five years ago showed that globaliza-
18
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
tion had decreased the importance of just one country being stable and successful; the world is interconnected and the aftermath of issues abroad could always have repercussions in other nations. The U.S. mortgage crisis and the Euro Crisis have had lasting impacts on the stock market and have dented consumer confidence in many countries. Because globalization was seen as having fueled financial imbalances, gated globalization has arisen. Gated globalization includes certain policies. For example, policies have been implemented to ensure that banks are not too exposed to crises in their home countries and in other countries that they operate in. Some governments require that foreign banks have their own capital and liquidity. Banks have taken their own initiatives and are deleveraging, which means that they are reducing their footprint in foreign economies. Policy makers have imposed taxes and reserve requirements on hot money inflows to reduce the destabilizing impacts of those
International
“Unless the gates that have been put in place to stall globalization are opened soon, the global economy will not recover as quickly as it could.� inflows. This could be somewhat useful because cross border transactions would become more cautious. In the past there have been circumstances when the flow of capital became so large that it overwhelmed the institutional capacity of some countries to manage the money well. These situations led to instability down the road. But taken too far, these restrictions will harm national and international economies. The free flow of capital from countries with savings to markets with investment opportunities is generally advantageous. Economists have promoted such policies for the past decade, but the recent revival of capital controls in countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, and Korea has hindered the movement of capital. Countries with savings are not maximizing profits like they could be and developing markets are not getting the influx of capital they need to progress. Also, the implementation of capital controls requires a bureaucracy. Determining which capital is useful to a country is subjective and puts power in the hands of few. This endangers the interests of the majority.
Gated globalization has also had an influence on multilateral trade. World leaders have shifted their focus to the World Trade Organization to regional and bilateral pacts. One example of a regional agreement is the Transpacific Trade Partnership. This includes countries such as South Korea and Japan. It is currently one of the largest agreements. Countries refuse to join larger partnerships. The breakdown in progress in liberalization on trade was due to the crisis. There is a sense in the rich world that the admittance of China and other emerging markets into global trading systems would help developing countries at the expense of those already developed. The U.S. would have to share its role as economic hegemon when other countries gain the same economic status. The aftermath of the crisis has been the rise of state capitalism and the pairing up of countries that have the same mentality. More liberally minded nations are moving in one direction and others are going on their own path. This decreases the benefits that nations could be gaining from involvement with the WTO.
The dangers of free trade are the same as those of the free flow of capital. But on both these issues, the benefits outweigh the harms. Globalization creates efficiencies and open markets. Businesses are able to communicate effectively with partners, suppliers, and customers and better manage their networks. Local producers have the ability to sell products in foreign markets and increase their profitability. There is easy credit and the boosting of demand, leading to a cycle of income and employment. While such an environment can lead to fiscal instability, globalization itself was not the cause of the financial downturn in 2008. Instead, it was the complacency of leaders and creditors that came about with the success of globalization. Countries could have safeguards that do not hinder globalization but address the issue of irresponsible leaders to prevent against a future crisis. Without globalization, none of aforementioned benefits will be enjoyed. Unless the gates that have been put in place to stall globalization are opened soon, the global economy will not recover as quickly as it could. HMR
www.global-gateways.com
December 2013
19
Features
The Egyptian Police’s Revolution Anne Rosenblatt theatlantic.com
E
gypt’s newest Constitution is being finalized, and it appears as if the Egyptian military will retain key political powers in the new government. The constitution retains the right to try civilians in military courts, gives the position of Defense Minister to a member of military council, and gives the military council veto powers on the choice of who fills this position. John Kerry, the United States Secretary of State, has recently announced America’s support for an Egyptian government with a strong military presence. However, the Egyptian military has a huge responsibility on its hands that comes along with these key political powers. The Egyptian people have fought for years for a peaceful and non-corrupt government and lived through times of constant revolution; now, the military is going to have to play a key role in delivering the people’s goals. Yet, the military has not reformed itself since the Mubarak revolutions in 2011, in which they took an active violent role. There is no hope that the military can fulfill their responsibilities of reforming a violent, and in many ways corrupt, government, when it has yet to reform itself.
In the past, no matter the shift in power and the side that the Egyptian police force has chosen to take, the army’s violent tactics and methods have remained the same. It is not the military support that needs to be
20
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
“In the midst of constant political upheaval, the Egyptian military must find stability independent of the constantly changing and instable Egyptian government.” shifted, but rather how these Egyptian military powers can go about encouraging, establishing, and preserving peace in a country of constant protest. For now, it is the responsibility of the police and military forces to effectively protect protestors and bystanders from attacks, and “intervene effectively to end violent clashes between rival groups.”
Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Amnesty International’s Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme added, “Continued failure to properly police rival street protests will lead to further bloodshed and an escalation of human rights abuses.” In the midst of constant political upheaval, the Egyptian military must find stability independent of the constantly changing and unstable Egyptian government that will allow an effective way to protect Egypt’s citizens with as minimal violence as possible. On January 25, 2011, millions of Egyptians joined together in violent outrage against then President Muhammad Hosni El Sayed Mubarak, initiating the Egyptian Revolution of 2011. Police brutality has been considered one of the main causes of this revolution. At least ninety anti- Mubarak protesters burned Egyptian police stations during the Revolution as acts of protests against the corrupt government. During Mubarak’s presidency, Egyptian and International human rights organizations reported at least 30 ongoing cases of corruption in police tactics during interrogations, including the use of brutali-
Features ty to coerce confessions out of victims. The Egyptian Organization for Human Rights also reported nearly 600 cases of torture and over 100 deaths involving plainclothes policemen, prior to the 2011 protests. The military’s violent response to the Egyptian uprisings left 800 dead and thousands wounded. While forms of military intervention were crucial for the widespread uprisings, many deaths were reported to be unwarranted. Ultimately, Mubarak resigned on February 11, 2011 and later in June of 2011, several officers of the Egyptian police were put on trial for the hundreds of deaths during the revolution; however, very little progress was ever made in these cases. So, as Mubarak stepped down from his role as President, the question remained: how should the Egyptian military move forward in the post- Mubarak era? CS Monitor reported, “The police, once feared by civilians, are now seen as leftover elements of Mubarak’s regime and treated with little respect. Pulled off the streets after violently cracking down on protests in January, they are now trying to reshape their role in the post-Mubarak Egypt.” Yet, the Revolution marked an important change in the Egyptian military. It was now branded with a stamp of violence, and the Revolution set a precedent for military behavior in Egypt. While the public had long been hesitant about the corruptions of the Egyptian police forces, acts of extreme public violence only further proved their suspicions to be true. The Egyptian military had instilled an arguably permanent fear in the public, who no longer trusted their own police to protect them in times of need. Soon after Mubarak, under President Morsi, the people expected change; they had succeeded in their previous goal of Mubarak’s resignation. However, even in 2013, Egyptian police tactics and actions remained quite similar to those that millions of civilians fought against just two years prior. Farida Makar of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies explained, “torture still happens in police stations, excessive violence is still used against demonstrators, and everything is decided according to a security mentality.” Makar added that she had no belief that the Muslim Brotherhood would make any more reforms than Morsi did under his rule. Perhaps it was this repetition that led to the 2013 Egyptian coup d’état of President Mohamed Morsi, which showed many parallels to the 2011 Egyptian Revolution against Mubarak. Again, the people came
together to revolt against a corrupt government. On July 3, 2013, Morsi was officially removed from his position as President of Egypt, and on demand of Egyptian protestors, requirements were met for military reforms. One significant reform transferred power from the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF), a council of the 21 most senior officers in the Egyptian military under Morsi, to a civilian-run council called General Command of the Armed
the needs and the wants of the civilians. However, a change in sides of Egyptian forces did not correlate with reform of their violent actions. In August of 2013, raids by Egyptian police attempted to remove supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood from sit-in protests, which were a retaliation of the previous coup d’état of Morsi. While the police were proving their support to the general civilian cause, they once again went too far in their military tactics. The events
“There is no hope that the military can fulfill its responsibility of reforming a violent -- and in many ways corrupt -- government, when it has yet to reform itself.” Forces. While many parallels can be drawn from the 2011 and 2013 revolutions, the police took the civilians’ side on the issue of Morsi. Some officers went as far as joining the protests and riots dressed in uniform. “The June 30 demonstrations revealed a significant change in the police’s handling of anti-regime protests,” The Middle East Foreign Policy reported. “Unlike their vicious reaction to peaceful demonstrations in January 2011, the Egyptian police have been more cooperative -- even welcoming -- to the countrywide anti-Morsi demonstrations. The change in police behavior is not the result of security sector reforms but rather a better reading by the police of the domestic balance of power.” In the case of uprisings against Morsi, the Egyptian forces shifted to the side of the civilians. The major change was that the police began to address
quickly escalated, leaving 638 dead and nearly 4,000 injured. Egyptian police forces continue to claim their actions are a last resort in keeping peace and protecting Egypt. Yet, the continued unrest involved with Egyptian military power only further proves the return of military and police instability. The Egyptian people have entrusted their nation’s power to its military forces. While the Egyptian military and police have perhaps been more supporting of the Egyptian general public’s views, their long history of violent action has shown little to no reform. After years of continuous corruption and revolution, the people are determined to achieve a stable and peaceful government. Yet, there is no hope if the Egyptian military is not able to reform from the violent tactics that they repeatedly lapse back into. HMR
rt.com
December 2013
21
Features
BANKSY STRI
Matt Parker
P
eople have been buzzing about a visiting artist in the metropolitan area, though, you will not be able to find any of his works in a museum. The United Kingdom’s mysterious street artist Banksy spent all of October in New York City working on his project, “Better Out Than In.” While many New Yorkers wholeheartedly welcomed Banksy to the city, Mayor Bloomberg and the police department tried to stop the project. This seemingly trivial pursuit of justice has led to questions about the police’s role in the city and in the world. While it is the job of the police
to enforce laws, including laws against vandalism, it is also their duty to protect and serve the people and to make their lives safer. The pursuit of Banksy is not only taking focus off of more pressing and dangerous issues, such as the constant threat of terrorism in the city, but also leads to questions over why the police cannot gauge public support. In fact, most New Yorkers do not actually identify Banksy’s works as vandalism. Banksy made a new work every day, ranging from stenciled words to sculptures to moving installations. He posted each new piece online at the end of the
22
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
day, and hundreds immediately started looking for them. The project included a secret installation: a stand set up in Central Park where his authentic work was sold for $60. Only eight paintings were bought. This was probably the most viral installation, as his video of the day’s activity at the shop was shared all across social media and sparked attention from major news outlets, including CNN. While many of Banksy’s works are now covered or destroyed, a select few, including a stencil of the World Trade Center with a flower that is on Staple Street in Tribeca, remain. Of course, due
Features
KES AGAIN?
flickr.com thesuperslice.com us123rf.com
to the high value placed on his work, any of his remaining pieces could vanish as quickly as they appeared. He was mostly greeted with acceptance and interest among New Yorkers. Crowds flocked to all of his newest installations, and owners of vandalized work were mostly unfazed by his graffiti. One club in TriBeca that was graced by one of Banksy’s most acclaimed works of the project took down the garage door it had been painted on. They hope to put it on display inside the club, which will more than likely increase its business. The lack of outrage by owners caused problems for the
NYPD, who had trouble finding someone to file a complaint against the artist. Despite the incredible popularity of Banksy’s works, Bloomberg has said that the work “may be art, but it should not be permitted,” citing laws against vandalism and defacing private property. He has also said that no matter what type of vandalism it is, graffiti is a sign of “decay and lack of control” claiming that it ruins people’s property. However, despite the mayor’s pleas for owners of vandalized property to file complaints, the NYPD has not launched an investigation as no complaints have
December 2013
been brought forward. The Post claimed that the NYPD began a hunt for Banksy, citing an unnamed law enforcement official, but the Police Department has repeatedly denied those claims. Regardless of whether these claims are true, the police did affect the installation. One of Banksy’s works was “cancelled due to police activity,” as he put on his website. Apparently there was a piece planned for that day but because of increased activity and investigation, Banksy was unable to complete the piece. The increased public outrage over the city’s actions of trying to hamper
23
Features
nytimes.com
Banksy as he appears in the biographical documentary “Exit through the Gift Shop”
Banksy’s work and Bloomberg’s obvious disapproval of his art has not swayed Bloomberg, who continues to ask for complaints to be filed against the artist. The police have even gone so far as to confiscate Banksy’s last work in the city, a set of balloons spelling out “Banksy!” on a building in Queens. A trio of men had climbed up the building to get the balloons, but a crowd gathered and police came to break it up, and the men were arrested. The police are likely to destroy or auction the balloons as they are not classified as art, but simply as balloons, making it much easier to dispose of them as the NYPD sees fit. Many have expressed resentment over the continued investigation into Banksy, with some claiming his art has value that surpasses that of regular graffiti, and others not wanting his mystery to be destroyed by an unveiling of his identity. The biggest issue with the pursuit of Banksy is that the focus on him is taking away from serious issues. The police department has enough on it’s plate, between backlash over the stop and frisk policy and having to deal with over 8 million people in such a small amount of space. There are a lot of problems in the city that can actually result in harm to peo-
ple and their property, such as robbery. The police should be trying to prevent these occurances instead of worrying about Banksy. Bloomberg does not need to chase a visiting artist that has turned into a cultural phenome-
24
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
sions about the value of art in society, both culturally and economically. Most seem to think that Banksy’s art has benefited the city, shedding light on a little noticed world of art. No one has come forward complaining of property
Police departments would be better off using their equipment and training towards preventing serious crimes instead of hunting down famous artists. non, even if it does take the heat off of the NYPD’s racial profiling scandals. Banksy’s work is inherently harmless; the value of property graced by his work only increases, and if no one is complaining, clearly no one feels wronged. The residency has given people a chance to see original works that are worth up to six figures, and has produced intelligent discus-
being vandalized by Banksy, and most are thankful that he chose to give them what could easily be hundreds of thousands of dollars if sold to the right buyer. The police are trying to pursue justice, but we need to reconsider whether following the system is always the right course of action. Banksy’s actions could clearly be defined as vandalism, but the police department should be able to use
Features its discretion and see that what they see as vandalism is actually a great cultural experience for a city that prides itself on being home to a plethora of art forms. Banksy’s installation has boosted public awareness of modern street art and has not harmed anyone. The installation can be seen just as easily as 31 pieces of art by a world renowned artist on public display in NYC as it could be seen as vandalism, but based on the public response, the police department should define it as the former. Police departments would be better off using their equipment and
training towards preventing serious crimes, instead of hunting down famous artists. More and more street art is being destroyed, including a legendary collection of street art called 5Pointz, a place that is revered in street art circles. These pieces of street art make life in the city interesting, and police should work towards their preservation, rather than their demolition. Without sculptures or pieces of art all over the city New York may become much less exciting. One journalist asked Bloomberg if he wanted to see a city where everything
December 2013
is the uniform and there are no breaks in the grey streets and walls. Vandalism is a crime only because it ruins property. If the art is beautifying the city, then it should not be considered vandalism or be prosecuted as such. If the art is not harming anyone’s well-being, then why would the police press for an arrest of the creator? The voices of the people should be heard, and Bloomberg and the police should relax their stance on Banksy. Hopefully he will return to entertain us all and liven up the city again. HMR
25
Features
THE MEDIA’S POLICE PORTRAYAL
C
PETER SHAMAMIAN
ompetition between media outlets and the yearning for action-packed enthralling movies and TV programs in the entertainment industry has influenced the manner in which the police are depicted. The way that police are portrayed in the media gives the impression that the main role of a police officer is to fight crime. By preventing crime and violence, the police are able to successfully protect citizens from attacks or potential threats. While fighting crime in fact is one of the major roles taken on by police officers, the media exaggerates this role, more so than the other responsibilities of the police. These portrayals frequent the news, TV, and movie screens, while the most im-
portant parts of an ordinary officer’s duties, such as working to keep the public in order through nonviolent means, are the jobs that routinely help the community. Not only does this crime-fighting displayed by the media occur infrequently, but often, it is handled not by ordinary police officers, but rather, by special task forces such as specialized detective and preventive groups that work outside of police forces to combat particular types of crime such as a homicide and fraud. According to Mark Dantzker, professor of criminal justice at Texas University, image depiction is “a popular conception projected especially through mass media.” The image depiction of the police that has been imprint-
26
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
ed on society is the crime-fighting element of policing. For the past few decades, movie directors have aimed to display the crime-intensive roles of police officers. Movies such as Die Hard, starring Bruce Willis, give the public misconceptions about how the police operate and perform daily duties. In Die Hard, John McClane, officer of the NYPD, tries to save wife Holly Gennaro and several others, who have been taken hostage by German terrorist Hans Gruber during a Christmas party. Reviews of the movie indicate that it is an “amazing action film” that portrays an everyday NYPD cop as an awesome crime fighter who travels across the country to fight against evil. However, from public knowledge, it is ev-
Features cites the reader’s attention, causing him or her to read the article. The article describes how an off-duty NYPD cop was nearly beaten to death in Jamaica, Queens. The title of the article on Policeone.com, a website that covers currents events related to the police, creates the illusion that the cop was involved in a fight to save someone’s life, when in fact the cop himself was beaten while sitting in his car. In the New York Times last year, Faiza Patel and Elizabeth Goitein wrote an opinion piece on how the NYPD needs more
turbances such as loud parties or unruly juveniles, or having to direct traffic,” is among the jobs taken on by police officers. For example, in Georgia, police officers happened upon a group of juveniles who were fighting. As the police officers tried to restore order among the juvenile fighters, both were injured when a juvenile resisted arrest. However, the police were performing their jobs in trying to maintain order. Maintaining order can also include mundane tasks such as directing traffic or monitoring the roads for speeding
“In constant competition, media outlets, as well as the entertainment industry, look to concentrate on the exciting, amazing, adrenaline-pumping aspects of policing, sometimes fabricating stories to make them even more surreal and impressive.”
ident that cops do not regularly travel across the country to fight crime. Although this film was produced 25 years ago, films today continue to abuse this public misconception. The many other responsibilities that policemen and women hold are often overlooked because they are not considered to be “glamorous,” or “awesome.” With competition fierce between media outlets to create attractive and dramatic stories about police forces, they will often use the same image depiction of the police as crime fighters to create excitement within their stories, only to contribute to the public misconceptions of policemen and women. For example, a recent article titled Off-duty NY cop Nearly Beaten to Death in-
monitoring because of the “significant powers and broad discretion” that they have already been given on the grounds of keeping New Yorkers safe from terrorist attacks. Putting the NYPD in a position to be received as overbearing and controlling, influential media outlets like the Times give the public a negative view on the police force in New York City, allowing for people’s opinions to be swayed. Many people see only the image of a police officer through the media, and thus, the media creates large misconceptions. The media can easily manipulate the perspectives held by citizens of the police. Because news sources can only gain a finite amount of information on a story involving cops, since city departments do not release information about cases, they then have to rely on angry relatives and bystanders of events, normally offering severely biased information, information that often accuses policemen of being immoral, untrustworthy people, according to the Police Chief Magazine. For example, under “Stop and Frisk”, cops have the right to stop any person they believe looks suspicious to on the street. As a result, people begin to feel violated by cops. This distrust fosters anger in people, often translating, again, into biased opinions that can be used by the media to inaccurately depict the police. Although we can associate the police with protecting citizens through fighting crime, we should not forget their quotidian roles. According to Mark Dantzker, maintaining order, including responding to “dis-
December 2013
drivers who pose a risk to others on the road. Being a social servant is another important responsibility taken on by police forces. Police help the public by not only protecting it, but also by serving the community through finding loved ones who are reported missing, helping motorists who are stranded, assisting in cases of domestic disturbance, and providing a shoulder to cry on if a victim is in need, according to a Yahoo! Editorial. A policeman’s job as a social servant can include almost random acts to help citizens. For example, last year, a Pennsylvania officer delivered a baby on a sidewalk. This story is a real depiction of what policing is: protecting, serving, and providing for the general welfare of the community. Media outlets and the entertainment industry often concentrate on the exciting, amazing, adrenaline-pumping aspects of policing, sometimes fabricating stories to make police officers seem even more surreal and impressive. Although these exciting, crime-fighting jobs are part of a policeman or woman’s obligations, the police are more likely and consistently striving to do what they do best: providing security, protection, and comfort for citizens. These men and women are here to maintain peace and order, prohibiting potentially violent people or things from endangering innocent citizens. Yet the media does not always portray their day-to-day jobs and often makes police officers look either like crime-fighters or appear untrustworthy. HMR
27
Features
Domestic Drones: Spies of the skies
Anna Kuritzkes
T
he United States’ usage of drones to annihilate targets abroad undermines both the ethical and legal standards of our country. The government uses drones internationally against enemies of the state, such as the Taliban in Pakistan, and other terrorist organizations in Afghanistan and Yemen. And now, the ethical and legal problems drones pose internationally will apply at home. The unmanned aircrafts can no longer solely be considered as weapons used abroad in times of war. Determining the legality of drones on the international level is a debate that has been revisited over and over again, but now, there is a new pressing domestic concern. If everything goes according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s plan, drones, used by the government and private owners, will take over US airspace by 2015. The government’s usage of drones for law enforcement purposes is unjustified because it contests the Fourth Amendment and the personal privacy of American citizens, but domestic drones are useful for other purposes in the private sector. In November 2013, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published a report covering the implementation of unmanned aircrafts systems (UAS) in US airspace, putting the issue of domestic
drone usage in the spotlight. The report was published after Congress requested that the FAA create a plan of action for the usage of unmanned aircrafts by 2015. This request has galvanized the deployment of drones and brought the issue of drones to the forefront. Michael P. Huerta, the Administrator of the FAA, began the report with a letter in which he stated, “The FAA is committed to the safe and efficient integration of UAS into the NAS [National Airspace System].” The successful and safe implementation of drones in domestic airspace is imperative considering the fact that the number of UAS operations has increased considerably. With the proper guidelines set in place, domestic drone usage will continue to become increasingly widespread. Though there are many important uses of drones, by far the most contested is the usage of drones for surveillance purposes, as the federal government will use drones to search private property. Domestic drones are different from weaponized drones, and they have significant features, including their smaller size, and most notably, their cameras’ thermal imaging technology, which gives them the capability to take pictures and videos through the roofs of homes. In 2001, the Supreme Court
28
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
ruled that drone usage for the purpose of conducting searches was in alignment with the Fourth Amendment, although it is hard to say whether or not the court imagined drones flying overhead with the ability to inspect American citizens. Many law enforcement bodies, including Customs and Border Protection and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), will use these specialized drones to conduct searches. In fact, the assistant director of the FBI’s office of Congressional Affairs, Tom Kelley, was reported to have said that the FBI has already used surveillance drones in 10 investigations. According to the ruling, the government usage of drones for surveillance does not violate the Fourth Amendment (which prohibits warrantless searches and seizures). Further complicating the issue is the fact that law enforcement agencies may not need warrants to use drones in their searches. Some states have quickly taken preventive measures to protect their citizens. On April 3, 2013, Virginia prevented law enforcement from using drones by banning their use for two years (though exceptions are allowed in case of an emergency). Later that month, Idaho enacted a law prohibiting unrestrained drone surveillance and restricting private drone use. Tennessee directed its laws to the root of the problem; there, law
Features
A Map of FBI Drone Flights in the US
enforcement needs a warrant to use drones. These are just three examples of the trend in state legislation intended to regulate domestic drone usage. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, drone legislation has been enacted in 8 states and has been proposed in 42. Aside from unwelcome surveillance purposes, unmanned aircrafts have many other more beneficial uses. They can be programmed to collect samples from the environment and monitor pollution levels by measuring emission and radiation levels. Agriculture is a growing market, as drones can help farmers by effectively and quickly spraying their crops with pesticides and insecticides, as well as watering them during a dry spell. American farmers have used drones in the past. As Wired magazine reported in 2009, a farmer in Idaho used his own drone to take photographs and collect information about his farm’s soil, helping his business grow. The demand
for privately-owned UAS to be used for commercial purposes is increasing, as is demand for publicly-owned UAS for law enforcement operations. The FAA continues to take the preliminary steps towards introducing privatelyowned drones to American industry. Accordingly, the FAA’s 2013 report on drones not only encompasses the rules and regulations for government-owned drones in US airspace, but also those for privately-owned drones flying above. Additionally, drones are becoming cheaper, and therefore more accessible, further encouraging their appearance in domestic airspace. Thus, drones will unavoidably become a feature of American industry. State and federal legislature will have to dictate private drone usage as well as government drone usage. While Congress and the FAA continue to lean in the direction of the United States’ becoming an increasingly
drone-friendly nation, state legislation has restricted the abilities of government agencies from using drones in their operations. The drone issue is slowly becoming a divided one, split between the desires of the federal government and those of individual states. State Senator Donald McEachin of Virginia, a sponsor of the state’s drone moratorium, said, “No one [who] wrote the Fourth Amendment envisioned a drone parked over your backyard, able to sniff and look and send signals back to home base.” Though the federal government reserves the right to use drones to preserve homeland security, using the technology to spy on Americans at home is invasive and unwelcome, seeing as the states have passed legislation trying to prevent the usage of drones for that purpose. At the same time, Americans must accept that drones are becoming a staple in our domestic future, both in the private sector and in the federal government. HMR
“Americans must accept that drones are becoming a staple in our domestic future, both in the private sector and in the federal government.” December 2013
29
Features
STOP AN
Two Pers PRO: Laszlo Herwitz
E
ver since Rudy Giuliani was elected mayor in 1993, two major factors have defined the New York City Police Department (NYPD) - a stunning drop in crime and allegations of brutality and racism. Many argue that this tradition of brutality and racism continues to this day amongst the officers of the NYPD in the form of the much-maligned policy of stop and frisk. Stop and frisk, or stopquestion-and-frisk, as it is officially known, allows police offers to stop anyone on the street and frisk their person for concealed drugs or weapons. Critics of this policy point to the fact that most of the people who are stopped and frisked are minorities, namely those who are African-American or Hispanic. Despite these statistics, the truth is that stop and frisk is based not on race, but on statistics, and is grounded in strong legal precedent. This policy has proved to be an effective preventative measure in the battle to keep New York City safe. In 1994 Rudy Giuliani came into office presiding over a broken city with poor infrastructure and rampant crime. Time Square, now a glittering representation of the city’s culture, was considered a slum, avoided by all but drug addicts, rapists, and the criminally delinquent and insane. Giuliani’s police commissioner, William Bratton, realized that the NYPD was not taking an efficient approach to policing, so he instituted the comparative statistics program, known commonly as CompStat. CompStat established a system in which police presence was determined by analyzing
crime statistics in an attempt to target NYC’s worst hit neighborhoods. Compstat has been credited with bringing crime down by as much as 60%; in the first year of its implementation, the murder rate in NYC plunged precipitously. Stop and Frisk is essentially an extension of the CompStat program, relying on statistics to target certain areas, known as Impact Zones. To understand the implementation of stop and frisk it is important to recognize some major trends. First and foremost is the fact that, as numerous studies have confirmed, impoverished urban neighborhoods have higher crime rates than wealthy ones. A recent study conducted by the University of North Carolina concluded that their data thoroughly supported “the influence of structural disadvantage on violent crime.” This certainly holds true for the city of New York. For example the neighborhood of Harlem, which has one of the lowest mean incomes in the city, has tallied 80 rapes and 763 felony assaults in the last year alone according to NYPD CompStat data. Keeping these numbers in mind, it makes sense that the NYPD would choose to focus its limited resources and man power on policing these areas much more aggressively than they would in wealthier areas with much lower crime rates. Exploring this trend, WNYC recently published two interactive maps, one that color-coded New York’s neighborhoods by income according to Census data, and another that highlighted frequency of police stops by neighborhood. What can be seen
30
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
is that the areas whose median income is below $15,000 a year have a significantly higher number of stops than in areas whose residents make $100,000 to $200,000, which correlates with higher crime rates in these poorer areas. It would make no sense to use stop and frisk to as great an extent in areas with low rates of violent crime, especially involving firearms. According to WNYC’s maps the neighborhoods of Harlem, Washington Heights, and Bedford-Stuyvesant have the highest crime rates, lowest income levels, and highest rate of use of stop and frisk. These three neighborhoods also happen to have the highest percentages of minority residents in the entire city. It makes sense, therefore that minorities would be stopped more than whites simply because the high-risk neighborhoods in which stop and frisk is used have a majority of minority residents. In short, race is not a factor in the stops; it is an unfortunate, but statistically supported coincidence. CompStat’s, and by extent, stop and frisk’s, effectiveness lies in its targeted allocation of resources and man-power, not, as some insist, in an insidious attempt by the NYPD to target minorities. Since its inception, a number of lawsuits have been filed by various civil rights groups, such as the NYCLU, against stop and frisk. These groups contend that the police officers not only racially profile the people they stop, but that they also violate various laws, including the 4th amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits unreasonable searches
Features
ND FRISK
spectives and seizures. However, the practice of stop and frisk as it is implemented is in no way illegal; furthermore, it is supported by legal precedent at both the state and federal levels of the judicial system. The most prominent of these cases is the Supreme Court decision of Terry V. Ohio, in which the court held that, even if they lack the probable cause needed for an arrest, police officers may nonetheless forcibly stop and question a person in a public place as long as the officer possesses reasonable suspicion of impending criminal activity. The court also ruled that police may frisk individuals who they reasonably suspect to be “armed and presently dangerous.” Reasonable suspicion, as examined in a recent review of stop and frisk conducted by the NY State Bar Association, does include what the NYPD refers to as suspicious behavior or furtive movement. Many critics argue that these reasons are code words for a young, black, male individual; however, this race-baiting cannot hide the fact that it is fully within the rights of a police officer to stop and question an individual who they believe poses a threat. The police are relying on behavior and neighborhood as factors in determining who to stop and frisk, not, as some argue, solely on race. The only real legal irregularity in the NYPD’s conduct concerns its treatment of drugs during stops. Under New York State penal law, possession of concealed marijuana amounts to only a violation, which is defined under NY penal law as, “an offense, other than
www.nydailynews.com www.huffingtonpost.com www.mintpressnews.com
a ‘traffic infraction,’ for which a sentence to a term of imprisonment in excess of fifteen days cannot be imposed.” However, when conducting stops, officers would often ask individuals whether or not they were carrying any drugs. When the response was the affirmative, officers would sometimes demand that the individuals empty their pockets. When this occurred, the marijuana would be in public view, which is not a violation, but a class B misdemeanor. This practice has been used as an example of the NYPD’s so called attempts to find excuses to arrest people, especially those of minority backgrounds. The NYPD has since recognized the illegality of this practice and has taken steps to fix it. In September of 2011 Commissioner Ray Kelly issued an Operations Order which stated that “an individual who is requested to or compelled to engage in the behavior that results in the public display of marihuana” be charged with a violation, and that officers “may not charge the individual with [misdemeanor possession] under those circumstances.” This modification of policy is indicative of the NYPD’s understanding of stop and frisk as a sensitive issue and a work in progress. When taking into account this chance of course, it is impossible not to come to the conclusion that stop and frisk is a monitored and legal manifestation of the NYPD’s duty to serve and protect New York City and all of its inhabitants. When the issue of stop and frisk comes up, many people are quick to argue that propo-
December 2013
nents of the practice, such as myself, are racist ignoramuses who have no right to support a policy, which does not affect them. These individuals fail to understand that, by that logic, they themselves should not be decrying a policy which they have not experienced. As for the people who have been subjects of the NYPD’s stop and frisk policy, it is understandable that they would feel a certain amount of anger. Unfortunately, policing policies will always offend some people who are directly affected by them. This anger is the price that a city must pay for its longer-term security. The fact of the matter is that it is important to voice one’s opinion regardless of whether or not one possesses first hand knowledge and experience of an issue. This country would be a much different place if we focused on only the issues that affect us immediately. Part of the reason why we are considered to be “exceptional” by many is our ability to understand complex situations, such as stop and frisk, and to form our own well-researched opinions on the issue. The policy of stop and frisk, in this day and age, is shrouded in a veil of racial controversy. Many people who would otherwise support the law are fearful of voicing their opinion because they do not want to be labeled as racists. It is ironic that opponents of stop and frisk, who are eager to fight to protect what they see to be their 4th Amendment rights, are all too eager to quash the 1st Amendment rights of others in the process. HMR
31
Features
CON: Ray Fishman
T
hose targeted by the New York City Police Department ’s controversial Stop and Frisk program may finally be able to rejoice, as Shira Scheindlin, a federal judge, deemed Stop and Frisk unconstitutional, finding it as a breach of the Fourth Amendment, which bars unreasonable searches. For far too long, Stop and Frisk has divided the more than 8 million residents of New York City about whether the program is just, yet the facts remain clear. Stop and Frisk has violated the constitution, unjustifiably targeted Latinos and Blacks, lead to few arrests upon searches, as well as turned the trust that citizens once bestowed upon law enforcement into dread and fear. And despite proponents of Stop and Frisk stating that it is the reason that crime has been lowered in New York City, this correlation has never been proven. While perhaps not originally created with the intention of racial profiling, Stop and Frisk from the time of its commencement has been extraordinarily racist, as the program has targeted a mind-bogglingly disproportionate amount of latinos and blacks. According the 2010 Census of New
York City, the population divided amongst races was 23.4 percent black, 47.3 percent white, Asian, and Native American, and 29.3 percent latino. However, the percentage of stop-and-frisks when divided amongst the races shows a stark contrast: 53 percent of all stop-and-frisks performed were done to those who were black, while 33.7 percent were done to those who are latino. Whites, Asians, and Native Americans only accounted for 13.3 percent of the city’s stop-and-frisk victims. Even more shocking is that in the demographic of “Young Black Men,” whose population is 158,406 in New York City, there were 168,126 Stop and Frisks, making them the only sector of race which has more Stop and Frisks than population members. The New York Times reported another astonishing figure in July of 2010, stating that in Brownsville, Brooklyn, 93 percent of the population had been stopped and frisked. Not surprisingly, almost 77 percent of the population in Brownsville is black. While many advocates of Stop and Frisk have claimed that minorities are more likely to commit violent crimes, thus leading to the fact that are disproportionally target-
www.huffingtonpost.com
www.metro.usw
32
ed, only 10.5% of police officers cited “violent criminal activity” as the reason for performing their Stop and Frisks. Just over 51% of police officers did, however, report “furtive movements” as their motivation, meaning that they used their own discretion in deciding which actions qualified as justifiable for a search. This discretion came under criticism, seeing that officers were performing Stop and Frisks based on a person’s clothing or appearance. Another interesting iota of evidence that counters discriminatory claims against blacks and latinos is the amount of guns the police reported finding in their stop-and-frisks. Whites were actually more than twice as likely to be found with a gun during stopand-frisks than were blacks and latinos (Huffington Post). Clearly, the amount of stop-and-frisking disproportionally targets minorities. Additionally, officers were more likely to use force in Stop and Frisks that involved minorities. Twenty-two and a half percent of Stop and Frisks involving either Blacks or Latinos resulted in force being used, while this was only true in 15.8 percent of Whites who were Stopped and Frisked. The entirety of these pieces of ev-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Features
idence proves that Stop and Frisk is an incredibly discriminatory program. Contrary to popular belief, the Stop and Frisk program has resulted in relatively few arrests. Last year, fewer than 6% of all Stop and Frisks lead to arrests, despite its attention from The New York Police Department and the media. While this is a relatively low number, many in favor of Stop and Frisk, including Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly, have claimed that this still reduces violent crime, particularly since the number of murders in New York City has dropped in recent years. However, the number of killings in New York has been declining since the 1980s, far before the Stop and Frisk era. For example, in 2002, there were roughly 100,000 Stop and Frisks and 587 homicides. In 2011, there were close to 700,000 Stop and Frisks and 515 homicides. The proximity of the number of homicides in these years is not large enough to suggest an increasing number of Stop and Frisks is the reason that the murder rate slightly decreased, especially considering that all murders are not reported, according to the Huffington Post.
In 2012, a decrease in the murder rate over the first quarter of the year was suggested by the New York Police Department as a result in the increased number of Stop and Frisks. However, in 13 precincts in which the murder rate has risen, 6 precincts experienced greater amounts of Stop and Frisk, which would suggest the more Stop and Frisk does not lead to fewer crimes. Chris Dunn, a spokesman for the New York Civil Liberties Union suggests that there is no correlation between the murder rate and Stop and Frisk, saying “Murders have dropped steadily since 1990.” Stop and Frisk has also severed the trust between some citizens (specifically minorities) and New York City’s police force. Some citizens feel that instead of being protected against crime, they are now targets for unfair discrimination. The statistics will also suggest that this is true, as minorities have continued to be disproportionally targeted during the Stop and Frisk era. This severed sense of trust could potentially affect the ability of policemen to ensure the safety of New York City as a whole, as well as draw criticism and shed a negative light to the policemen who are
carrying out their duties with integrity and in a non-discriminatory fashion. There is also a discussion about whether or not Stop and Frisks is a breach of the United States Constitution, specifically the 4th and 14th Amendments. The 4th Amendment to the Constitution bands unreasonable searches, and in order to conduct a search, the authoritative figure generally must have a judge issue a warrant. Stop and Frisk goes directly against this, as it allows a policeman to determine what he or she qualifies as reasonable to carry out a search on an individual. The 14th Amendment also provides equal rights for all citizens regardless of race. Thus far, Stop and Frisk has breached this right, seeing that minorities have been disproportionally targeted. Due to Stop and Frisk’s discriminatory nature, its general failure, the trust it has severed with New York City civilians, and its lack of Constitutionality, New York City has finally decided to put an end to the horrors that its Stop and Frisk program has engendered. Perhaps only through trial and error may the best result be revealed, and hopefully the non-Stop and Frisk era of New York City is here to stay. HMR
orlandocamargo.com
December 2013
33
Features
The NYPD: New Tactics, Safe Streets William Scherr
T
he New York Police Department has been employing fewer people into their force year after year. There were 37,000 police officers in the force in 2002, when Michael Bloomberg first took office as mayor, but now towards the end of his tenure as mayor, there are only 35,500 officers left. However, the police force would still be greater than half of the armies in the world. Even though the number of officers has declined over the years, crime in New York City has also decreased. Since Bloomberg took office, the number of murders has dropped from 909 to 684 per year, even as the population continues to rise. Rape, assault, robbery, and all other major crime indexes have also dropped a significant amount, as well, even with the decline in officers. All of this is due to the amount of focus on reducing crime at the local level. The most important statistic may be the fact that there has been zero successful terror attacks since 9/11. There
have been thirteen plots against the city that have been thwarted, and some very close calls, but none have succeeded or have damaged our city. This is because of the equal amount of attention dedicated to counterterrorism. The city’s safety is testimony not to its number of officers, but police tactics and investments made by New York towards the city’s security. Police commissioner Ray Kelly has invested 3 billion dollars in protecting the city, in order to prevent another 9/11-style attack again. Of the city’s police force, 1000 officers are assigned to counterterrorism. They are divided into a naval force, an air force, and a ground level force to practically seal off the city from any terrorists. This has made New York virtually impossible for a terrorist to successfully pull off another attack on. To help ensure that no terrorist or nuclear weapon passes through this wall of police, every boat, helicopter, and patrol officer is equipped
34
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
with a radiation detector that can pick up the slightest bit of radiation. Additionally, there are around 3000 cameras that watch over the city, making it virtually impossible to go unnoticed by the police in a city of 9 million. By having the counterterrorism force surrounding the city, the terror threats may never decrease completely, but the plausibility of their success will decrease as the city becomes harder to penetrate. In efforts to reduce any chance of a so-called “copy cat” style of terrorist attack that occurs in other countries, the police force has their own intelligence officers in several cities and countries around the world. The intelligence officers report back directly what they hear to the headquarters, and this method has already been proven effective. These officers record attacks that happen in the countries where they are stationed and report what the terrorists did to set off the attack. For example in 2004, terrorists launched an
Features attack on the metro system. The intelligence officers of the NYPD were able to figure that the terrorists assembled the bomb near the station before the media and the rest of world knew of that same information. From there, they notified the headquarters, and the areas around the train stations in New York City were filled with officers trying to prevent any chance of a terrorist creating and planting a bomb on the subway. The NYPD also fights terrorism and other criminal activity on a local level. The PAL or the Police Athletic League, in the past was centered on sports such as basketball, however; now the main sport of the league has shifted towards cricket, the most popular sport amongst Pakistani people. This is an effort to build trust within the Pakistani and other middle and near eastern communities within the city. Every weekend for a certain number of hours, these kids are surrounded by positive influences, changing the negative views that they may have had or cementing the positive views that they already had. The idea behind PAL is that the police would have a greater influence on the children than the criminals would, while at the same time, the police would gain intelligence from the communities that they are in, by picking up the little details mentioned in conversation with member of these communities, as well as noticing certain behavioral patterns. The Police Athletic League provides a more moral and ethical way that the police conduct their counterterrorism that only someone like Ray Kelly could have put into place.. Instead of the conventional way of drones, and an obscene and threatening amount of officers in the streets, this is a more under the radar operation to fight terrorism. As for the conventional way of fighting terror, the police department takes it to unprecedented levels. An effective tactic that Kelly has also used to combat crime is to swarm an area with police at any given moment—at complete randomness. At certain time in the day, thirty to fifty police units will swarm a neighborhood, sounding the sirens and flashing their lights. This method achieves two things at once. The first being that this method stops any crime that is about to or would currently be taking place. The second, which is consequential to the first, would be that this prevents further illegal activities in crime-ridden areas. People, after seeing the swarm of police in their so
called safe haven, would be forced to move locations or even stop the illegal activity all together in fear that the police would strike at any moment. What Ray Kelly has done so well with the 3 billion dollars was that he was able to strike a balance. He has been able to strike a balance between predictable and unpredictable, as well as a balance between local and the greater New York City. Ray Kelly has spent a large portion of his money on the predictable way to fight crime. Having men and women in uniform regularly patrolling the streets is a good way to fight crime, as the presence of having police officers surround the city creates a very threatening and challenging atmosphere for any terrorist or criminal to conduct whatever activity they please and helps stop crime while it is happening or as it is about to happen. However, in terms of unpredictable ways to fight crime, Kelly has created the swarming tactic. This tactic keeps the criminals on edge and makes life challenging for criminals. On a local level, methods to fight crime such as the
PAL are cost efficient, but at the same time enriches and wins over a community. On a greater New York level, television ads, promoting the slogan, “If you see something, say something,” calls on all New Yorkers to do their part in helping keep New York City safe. The 3 billion dollars that Ray Kelly has spent on keeping America’s most important city safe is worth it. However outrageous or unnecessary a three billion dollar police budget may sound, Ray Kelly has used all of it wisely and effectively. The effectiveness of all branches of government today has been called into question because of the lack of a budget and wild spending. Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department should be used as a model of how a government service should function. Even though three billion dollars is a lot to spend on a police force, we have not had another 9/11, and life after 9/11 has cost this country way more than just three billion dollars. HMR
“Ray Kelly and the New York Police Department should be used as a model of how a government service should function.”
politicker.com
December 2013
35
Economics
The Ailing US Dollar A Study of the Falling Value of the USD and its Effects Worldwide
Spencer Slagowitz
T
he United States Dollar has held the position of the world’s reserve currency since the implementation of the Bretton-Woods System of monetary management after the second world war. In this way, the United States has essentially maintained a system of dollar hegemony worldwide. Two-thirds of the world’s foreign currency reserves are currently held in dollars, and nearly half of international foreign debt securities are held in dollar-denominated assets. As the world’s primary reserve currency, the United States dollar brings the U.S. numerous economic benefits as well as the ability to influence international financial markets. However, the dollar’s status as a reserve currency is being slowly and systematically diminished. In order to maintain dollar hegemony and economic stability, our nation’s policymakers must take concrete and substantive action. The “economic order” which governs the growth and development of the United States’ economy must ultimately change to reflect the ever-changing international economy.
36
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Economics Countries all over the world hold financial reserves in the form of bonds or money mark instruments denominated in some other currency. Nations also hold gold and Special Drawing Rights issued by the International Monetary Fund. If a country is in a poor financial state, international speculators might sell their own holdings of the country’s currency. This will depress the value of a country’s currency and will result in negative economic impacts. If a country has foreign reserves, it could buy its own currency and sell its foreign currencies to pay for purchases. A currency, which is backed by substantial reserves, is stable and secure. For this reason, most countries are heavily invested in foreign exchange reserves. The U.S dollar is the most common currency for international reserve because the market for dollar-denominated securities is deep and liquid. Treasury securities can be sold quickly, which would help a foreign nation avert disaster. In addition, a substantial amount can be sold or bought without drastically affecting the price. Furthermore, dollar denominated assets are unlikely to lose value to a great extent. However, if our country defaulted on its debt, or its credit were further downgraded, the price of U.S Treasury securities would decrease. If that were to occur, countries would prefer to hold their reserves in another asset. In order to understand why maintaining dollar hegemony is so important, one must first recognize the benefits the United States reaps from the practice.
The dollar’s status as the world reserve currency triggers substantial demand for our securities. For example, foreign countries collectively own about thirty percent of U.S. debt. Without this demand for U.S. treasury bonds, the interest rate the U.S. Treasury pays would be significantly higher. This would cause private-sector borrowing costs to rise as consumer and corporate debt compete with public debt for investors’ holdings. The dollar’s status keeps U.S. interests rates low. Interest rates can be considered the “price” of money. It is the price a borrower pays for the use of loaned money. The rate is represented as a percentage of the principle amount of money borrowed. If interest rates are high, borrowing money would be expensive, and individuals are discouraged from lending money. However, if interests rates are low, individuals are encouraged to lend and borrow money. By keeping interests rates low, the dollar’s status as the world’s reserve currency ultimately promotes growth and financial security within the United States. If the Dollar were to lose this status, there would be massive inflation, higher interest rates, and substantial increases in the cost of food and gasoline. Also, it would become much more difficult for the United States to finance its debt. Despite the fact that the greenback has long been considered a stable and secure currency, it has become ever more apparent to economists worldwide that the dollar’s domination of international currency reserves is coming to a con-
December 2013
clusion. This is representative of and a result of an international rejection of United States’ economic policies, which are based on the philosophy of market fundamentalism, the idea that free markets naturally provide the most efficient outcomes. This economic philosophy was popularized during the Clinton administration when policymakers dismantled Depression-era financial constraints. However, foreign interpretations, like that of Beijing, find that this new policy created a “Washington-Wall Street” environment of unsupervised securitization in which the U.S. financial sector became larger, more concentrated, and riskier. From 1980 to 2002, U.S. manufacturing fell from 21 percent of the GDP to 14 percent, but finance (the biggest and fastest growing sector of the economy) increased its share of the GDP from 14 percent to 21 percent. It is this risky and unconstrained growth that foreign nations believe will continue to undermine the security of dollar denominated assets. However, certain economists and politicians have claimed that a different macroeconomic factor is responsible for the decline in the dollar’s power. They find that the Fed’s policy of Quantitative Easing artificially cheapens the dollar, and reduces its purchasing power. This view centers around one basic belief: that foreign countries are using other currencies because of this reduction of power. However, foreign nations have repeatedly stressed that the reason for utilizing alternate reserve currencies is due to their mistrust of American monetary policy and
37
Economics
The Bretton Woods Estate: At the end of World War II, the conference that took place from July 1-22, 1944 established the economic system that would allow for stability and in fact, rapid growth of many Western economies after the devestation of the war with institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
their doubt concerning the stability of the dollar. The diminution of the dollar’s power is caused not by QE’s reduction of the dollar’s purchasing power, but by the fear that U.S. monetary policy will lead to of financial instability. Evidence of the decline of the U.S dollar’s power is as follows: China and Japan have struck a deal that will promote the use of their own currencies (rather than the U.S. dollar) when trading with one another. Additionally, according to The Economist, “The five major emerging economies of BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — are set to inject greater economic momentum into their grouping by signing two pacts for promoting intra-BRICS trade, which will enable credit facility in local currency for businesses from BRICS countries.” The BRICS countries will thus shift from utilizing dollars in trade to using their own local currencies. Thirdly, China and Russia already use their own currencies in their trade with one another. Furthermore, the United Nations and the IMF continue to push for a new reserve currency. A UN report stated that, “the international community envisions a new global reserve system…that no longer relies on the United States dollar as the single major reserve currency.” U.S power is facing new mac-
roeconomic constraints that derive from a basic and generally underappreciated shift in U.S. engagement with the global macroeconomic order. Foreign nations are simply losing faith in the greenback. Yet their belief in the dollar’s instability is exactly what will lead to the diminution of the dollar’s influence. States will start to have divergent preferences about the global financial order, which will reduce U.S. leverage, making cooperation on issues such as governance of money and finance more difficult. In particular, many states will search for ways to insulate themselves in order to avoid the dangers of unmediated global finance. It is the responsibility of United States politicians, economists, and Federal Reserve leaders to craft international and domestic economic policies, which will reaffirm the credibility of the dollar as a stable and effective reserve currency. The Fed must first gradually phase out its current policy of Quantitative Easing. Quantitative Easing seeks to keep interest rates low by having the Fed change the composition and sometimes the size of its balance sheet. Renowned economist Paul Krugman explains: “To think of Fed policy in our current situation, once can imagine a financial equilibrium in which there
38
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
are three assets: short-term Treasuries/ monetary bases — which are equivalent and yield an interest rate of approximately 0%; long-term Treasuries; and mortgage-backed securities. There are two interest rates that clear the markets — the rates on Treasuries and MBS (the third rate is fixed at zero).” In this situation, to boost the economy the Fed must reduce private-sector borrowing rates by swapping short-term assets for MBS (Mortgage-Backed Securities). However, the Fed currently has been buying longterm treasuries. This should theoretically indirectly reduce interest rates on MBS; however, in practice this reduction is inadequate and fails to function effectively as a policy. The Fed should phase out this policy of purchasing long-term treasuries until their purchase is minimal. The Fed should then, in addition, engage in the swap of short-term assets for Mortgaged-Backed Securities, but to a slightly lesser extent in comparison with how current policy is functioning. In this way the Fed will be able to have a method to effectively stabilize the economy and the dollar with minimal negative impact. Extensive research has conclusively shown that these policy changes will be dramatically more effective and stable than the current policies in place.
Economics The Fed should also consider the consistent use of forward guidance, in which the Federal Open Market Committee influences business and investor views as to where monetary policy in general, and the Federal funds rate in particular, is likely headed. This affects longer-term interest rates, as investors adjust their views on future short-term rates. The FOMC experimented with forward guidance in the past—in 2003 and 2004—and made a renewed effort in December 2008, when the FOMC stated that it expected to keep the funds rate low “for some time.” This qualitative forward guidance succeeded in influencing the public’s expectations of future policy. These projections improve public understanding of Fed thinking. In addition to helping people better predict how the Fed reacts to changes in economic conditions, establishing this range of projections reinforces that the future path of policy is determined not by a preset course, but by how economic events unfold. This helps reduce the uncertainty and confusion historically seen as a result of public misperceptions of Federal Reserve monetary policy. The Fed should endorse providing an economic basis for forward guidance, which would result in greater public understanding of Federal Reserve policy and the reasons behind those policy decisions. This, in turn, should reduce households’ and businesses’ uncertainty and help them to make better borrowing and investment decisions, ultimately rendering monetary policy more effective. A more effective monetary policy will certainly yield a more stable dollar. These suggestions, however, only represent a small percentage of the number of possible effective policy changes that could stabilize the dollar and maintain its hegemony. As the world’s reserve currency, the dollar “gives” the United States numerous economic benefits. However, widespread doubt and mistrust concerning the stability of United States monetary policy actively threatens the dollar’s status. If the dollar loses its position as world reserve currency, the U.S. economy will surely suffer and interest rates will rise. Therefore, the Fed must enact common sense policy changes, which will ensure the stability of the dollar and its position as world reserve currency. HMR
“It is the responsibility of United States politicians, economists, and Federal Reserve leaders to craft international and domestic economic policies, which will reaffirm the credibility of the dollar as a stable and effective reserve currency.”
December 2013
39
Economics
THREE BILLION DOLLARS... IS IT ENOUGH? WHY SNAPCHAT TURNED DOWN FACEBOOK’S OFFER
Vaed Prasad
S
napchat recently declined social media giant Facebook’s offer of 3 billion dollars to buy it out. There has been significant debate about the astuteness of this move on the part of Evan Spiegel, age 23, founder of Snapchat. Launched in 2004 by Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook is undoubtedly the number one social media site with over one billion users. It provides a great platform for individuals to stay connected with friends and family. Moreover, it’s cool, it’s popular, and everyone’s friends are on it. The popularity of Facebook with the younger generation is well established. According to Businessinsider. com, 83% of 18 to 29 year-olds in the U.S. who use the Internet are on Facebook. In the Horace Mann Class of 2017 alone, a whopping 153 students of 183 have Facebook accounts.
Even with these impressive statistics, Facebook recently announced that it is losing teenage users. Although back in July, Mark Zuckerberg stated that it was “simply not true” that Facebook was losing its grip on teenagers, during the company’s third-quarter earnings call, he regretted having made that statement. During the call, David Ebersman, Facebook’s chief financial officer, disclosed the truth about Facebook’s challenge. “Our best analysis of youth engagement in the U.S. reveals that usage of Facebook among U.S. teens overall was stable,” David said. However, he added, “we did see a decrease in daily users specifically among younger teens.” Facebook’s disclosure of the reduced daily teenage usage leads to the real questions: Is Facebook still “cool” to teenagers? And, does it fully meet teenagers’ social media
40
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
needs? Just a year ago, 42% of teens surveyed told pollsters that they preferred Facebook to all other comparable services. By spring, that number had fallen to 33%, and it now stands at 23%! Back when Facebook was founded, it was unique and was the best available way to stay connected with friends and family via the Internet. However, there has been a proliferation of new social media options available to individuals in recent years. New outlets such as Twitter, Instagram, Vine, Tumblr, and Snapchat pose real threats to Facebook. This is the reason why Facebook acquired Instagram for $ 1 billion and made an aggressive $3 billion offer in early November to buy Snapchat. Snapchat offers a very simple way for its users to send pictures and videos to their friends and have them automat-
Economics ically delete forever after 10 seconds of viewing them. For teenagers, Snapchat provides an entertaining and low risk form of social media, given that all pictures and videos sent are automatically deleted. This allows Snapchat users to be far more casual and not think twice about the content they are sending because in less than 10 seconds, the picture will be gone. This “ten second rule” is very appealing to teenagers as privacy is a very important aspect in their social media lives. Snapchat is also far more engaging than other options, as one is always directly in conversation and is interacting with his or her friends rather than having a news feed of photos of friends and family that hold little relevance to them. These teenagers also do not have to worry about the audience of their posts because the photos are only sent to people they choose instead of every person they know. This eliminates the risk of “unwanted people” like family, school faculty, or strangers viewing the post. As a result of these features, Snapchat allows for more relaxed and casual conversations among friends, something that the average overstressed teenager desires and that Facebook does not sufficiently offer. The reason behind Facebook’s offer is clear. Snapchat provides many benefits that appeal to teenagers that Facebook does not offer. Facebook wants to reverse the ominous trend of losing teenage engagement and re-establish its influence in the social media world. However, we must return to the main question – Was it a smart move by Snapchat to decline Facebook’s $3 Billion offer? Snapchat is only a two-year-old company, but it has experienced tremendous success in a small time period. 18.6% percent of all iPhone owners in the United States use Snapchat as of June 2013, and that number has been rising ever since. This has made Snapchat the ninth most popular iPhone app in terms of usage. Twitter, in comparison, is used by 26.7% of iPhone users. When analyzing this offer, one should note that Snapchat has yet to generate revenue. However, this is not surprising given the short amount of time Snapchat has been in use. Remember, it took Google, Facebook and Twitter time to build their user base and monetize on advertising op-
Snapchat now controls 49 percent of daily online photo uploads
portunities. Snapchat’s focus, rightfully so, has been on building the user base so far. Once they have a core user base established, they have significant potential to generate revenue from advertising. Snapchat will have the unique ability to target teenagers with advertising from companies like Nike and Red Bull that also want loyal teenage followers. With a community of nearly 40 million active Snapchat users, this can be an extremely profitable business. Another way to look at the valuation of Snapchat is based on its share of the combined top four online photo-shar-
biintelligence.com
ing networks: Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, and Flickr. Snapchat has the highest share (tied with Facebook) with 49%! This is seven-times greater than Instagram which is at 7%. Facebook acquired Instagram in 2012 for $1 Billion, and based on simple math, Snapchat should be valued at $7 Billion given it has seven times more of the total share. In fact, one can argue that, since owning Snapchat (in addition to Instagram) will give Facebook a 99% share of the online photo-sharing network, the valuation should be even higher. HMR
“WITH A COMMUNITY OF NEARLY 40 MILLION ACTIVE SNAPCHAT USERS, ADVERTISING CAN BE AN EXTREMELY PROFITABLE BUSINESS”
December 2013
41
Economics
Family Comes First Ikaasa Suri
E
veryone has flirted with the idea of nepotism. Major corporations and small businesses alike constantly hint at the idea of reward through favoritism, nudge their prized employees lightly, or give those subtle winks of the eye that come with the inevitable, “since you’re related to me, you’re hired.” Unfortunately, some companies are better than others when it comes to disguising these questionable, at times illegal, acts. Already under scrutiny, grappling with legal and regulatory woes resulting from multibillion-dollar settlements, the once favored JPMorgan Chase Bank now faces a broadening federal investigation regarding its hiring practices. With the fledgling case now expanding past national borders, the Securities and Ex-
change Commission (SEC), along with the Justice Department, is looking into the bank’s business relationships with certain clients in the Pacific region hired supposedly to win lucrative business there. Focusing originally on China and the bank’s injection of $394 million into that region’s unit, inspection has now migrated into the Asian continent, crossing borders of nations including South Korea, Singapore, and India. This global focus signals a fresh challenge for the bank and an escalation of inquiries into the bank’s legitimacy. The case surfaced when the SEC’s anti-bribery unit began an investigation into JPMorgan Chase’s hiring of the sons and daughters of China’s elite. The questionable, although not completely illegal,
42
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
direction the bank took was part of a broader strategy aimed at accumulating influence internationally. With a particular focus on China, one of the strongest, most rapidly developing nations on the planet, JPMorgan has begun putting the nation’s ruling elite on payroll. In 2011, JPMorgan hired the daughter of a Chinese railway official as a way to gain insight and influence into a major industry of the Asian nation. Such tactful hiring has repeatedly occurred throughout the history of the corporation. The son of Tang Shuangning, a former Chinese banking regulator, for example, was hired by the bank in 2007. While arguably a person with more experience in the banking industry, it was really the father of Shuangning whom JPMorgan
Economics viewed as significant. One case that attracted a substantial porttion of the media’s attention is the case of Wen Ruchan, the daughter of Wen Jiabo, the prime minister of China, who was already in office at the time of her employment. There would have been nothing illegal about the situation had the bank not intentionally hired Ruchan under the misleading alias of Lily Chang, implying JPMorgan indeed had something to hide. The majority of the current investigation hinges on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, a 1977 federal law that effectively bars American companies from buying off foreign officials. Although the link has not been established between these corrupt practices and JPMorgan, employees of the bank have pinpointed the advantages of hiring such officials’ children. For example, hiring government officials’ family members would steer business towards the firm and further increase the revenue of the bank. At a time when the American economy is stifled and our nation’s officials do not provide enough support and influence for the major corporation, the bank has begun looking across borders for cheaper, more effective solutions to the issue. Like any other powerhouse corporation, JPMorgan Chase wants to get ahead in both its financial and political spheres, and hiring particular individuals has proven to be efficient in doing so. Can anyone blame the bank for wanting to succeed? The federal government especially should understand these motivations. Thus far no one has gotten hurt under such cases, the main reason for the implementation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. If no one is losing, and both the employees being hired and the bank itself are benefitting, why go through all means to stop this? The problem with all this scrutiny, all these investigations, is that Wall Street firms have long enlisted people whose pedigrees and connections can win business, a practice that does not necessarily violate the law. Former US prosecutor and SEC lawyer, Dan Hurson, explains that officials are searching for evidence displaying “these weren’t real jobs, that they were only there because their father or mother were important public officials.” Thus far, the bank has been fully cooperative with the investigation and the government has not officially accused JPMorgan or its executives
of wrongdoing in connection with these accusations. Every case of employment has proven to be substantiated by a legitimate job, backed by professional proof, and not, as the investigators have accused, fictitious jobs forged by the bank in order to maintain influence or receive special attention. JPMorgan has been in the Asia-Pacific region for over a century and has a presence in sixteen nations
pansion. Our federal investigative bodies need to stop picking on our nation’s strongest companies just because they happen to be going through rough public and economic spots. A federal investigation, which has been in place for over a year now without any conclusive proof of misconduct, should not be used as an excuse to continue digging. While illegal practices are something of concern for
including Australia, Japan, Thailand, and Bangladesh, so why is the bank only now coming into question? While no one is completely innocent, with the SEC and Justice Department’s over-bearing presence and scrutiny, and JPMorgan in the midst of several legal complications, the bank has justifiable reasons for hiring across borders. Globalization is now so inbuilt into American capital culture that our nation and its most successful corporations could not imagine existence without it. What seems to scare people the most out of all of this, surprisingly enough, is not these questionable acts supposedly committed by JPMorgan Chase, but rather our nation’s and in particular, our government’s, increasing fear of foreign ex-
multinational companies and something the nation should address, this country’s strongest corporation need not be attacked because of speculation. If indeed the bank is guilty of punishable acts, the SEC and Justice Department need to expedite their inspection process and turn their circumstantial evidence into factual proof. Simple confirmation of rapid development and hiring of Asian employees is not going to be enough to corroborate such extreme accusations. As for JPMorgan, the famed bank behind all this madness, if you are going to conduct some shady, under-the-table business, do it elegantly. HMR
December 2013
43
Economics
WATCH WHAT YOU BUY
HOW THE AVERAGE AMERICAN CITIZEN FUELS HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSE Cassandra Kopans-Johnson
44
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
A
s our consumer appetites increase, we must stop and consider how the objects we purchase are manufactured. The economy, a labyrinth of layers, contains implications that the average person may not be aware of. The multiple layers separating the raw materials from the final product mask such implications. When children play with stuffed animals, they do not see an assembly line of workers stuffing a limp pile of fabric. Instead, they see plush toys. People rarely question the steps taken to reach and produce the final objects that they purchase. The disparity between the raw materials needed to manufacture goods and the finished goods is evident in the diamond industry. Diamonds with their strength and usefulness in thermal conductivity, transparency, and other surface properties are powerful tools that aid in the manufacturing process of everyday objects such as the concrete in New York City streets, eyeglasses, computer chips in laptops, and other technological devices. Such technology advances on a daily bases and is becoming more readily available to the public. Apple claimed that it sold nine million iPhone 5s’s and iPhone 5c’s three days after their releases. With such high consumer rates, the demand for diamonds increases. In order to obtain diamonds, workers must extract them from mines. The work environments at such mines, especially in Africa, can be abusive. In 2004, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs and the United Nations Children’s Fund visited Tiunguilla in the Democratic Republic of Congo and the Cuango-Cafunfu-Luremo road in Lunda Norte, Angola to observe the conditions in the diamond minds firsthand. Angola was engaging in illegal trafficking of Congolese laborers and confessed to have deported 53,000 illegal diamond miners through the region. Angolan army trucks transported the workers as far as Luremo. At Luremo people were violently searched for valuables in degrading ways that invaded personal privacy. Then the laborers were expected to walk forty miles to Tungui with little or no food and water. Along the journey, many workers were kept in holding-areas without basic necessities such as water, food, shelter and sanitation. Medical services were only given to the very sick. Once the exhausted workers reached the mines, they were forced to work long hours with little pay. This same process occurs all around the world. Although treat-
Economics ment of workers varies, inhuman treatment is still a prevalent problem in the diamond industry and is supported by our consumption of products that involve the use of diamonds in their creation processes. Other industries and companies also engage in human trafficking and abusive treatment of workers. Recent findings of such engagement involve Hanes, Wal-Mart, J.C. Penney, and Puma. In the past decade, they have all been accused by the National Labor Committee for employing children in the Harvest Rich factory in Bangladesh. The children have described being regularly slapped and beaten, forced to work twelve to fourteen hours a day, and receiving payment as low as 6 ½ cents an hour. Although there have been efforts to prevent further human trafficking within some of these companies through increasing transparency and the implementation of regulations, human trafficking and the abuse of employees continues to plague our economy. Even our love for seafood, such as shrimp, contributes to human trafficking. Originally, most shrimp consumed in the U.S. was caught in Louisiana. According to the USDA, Thailand is now the leading country of origin, and the United States is Thailand’s largest export market. In recent years, workers have lead strikes against Thai seafood processing factories due to abusive treatment and poor pay. Workers were given minimal breaks if any and not enough pay for sufficient food
December 2013
and were not registered in Thailand’s social security system to receive health care despite legislation requiring enrollment. Workers had lost their right to movement because supervisors confiscated their official documents including passports, permits, and health cards. Such treatment of workers as outlined in the above paragraphs robs people of their human rights. These companies and industries violate their worker’s right to liberty and security, their right to not be submitted to slavery, servitude, forced labor, or bonded labor, their right not to be subjected to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, their right to freedom of movement, their right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, and the list goes on. Although we, the general public, are sheltered from the knowledge of such treatment, we are deeply involved with it. Thus, we must make conscious choices and be aware of not only the physical object that we are buying but also of the work that went into its creation. This way, we can be more mindful of the layers of the economy and begin to unravel the economy’s labyrinth in which we are all interconnected. HMR
45
Economics
PERILS OF THE FARM BILL Daniel Jin
A
s the sequester loomed in Washington, Congress debated immense cuts to food stamps in the 2013 Farm Bill. But the focus on food stamps has diverted attention from agricultural subsidies – arguably a more important issue. Current subsidy programs are indisputably flawed – most of the money is paid to large agribusinesses, farmers receive insurance and disaster payments even when they experience little to no loss, and developing countries’ farmers are forced out of business by export subsidies. To make matters worse, funding for subsidies, which cost more
46
than $20 billion per year, comes from American taxpayers. This year’s farm bill provided a glistening opportunity to cut subsidies, but was passed up by Congress. While Congress did eliminate direct payments, a new program – the Supplemental Coverage Option – is even more expensive. Not only are the current subsidy programs harmful, subsidies in general have a negative effect on most industries. The government should look to the simple solution – the free market, and let farmers find new and better ways to farm. All subsidies should have been eliminated in this year’s bill.
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Economics Crop insurance is the most expensive subsidy program, costing the government a hefty $17 billion in 2012. These programs pay farmers for the risks of weather and other “uncontrollable” factors. Still, federal disaster aid also pays farmers for the same problems. Thus, farmers receive two separate payments by the government – one from the insurance program and one from disaster payments. These programs are remarkably prone to corruption. Claims of disaster do not require proof, leading to many cases in which farmers received payments without actually experiencing losses. When Texas declared a disaster because of a storm two years earlier and the Columbia explosion, although it is unclear how these events harmed farmers. 53 of 72 counties in Wisconsin received payments for a similar incident, provoking some farmers to call disaster aid a “waste of money.” The Government Accountability Office finds that improper payments total $500 million a year. Instead of protecting farmers, crop insurance essentially hands out money to farmers who are doing perfectly fine. Henry Waxman, the chairman of the House of Oversight and Government Reform Committee, calls crop insurance “a textbook example of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending.” Additionally, the current system of crop insurance includes 16 private companies designated by the government to sell insurance plans. Although insurance payments come from the government, these companies profit from charging unreasonably high prices for their plans. As the government pays for two-thirds of farmers’ insurance costs, it is paying these
companies large amounts of taxpayer money just to act as intermediaries. “Over 8 billion in taxpayer funds have been squandered in excess payments to insurers and other middlemen,” Waxman says. Getting rid of federal crop insurance and disaster aid will prevent bogus “disaster” claims and save taxpayer money paid to intermediaries. Instead, private companies should step in and sell their own funded plans. Taxpayers do not provide federal car insurance, and they should not have to pay for crop insurance either. There is no reason to burden them further. While this year’s farm bill will end direct payments – one form of subsidies, the new Supplemental Coverage Option (SCO) included in both the House and Senate farm bills will cost even more. Direct payments were introduced in the 1996 Farm Bill in an attempt to move from subsidized farming to a free market but still exist today, costing taxpayers more than $5 billion per year. The flaws in the direct payment program are obvious; as direct payments are based on a farm’s historical crop production, landowners can receive payments even if they do not use their land for farming. Nevertheless, Supplemental Coverage is hardly a step in the right direction. The SCO will be a third insurance program that will supplement part of a farmer’s deductible not covered by their insurance plan. While Supplemental Coverage supposedly only pays farmers who experience an actual loss, a study by Iowa State economist Bruce Babcock found that the new program will result in payouts greater than direct payments even when farmers experience little to
December 2013
no loss. The SCO will magnify the flaws in crop insurance and disaster payments, acting only to increase windfall gains. According to Babcock, the SCO would have increased crop insurance payouts by as much as $6.77 billion if the program had started last year. According to Craig Cox, the Senior Vice President of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the Environmental Working Group, the SCO is just a new medium to pay farmers under a different name. “SCO, it turns out, would be just another way to send cash to farm businesses regardless of need but with better optics,” Cox says. “Swapping this program for direct payments is an expensive and cynical game of bait and switch masquerading as reform.” Crop insurance already costs $17 billion a year, so it is definitely unnecessary to add a third program to issue payments for “disasters” that do not affect farmers. With all these programs attempting to reduce risk for farmers, it is surprising that the government also pays farmers $3 billion annually in conservation subsidies. The Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) pays farmers to set aside some of their land to grow grass or trees. It supposedly reduces soil erosion, enhances the quality and supply of water, preserves wildlife, and reduces damages by natural disasters. Under the CRP, farmers lose some of the land they have for farming, but they instead shift production onto the land not enrolled in the CRP. With less land to work with, farmers overproduce on marginal land, killing most of the environmental benefit of the program. And when their unenrolled land is no longer productive, they enroll
47
Economics
90% of subsidies go to producers of five crops – wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice. The top 10% of farms have received 74% of subsidy payments since 1995.
it in the CRP and use the previously enrolled land for farming. This cycle of destruction and recovery diminishes the positive effect of the CRP. Yet what the CRP accomplishes can be done easier by eliminating other subsidy programs that cause overproduction. Cutting subsidies altogether will reinstate the risks of farming, leading farmers to produce in conjunction with demand. This means of preventing overproduction is absolutely free and will also benefit the environment. If the government wants to help more, the money saved could be used for environmental programs. One government program that causes overproduction is marketing loans. Marketing loans are a price support program where farmers take loans from the USDA in exchange for their crops. The government sets a target price at which they want a crop to be sold. When prices fall below this, farmers hand over their crops to the government and keep the loans. This eliminates the risk of falling prices, incentivizing farmers to produce more. As farmers are guaranteed the target price for their crops from the loans, they have no reason to sell at a price
below the target. Wanting more money, farmers start overproducing, hurting both the environment and the economy. Overproduction erodes soil and decreases the long-term productivity of land. Economically, marketing loans create an excess of supply at an inflated price. This makes no economic sense whatsoever. The reason for falling prices was a large supply and little demand, yet marketing loans increase the gap more, since consumers are less likely to buy at a higher price The money to pay off these loans comes from taxpayers, yet the increase in prices makes food less affordable. Countercyclical payments, on the other hand, are more sensible, but are simply a short-term remedy to a bigger problem. Like marketing loans, the government uses a set target price to determine countercyclical payments. When prices fall, the government pays the difference between the target price and the actual price. Therefore, farmers are guaranteed the target price no matter how low market prices fall. Again, the risk of falling prices is absent, and farmers begin to overproduce. This allows for cheaper food prices for con-
sumers, enough income for farmers, and a sufficient food supply for the nation. Still, it is wrong that taxpayer money is used to uplift the farming industry. The government’s decision to bail out the automotive industry in 2008 received a considerable amount of criticism, but the agricultural industry receives more money each year than was paid to the auto industry in 2008. Although the prices are lowered by countercyclical payments, the money that is saved by consumers from lower prices is partially offset by the tax money they must pay to provide subsidies. While farmers are an important part to the economy, improvement in the agricultural industry should not, and must not, come at the expense of taxpayers. Instead of using taxpayers to boost agriculture, a free market system would greatly benefit farmers. With competition in the market, there is a motivation to innovate and lower production costs. Some of the money that would come from cutting subsidies could go to research for sustainable and productive farming. From 1980 to 2005, income for subsidized crops grew 14%, while income for non-subsidized crops surged, growing 186%. This means income growth for nonsubsidized crops was 1200% more than that of subsidized crops. Internationally, an agricultural free market has shown its benefit – in both New Zealand and Australia, agriculture prospered after subsidies were eliminated. Some argue that subsidies are necessary to keep food affordable and make sure there is enough to feed the nation. The elimination of subsidies will undoubtedly raise prices and decrease production, but prices will not increase drastically, nor will there be food shortages. In fact, two-thirds of crops don’t receive any subsidies. Meat, fruits, and vegetables – in other words, food – do not get major subsidy payments. Cutting
“The elimination of subsidies will undoubtedly raise prices and decrease production, but prices will not increase drastically, nor will there be food shortages.” 48
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Economics
“Only 38% of “farm households” have farming as their primary occupation, and raising subsidies will give part-time farmers too much money. It just isn’t worth the cost.” subsidies won’t even have much of an effect on the food prices they do support. Babcock estimates that prices will rise by only 1% if subsidies are eliminated. Production of unsubsidized crops has sustained, so it would be illogical to think that currently subsidized crops would stop being produced if subsidy programs are cut. Thus, the increase in prices and decrease in production will be, at most, negligible. Subsidies benefit mainly wealthy agribusinesses and hurt small farmers. 90% of subsidies go to producers of five crops – wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice. This helps the producers of subsidized crops, while putting other farmers (with unsubsidized crops) at a disadvantage. Subsidy programs also do not account for need. Consequently, the top 10% of farms have received 74% of subsidy payments since 1995. These farms have an average net worth of $2 million, yet the government thinks it necessary to pay them $15 billion of taxpayer money each year. Subsidy payments are roughly proportional to production, and since big agribusinesses produce more, they receive more money. On the other hand, small farmers do not produce enough to earn significant payments. This policy has widened the income gap between small farmers and big agribusinesses. Unable to compete, small farmers are forced to sell their land to their larger rivals. And the growth in farm income due to subsidies inflates the value of farmland by 30%, making it difficult for young farmers to enter the industry. As a result, the average farmer age has risen to 55 and the number of farms has decreased 70% since the
1930s. Current subsidies just help the top portion of agriculture while thinning out the industry. While some argue that setting a maximum income for subsidy payments would help to diminish the income gap between agribusinesses and small farmers, the payment rate would have to be substantially raised to have a meaningful impact on the agricultural economy. Anyway, most small farmers have other occupations and are not necessarily poor. Only 38% of “farm households” have farming as their primary occupation, and raising subsidies will give part-time farmers too much money. It just isn’t worth the cost. If the domestic consequences of agricultural subsidies are not harmful enough, the international repercussions are. Although in general food prices are virtually unaffected by subsidies, the five most subsidized crops – wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans, and rice, see noticeably lowered prices due to subsidies. The price of cotton, the crop receiving the most subsidies, would be 10% higher if all subsidies were eliminated. In developing countries, agriculture makes up between fifty and eighty percent of the economy. The US subsidies artificially lower prices to the point that farmers in these countries cannot compete, inflicting colossal damage to developing countries’ economies. Nations in South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, as well as several in sub-Saharan Africa have lost as much as ten to fifteen percent of agricultural income from foreign countries’ subsidies.For example, US subsidization of rice exports profoundly hurt Haitian farmers in the 1990s. Haitian farmers were driven out
December 2013
of business by the low prices of American rice, drastically hurting the economy. Bill Clinton, the creator of today’s large subsidy programs, admits that his policies had an overall negative effect. “[Subsidies] may have been good for some of my farmers in Arkansas, but it has not worked,” he said. The elimination of subsidies would help developing countries and in turn decrease the government’s foreign aid payments, which currently exceed $50 billion annually. Subsidies are also a barrier to international trade negotiations: in past World Trade Organization conferences, countries showed a willingness to open their markets if the US cut subsidies. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, liberalization of agricultural trade would increase the total annual economic benefit of the world by three to a staggering thirteen percent. The elimination of agricultural subsidies would allow for a number of opportunities that our current government regulation of the economy prevents. Competition in the market would promote innovation and technological advancement, which would benefit the economy in the long run. A free market in agriculture would not only improve the economy, but it would also spare Americans from hefty taxes. All subsidies do is redistribute wealth and incentivize overproduction – two undesirable effects. They are outdone by the free market, and a free market system helps further international free trade. It makes no sense to use taxpayer money to support farmers when there are so many alternatives. Agricultural subsidies must end. HMR
49
Science and Technology
GUANTANAMO BAY: A VIOLATION OF MEDICAL ETHICS?
Eric Pretsfelder
T
he United States Detention Center at Guantanamo Bay has come back into the spotlight recently due to the handling of investigations surrounding the case of the five men who are accused of being responsible for 9/11. This investigation along with others revolving around Guantanamo Bay detainees have left many wondering whether medical ethics have been violated and what qualifies as torture versus suicide prevention. The gray area in this discussion has to do with medical professionals having to force-feed Guantanamo Bay detainees who
have gone on hunger strikes that would have resulted in death. Furthermore, other interrogation tactics are still being used that many would consider torture. One of the main issues surrounding the seemingly straightforward case of the 9/11 five is that much of the evidence obtained in the case against the detainees was obtained using methods of torture, and evidence gained through torture is inadmissible in court. This has led to many detainees being held at “Gitmo” without trial for over eleven years. The debate over the morality of
50
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Guantanamo Bay is not a new one, and one of the main goals of the Obama Administration was to eliminate the prison and to ban all torturing of United States detainees. In 2009, President Obama vowed to close the detainee camp and move the remaining prisoners to a ‘Supermax-security’ prison in Illinois, but Congress blocked his efforts to do so, claiming that the dangerous enemies of the state being held there should not set foot on United States soil. President Obama is not the only one who is against the prison camp, as there
Science and Technology has been a long history of opposition towards Guantanamo Bay. Throughout the years, the United Nations has urged the United States to either shut down the camp or heavily adjust the methods used by its guards and doctors. Opposition has also come from important allies to the war on terror, as Tony Blair, Colin Powell, Hillary Clinton and others have voiced their displeasure about the treatment of the detainees at the camp. In spite of heavy resistance, the Pentagon has insisted that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are treated fairly and that the camp is necessary because the men held inside the camp are far too dangerous to be moved to the United States. Although the United States has officially banned torture and issues surrounding the topic have decreased, recent hunger strikes have further clouded the line between what is and is not torture. Most of the debates surrounding recent events at Guantanamo Bay have focused on the methods of force-feeding that have occurred during prolonged and widespread hunger strikes at the camp. This is not the first time hunger strikes and force-feeding at the camp have been brought into the public eye, and there have been a number of reasons for the strikes. In 2002, two Guantanamo prisoners were taken to a hospital for malnutrition following a protest regarding the removal of their turbans. Other
strikes have occurred in protest of prison conditions. The reason for the controversy surrounding force-feeding has been the actual way that the medical professionals at the camp force-feed the prisoners. For the extremely resistant prisoners, they are forcefully strapped into a medical chair at unexpected or random times of day and a feeding tube is pushed (sometimes aggressively according to reports) down their noses or throats until it reaches their stomachs. Protests to this method of force-feeding have become extreme. In September of this year, a Guantanamo protestor simulated a force-feeding through his nasal passage in front of the White House. Although this is just another example of what seems to be a resounding interest in shutting down Guantanamo Bay and ending all torture whatsoever, some still believe that using torture to get information out of a suspected terrorist is an unfortunate but necessary method to protect the citizens of the United States. While this is an interesting argument, the conditions and actions that have materialized at Guantanamo Bay are far too brutal if our government truly believes that prisoners of the United States deserve the right to the benefit of the doubt or the right to their innocence until they are proven guilty. Furthermore, there are some studies and evidence showing that torture can prove to be ineffective or even lead to incorrect evidence being forced out of a prisoner to end
December 2013
interrogation. It is crucial to look at the different kinds of torture from different angles and to differentiate between tortures used to get urgent and potentially life-saving information from a dangerous terrorist and torture used to get information that is not necessarily as urgent and could be found through intense detective work and interrogation. Some methos of torture are extremely immoral and inhumane techniques were used in order to ascertain information about Al-Qaeda, 9/11 and other terrorist groups or plots. These techniques included insulting the suspect’s religious and cultural beliefs. Such techniques are directly contradictory to United States values, beliefs and laws and should never be used in interrogation regardless of who is being questioned. One must remember that there are many different issues to consider when contemplating how to approach the problems surrounding Guantanamo Bay and torture. It is vital to understand and concentrate on where you draw the line as far as torturing and the conditions at Guantanamo Bay. While there is a lot that we do not know about both topics, there are certain things we must always keep in consideration when addressing them, such as the values of the United States government and our country as a whole and the security of the citizens, for it is critical that this remains a precedent regardless of anything else. HMR
51
Science and Technology
Lethal (Printed) Weapons 3-D PRINTED GUNS: A NEW THREAT Alexander Karpf
A
few weeks ago, on November 21, Philadelphia became the first city in America to ban the production of 3D printed guns, undetectable firearms created by a 3D printer. The Philadelphia City Council, having voted unanimously to enact the measure, evidently fears the proliferation of these plastic weapons due to the creation of the first functional plastic gun last May. Regardless of the media and publicity that these seemingly dangerous weapons receive, 3D printed guns are not likely to proliferate due to being inaccessible. If anything, politicians can use the issue of 3D printed guns as a turning point in the broad gun control debate, as the issue effectively pushes the NRA, the prime opposition to gun control legislation, into a conflict with their funders and supporters. Defense Distributed is a private, nonprofit corporation dedicated to creating and spreading awareness of 3D printed guns. Its founder describes himself as an anarchist, determined to undermine recent attempts to tighten regulations on semi-automatic weapons and to prove and promote complete freedom of press in America. Defense Distributed aims to enable public access to 3D printed guns by designing blueprints for functional plastic weapons, to be printed by
3D printers, and then distributing them for free, open source style, via the Internet. The company has succeed in garnering attention to the issue, as the concept of 3D printed guns remained virtually unexplored until the company’s entrance into public spotlight through YouTube videos showcasing its various creations. Defense Distributed and the industry of 3D printed guns as a whole may appear to be dangerous, as it appeared to Philadelphia councilors; indeed, the quick accomplishments of the company can be startling. The company first showed off the capability of these weapons in March, when it first displayed by a video a lower receiver of an AR-15, the part that holds the trigger of the semi-automatic gun, firing more than 600 continuous rounds without breaking. A mere few weeks later, the company brusquely named a sturdy, printed cartridge of bullets the “Feinstein magazine,” named to protest and spite the legislation proposed by Senator Dianne Feinstein to tighten restrictions on semi-automatic weapons. In May, at the peak of its progress, the company revolutionized 3D printing and released a digital file, or blueprint, for the Liberator, a small pistol solely created by a 3D printer, on its website DEFCAD. Although the United States Government demanded that
52
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
the file be taken down from the Internet two days after its release, more than 100,00 copies of the design had already been downloaded. The file is now not only present on the computers of the many supporters of Defense Distributed, but, more significantly, available for download on popular pirating websites such as The Pirate Bay. Quite honestly, however, 3D printed guns and their published blueprints as of now hardly pose a threat. 3D printers are rare in households, often only found in those of professional model builders or hobbyists, and a gun enthusiast would not easily get his or her hands on a 3D printer. Printing even a lower receiver takes seven hours, so using a school’s or company’s printer could not go undetected. The reputable MakerBot 2 Replicator, the newest 3D printer of the best-known manufacturer of printers, starts at a $2,199, and other, lower tier printers cost at least $1,500. The average pistol, made out of wood and metal, would sell for no more than $700, if not closer to $300. 3D printed guns are, simply put, inaccessible. It is still important to prevent desperate civilians through legislation from getting their hands on unlicensed pistols. The most effective solution can be found in the Undetectable Firearms Modernization Act of
Science and Technology 1998, which bans firearms whose images cannot be generated by an x-ray – essentially firearms made of materials other than metal. Senator Chuck Schumer not only wishes to renew the Act, due for expiration this December, but to extend the Act to guns made of undetectable plastics, like the Liberator. The enactment of such a measure would curb the production, and the publishing the blueprints, of 3D printed guns. As is stated above, the issue of these guns is not a very alarming one; they are already difficult to create, and upcoming legislation could almost eradicate their existence. Therefore, instead of obsessing over the small possibility of the use of a 3D printed gun, it is most important that supporters of gun control use the issue of 3D printed guns in their favor by taking advantage of a lose-lose situation for the NRA. In fact, the banning of 3D printed guns puts opponents of gun control in a corner, as the NRA is forced to choose between following its policy of mindless opposition to all gun control legislation and appealing to its primary sponsors and supporters, gun manufacturers. Such ideal legislation must be passed into law. In order to become law, gun control bills must pass through both the House of Representatives, controlled by Republicans influenced by NRA lobbyists to shoot down any efforts to revamp gun control, and the Senate, who in April voted against
a bill to expand background checks. Of course, before any bill goes into voting procedure, there is sure to be an onslaught of criticism from the NRA, which has blindly opposed any measures to tighten regulations and ensure that guns do not end up in the wrong hands. Before voting, the NRA would probably cite the ridiculous reason for their objection that banning 3D printed
gardless of price, they can print metal guns, as was done by the Austin-based company Solid Concepts, who earlier this month printed a complete handgun. As stated above, these printers would never likely be present in a household. However, local gun shops could employ metal-printing printers to create guns at the request of a customer, saving the shop the
“DEMOCRATS NEED TO EXPLOIT THIS FAULT IN THE THINKING OF THE NRA.” guns would not prevent owners of printers from actually printing guns. The combination of politicians already against gun control and those under the influence of the NRA would cause the bill to fail. Such actions, however, would be a fatal mistake for the NRA. 3D printers open up two opportunities for alternate methods of creating guns. For one, an average consumer, instead of traveling to his local gun shop, could print the gun himself using his plastic-using 3D printer. Doing so would cause one fewer manufactured gun to be bought. Second, and not as obvious, is the invention of metal-using 3D printers. These printers are only just emerging into the industrial market, and are priced at a point CNN calls “would be out of reach of most people.” Re-
www.3dprintingplan.com
Defense Distributed founder and director Cody Wilson with a rifle made of parts created using a 3D plastic printer
December 2013
need to buy a gun from a manufacturer. Therein lies the problem: the proliferation of 3D printers decreases dependency on commercially manufactured guns. These manufacturers are not only the funders of the NRA, having given more than $40 million to the organization since 2005, but also its strongest supporters. If the NRA mindlessly blocked legislation outlawing or minimizing the creation of 3D printed guns, the organization would lose crucial financial and publicity support from its main benefactors. Democrats, and any other supporters of 3D printed gun bans, need to exploit this fault in the thinking of the NRA by publicizing the flaw. If advocates continuously mention the NRA’s opposing legislation that would support its benefactors, more criticism will be placed on the organization for not only their obstinacy, but also for a lack of loyalty to sponsors. In turn, the NRA will be forced to sponsor legislation banning 3D printed guns, doing the job for the Democrats. From there, politicians can use this legislation as the turning point for the issue of 3D printed guns. For one, having witnessed an example of NRA cooperation, supporters can begin to criticize every example of stubbornness. At the same time, politicians can increasingly make more demands regarding reform of the NRA, and if the NRA doesn’t comply, the organization will appear to be moving back on its cooperative measures. And if the NRA remains opposed to bans on 3D printed guns, it will suffer. Sure, the organization will indefinitely block any measures taken to combat 3D printed guns, but it will also lose essential backing from gun manufacturers. Either way, the NRA will lose support and seem fickle in its policy. HMR
53
Science and Technology
China’s Pollution Threat Zachary Troyanovsky
C
hina’s industrial cities have never had clean air, however the recent spike in air pollution is so significant that citizens are forced to wear surgical masks outside their residences. Still, despite startling new data, the steady climb in air pollution levels was not entirely unexpected. China is currently the world’s largest carbon emitter, and has seen rapidly rising pollutant levels since the advent of its industrial revolution in the 1960’s.
The Air Quality Index (AQI) is a method by which most scientists identify the relative level of pollution in industrialized nations. It measures a wide variety of contaminants ranging from carbon dioxide to methane and compiles the data into a simple numerical value that can be used to enhance accuracy in air pollutant readings and to make such conditions transparent to the public. For most regions, the index ranges from 0-100, and these conditions are considered
54
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
safe for the general population. Once the AQI exceeds 100, scientists advise that sensitive groups refrain from outdoor activity. The top of the scale is considered by the scientific community to be 500. Approximately two years ago, a contaminant sensor was placed on the exterior of the U.S embassy in Beijing to measure the Air Quality Index value of pollution in the region. The American Ambassador was appalled when he read that air pollution in Beijing had exceeded 750, allegedly
Science and Technology
“Just because this problem was unavoidable, does not mean it cannot be fixed. To overcome the enormous amount of air pollution, Chinese citizens and the government will have to be willing to work together.” tweeting that the smog was: “Crazy bad.” The levels were brought to the attention of the Chinese Government who promptly ignored it. However, as international condemnation for the air quality grew, the Chinese Government passed new legislation ending international transparency on the issue and discontinuing the distribution of all Chinese pollution evaluations, and now this disregard for the environment and people’s respiratory health has come creeping back to them. One month ago the air pollution levels were again measured, and the previous levels were trumped once again. The report yielded a horrifying 780. To put this in perspective, levels in NYC, the most densely populated urban center in the United States, rest at a relatively high, in fact, 50. Finally, the Chinese government has promised to take action. Unfortunately, irreversible damage has already been done, including the recent death of an 8-year-old girl. Lung cancer afflictions remain commonplace at staggering levels in nearly all Chinese cities. The government has started with small ordnances
such as the confiscation of open air barbecues from its citizens. Yet, these small reductions in air pollution will not calm the citizens who have had their personal property stolen from them. Even further, most citizens feel that eliminating one of the smallest causes of air pollution is a waste of the government’s resources. “This action will help local residents, but to deal with the bigger air quality problem we need to have priorities and I think one of the major priorities should still be the motor vehicle emissions,” said Ma Jun, director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs. However, the paradox remains that the Chinese government will not, under any circumstances, regulate its major industries. Yet the current method of soldiers’ barging into private homes and taking civilian’s rightful property without justification is hardly making a dent in national pollution levels. Additionally, the pollution is not just a Chinese problem. The dangerous emissions do not remain within country borders. Due to the jet streams, the fumes from Chinese industry have travelled
December 2013
across the world and now affect daily life in regions as far as California. In response to international outrage over rising pollutant levels in uninvolved cities, the government pledged to invest 250 billion Yuan (3 billion USD) into cleaning the air. Overall however, unsurprisingly, efforts by the Chinese government to rectify the issue have been entirely non-existent, and the air quality continues to decline. Recently, many outdoor activities have been cancelled across the nation due to hazardous AQI readings. However this problem is not just the responsibility of the government. The citizens themselves have to take action by using public transportation to reduce the amount of vehicle emission. Air pollution is not a unfamiliar issue to the US, so our government is attempting to aid China through this smog and into a clearer day. While Chinese citizens might say that only factories and the government are responsible for their environmental issues, current research indicates that the amount of pollution released into the air by vehicle emissions is only slightly smaller than the amount released into the air by the industries of China. As a developing country, these kinds of environmental problems are just what a country with such rapid expansion of industrialization should expect. However, just because this problem was expected, does not mean it is not fixable. To overcome this enormous amount of air pollution, Chinese citizens and the government will have to work together. Greater access and use of public transportation is a two-way street for both bureaucrats and citizens. The role that the people play in this movement is anything but insignificant. The Chinese government needs to spend the amount of money promised effectively, and then some. Whether it is the installation of new kinds of green technology or the enhancement of China’s green infrastructure. The cleanup of China’s air requires both the government and the people to do as much as they can and even more. HMR
55