Issue 2: America Votes by The Horace Mann Review

Review THE HORACE MANN

Volume XXIV - October 2014

AMERICA VOTES Midterm Elections Issue

Letter From the Editor

Review THE HORACE MANN

Ikaasa Suri

Editor-in-Chief

Lauren Futter Executive Editor

Jenna Barancik Laszlo Herwitz

Managing Design and Web Directors

Matthew Harpe Adam Resheff Brett Silverstein

s we quickly approach the Midterm Elections, questions about rather contentious issues have come to surface. For Issue 2, we shifted focus back to Horace Mann’s student body to give freshman and sophomore writers the opportunity to express their opinions on such issues. Unlike previous elections, this voting season touches on a myriad of policy debates, with no dominant theme to hone in on. With concern about President Obama’s role in the 2014 Midterm, health care and the deficit, and partisan control, writers explore topics ranging from poll regulation to campaign finance reform, often considering whether these issues will play a role in the changing faces of the Democratic and Republican parties. The beauty of this issue, in part, lies in its universality. With international upheaval on social, technological, and political platforms, debate on the Midterm Elections extends far beyond domestic policy. Review writers embrace this idea with insight and enthusiasm as they tackle these controversies in our four other sections – Domestic, International, Economics, and Science and Technology – and delve into a diverse spread of issues from drone policy to Middle Eastern affairs. As the entire staff is hard at work expanding The Review’s readership beyond the Horace Mann community, I am especially grateful and proud of the junior board, without which this issue would not have been possible. With changes ranging from the expansion and renewal of The Review’s website to interviews and discussions with national online publications, I am not only impressed, but also extremely thankful for the dedication our entire staff has put forth thus far. This year proving to be no less busy than last year, it is amazing to see and work alongside with a committed and unified staff. The commitment and vigor with which this staff has taken on Volume XXIV continues to motivate me, as we transform months of planning into tangible action and sustain The Review as a deep-rooted, collaborative organization. In addition, we’d also like to Mr. Donadio, Mrs. Cassino, Dr. Delanty, Ms. Hauser, and the rest of this administration for making this issue possible.

Enjoy the issue!

Managing Content Editors

Emily Kramer

Senior Editor - Domestic

Neil Ahlawat Senior Editor - International

Elizabeth Xiong

Senior Editor - Features

James Megibow Mitchell Troyanovsky Senior Editor - Economics

Alexander Newman Abigail Zuckerman Senior Editor - Science and Technology

Edmund Bannister Charles Cotton James McCarthy Harry Seavey Samantha Stern Senior Contibutors

Ben Alexander Daria Balaeskoul Maria Balaeskoul Gabriel Broshy Daniel Jin Cassandra K-J

Anna Kuritzkes Natasha Moolji Anne Rosenblatt Daniel Rosenblatt Peter Shamamian Eric Stein

Junior Editors

Miranda Bannister Evan Greene Ray Fishman Alex O’Neill

Matthew Parker Aditya Ram Spencer Slagowitz Evy Verbinnen

Associate Editors

Ikaasa Suri Editor-in-Chief Volume XXIV

Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor 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. For more information, please visit www.hmreview.org.

Table of Contents

Zachary Gaynor

page 4

DOMESTIC

Con: Torture: Blood on our Hands Daniel Posner

page 6

De Blasio’s Crusade Against Charter School Olivia Silberstein

page 8

28 FEATURES

Pro: Torture to Protect

42 page 18

Al-Qaeda in India Ankit Gupta

page 20

Putting Putin in His Place Siddharth Tripathi

page 22

Middle East Emmigration Crisis Jacob Chae

Zoe Mavrides

page 14

page 24

ECONOMICS

Honor McCarthy

page 35

page 37

page 40

The Key to ISIS’ Power Chris Shaari

page 42

Taking Stock of China’s Economic Potential Brian Song

page 44

Japan’s Baby Steps to Economic Prosperity Alex Karpf

page 46

Drones Pro: Technology of the Future Vaed Prasad

Teddy Kaplan page 26

page 32

page 48

Drones Con: The Threat Looming Overhead

The Enemies of our Enemies Will Scherr

Sophie Maltby

Campaign Finance Reform

SCI-TECH

INTERNATIONAL

page 30

Calling All to the Derby

Dahlia Krutkovich

page 12

The Downside of Liberty

Lexi Kantor

Same Old Party

Abortion and the Supreme Court Mehr Suri

page 28

Goodbye Republican Party

Sydney Katz

page 10

Fergusson: The Legal Road From Here Eva Steinman

Henry Shapiro

It’s Time for the US to Regulate Polls

Looking Forward: The Road to Presidency Ananya Kumar- Banerjee

Are Jobs Back?

page 52

Ebola: A Media Mystery Noah Shapiro

page 54

GMO’s: Should We Really Be Scared? Jack Vahradian

page 56

Looking Past the Clouds of Fukushima Karen Jiang

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge Benjamin Shapiro

page 58

page 60

Domestic

Torture To Protect ZACHARY GAYNOR T

PRO 4

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

he United States has used various enhanced interrogation techniques since the birth of the nation, but today the nation specifically employs the techniques outlined in the Patriot Act. According to a 2011 poll, 57% of American citizens think that enhanced interrogation, while harsh and aggressive is a necessary evil. Also, Former Vice President Dick Cheney stated that enhanced interrogation provided instrumental information in the apprehension and disposal of Osama Bin Laden, a man both responsible for 9/11 attacks and number one on the FBIâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s most wanted list. Since the September 11th attacks, the United States has implemented enhanced interrogation procedures, a multitude of aggressive tactics to obtain information and save American lives from terrorists; this is usually associated with the similar but entirely different term, torture. Unlike torture, enhanced interrogation does not leave lasting harmful effects on suspects. It is necessary for the security of the nation.In 2008, President Obama ran on the platform of abolishing enhanced interrogation in America. However, while Obama has been in office, the Department of Defense (DOD) has released documents to demonstrate his failure in following through with this promise, and, further, a CIA veteran named John Kiriakou has stated, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Obama consciously allows torture.â&#x20AC;? This contradicts the executive order that President Obama issued stating that any person held by a United States Gov-

Domestic ernment agency “shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3.” Army Field Manual 2 22.3 describes the techniques the CIA and other government agencies, including the army, are allowed to use while interrogating a prisoner. We cannot blame the Obama Administration for covertly protecting the American people, but we also cannot look the other way and claim that we no longer use enhanced interrogation techniques as the evidence has been laid out in front of us. The global community must realize and understand that enhanced interrogation is one of the many policies that the United States Government uses to ensure the protection and safety of its citizens. A major benefit of enhanced interrogation its quick results. Receiving the information about the planning, participants and location of terrorist attacks is of the utmost importance, and saving lives is a time sensitive matter. If we receive the information too late, the cost could be hundreds or even thousands of lives. Is it moral for a government to allow its citizens to die when interrogating the Prisoners of War that are in their custody could have prevented their deaths? No, it is not fair that harmless citizens can be killed while anti-American extremists rot in prison, and can continue their goal of maliciously killing civilians. Enhanced interrogation can save innocent civilians lives and will only continue to if the program is allowed to stay in use. Some still take issue with the morality of this form of interrogation. They say that if we begin to use enhanced interrogation techniques, we will sink to the level of the very terrorists against whom we are trying to defend our country. However, there is a distinct difference between what the United States Government does and terrorists do when it comes to Prisoners of War. The United States Government uses enhanced interrogation, where as terrorist torture. While these terms are often used interchangeably, they are dissimilar: the United States uses enhanced interrogation for

per cent

Believe torture can be justified. the sole purpose of information gathering, while terrorists may use torture to obtain information, they also use it to send a message to people in our country, and further, to cause the most pain possible. One cannot compare the United States’ duty to protect its people to the mission of rogue military groups that that our soldiers to make a political statement. Additionally, the United States is justified in using enhanced interrogation techniques because the methods employed by the U.S. Government have no long term effects on the physical health of the terrorist that is being interrogated. Some of the most well known enhanced interrogation techniques are water boarding and sleep deprivation, both of which, when performed properly, have little to no long term physical effects. This of course is in direct contrast to the barbaric torture techniques that terrorists use to leave lasting and irreversible damage to their captives. An Al Qaeda ‘How-To Book’ discovered by NBC included drilling hands, removing limbs, removing eyes, blowtorching skin, and suspending captives from a ceiling and electrocuting them. Opponents of enhanced interrogation also argue that the use of enhanced interrogation weakens International Law and could lead to the torture of our own soldiers. In reality, though, our soldiers are already being tortured by terrorists, and this will continue regardless of domestic changes. We are fighting an asymmetrical war against terrorist groups

“WE ARE FIGHTING AN ASYMMETRICAL WAR AGAINST TERRORIST GROUPS THAT HAVE NO CONSCIENCE.” October 2014

with no conscience, no regulation, and no thoughts of stopping, so as Americans it is our duty to stop them if not for our own innocent citizens for the rest of the world. Others take issue with enhanced interrogation because they believe that someone going under pressure of interrogation of this kind will give false intelligence to make the pressure stop. According to the former Vice President Cheney, “Three people were water boarded. Not dozens, not hundreds. Three. And the one who was subjected the most often to that was Khaled Sheikh Mohammed, and it produced phenomenal results for us.” This illustrates that the United States Government is selective in whom it interrogates and has seen great results. When the United States Government carries out an enhanced interrogation, the prior planning and research that has gone into interrogating these people renders this worry unreasonable. Finally, it is thought by some Americans, though a minority of them, that enhanced interrogation will increase the already high anti-American sentiment internationally. According to a BBC poll taken in 2014 the anti-American sentiment results from jealousy of the rights of the American people, the civilians the United States has killed while attempting to kill terrorists, and terrorist groups’ propaganda – not our style of interrogation. If we let terrorists continue to plague our own nation and nations abroad it will be more detrimental to the American image on the international scale because we have established ourselves as a protector of the global community. The United States Government’s most important goal is the protection its innocent citizens. The question that we must ask is not what we have to gain from using enhanced interrogation, but rather. what we have to lose if we don’t. HMR

Domestic

Torture Blood on Our Hands COn Daniel Posner fter the 9/11 attacks, our government embarked on what it called a “global war against terrorism” in which it made the decision to use torture in interrogations to keep us safe. Now, a decade later, there is ample evidence from military and security experts that torture is not only a violation of both United States and international law but is also immoral an ineffective way to get good intelligence. For hundreds of years, Americans have

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

debated the proper treatment for prisoners of war. However, since the foundation of our country, our nation’s leaders have rejected the use of torture. In 1776, General George Washington impressed upon his soldiers the need to treat captured British troops “with humanity.” Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, “It has great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have moral right on our side.” These opinions by two Amer-

Domestic ican founding fathers and presidents illustrate that, from the very birth of the United States, the protection of an individual’s right not to be tortured has been central to our ethical system. This principle was tested most dramatically during the civil war – a time when the future of the union was at stake. Recognizing the importance of treating prisoners humanely, Abraham Lincoln appointed Francis Lieber, a professor of law at Columbia University, to create a set of rules for the Union force during wartime. The Lieber Code, as it is mostly commonly referred to, required Union soldiers to “be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity.” This document, which opposes the use of torture as a method of interrogation, still serves as a basis for the US military today. After World War II and the holocaust, the importance of treating prisoners of war humanly was clearer than ever. One of the leaders of the US military during this period was General George Marshall. Reflecting on the severe mistreatment of prisoners during World War II, he wrote a book for the US armed forces called The Armed Forces Officer. In it, he reaffirmed the commitment of the United States to the humane treatment of prisoners. He wrote, “Wanton killing, torturing, cruelty, or the working of usual hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not justified under any circumstance.” Despite this clear rejection of torture by our leaders throughout our history, after the 9/11 attacks the Bush administration decided to use torture when interrogating potential terrorists. They argued that the threat of another attack was so imminent that it was in our best interests to use torture and cruel treatment to gain information about Al-Qaeda and other terrorists groups. Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld both promoted what they called “enhanced interrogation techniques,” such as waterboarding and sleep deprivation. Chaney offered his rationale, saying that in the post-9/11 world, US security officials have to work on “the dark side” “We’ve got to spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion,” he said. The Bush administration believed that it was fighting a global war on terror that was unique in history. It believed that this terrorism war justified blatant violation of the law.

per cent

Believe torture is not necessary. In reality, these tactics are ineffective, illegal, and morally wrong. Experienced interrogators working for the US government have repeatedly expressed the view that non-coercive interrogation is more liking to produce valuable intelligence. For example, a Intelligence Science Board study concluded that “there is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community’s use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information.” This sentiment was echoed by Glenn Carle, a long time CIA interrogator. He wrote, “Torture does not work; it makes it harder to evaluate what detainees say… We become the evil we oppose when we engage in ‘enhanced interrogation’ – in torture.”’ It is clear that these coercive methods of interrogation lead to unreliable information and are not the best way to collect intelligence. The proponents of torture in the Bush administration frequently countered opposition by discussing the example of a ticking time bomb. This is a scenario where a suspect who is in custody has information about a bomb that is about to go off. The issue in these emergency situations is whether torture is ever justified. Those who advocate for the use of torture say that in extreme situations like the ticking time bomb, torture is necessary. But this is a Hollywood-inspired hypothetical. It paints a scenario that is extremely unlikely, and once you allow torture and

abusive practices to take place, those practices will rapidly expand and become the rule rather than the exception. It has been well documented that this is exactly what happened after 9/11, as torture became a frequent practice at Guantanamo Bay, in Iraq, and in Afghanistan. For this reason, a clear and firm policy prohibiting torture and cruel treatment is so vital. Since the start of his first term in office, President Obama has been clear about his intention to eliminate the use of torture by US officials. On his second day in office, he signed an order banning the use of torture. In doing so, he made it clear that the United States government was rejecting a practice that goes against all that our allies and we stand for as democracies in the modern world. In the end, his decision did not simply value what is legal or what is most effective. President Obama’s decision was an ethical choice. Senator John McCain, President Obama’s opponent in the 2008 election was a former prisoner of war who was tortured in Vietnam. He is quoted saying that we have to, “be careful that we do not set a standard that another country could use to justify their mistreatment of our prisoners.” McCain believes that our decision to prohibit torture defines who we are as a people. We should be proud that many of our nation’s leaders – both Democrats and Republicans - have so clearly said no to torture. The task now is to close the book on torture and to establish clear laws and policies that prevent torture from ever occurring in the future. HMR

“TORTURE IS BOTH MORALLY WRONG AND AN INEFFECTIVE WAY TO OBTAIN USEFUL INTELLIGENCE” October 2014

Domestic nypost.com

De Blasio’s Crusade Against Charter School

Olivia Silberstein

ne of Bloomberg’s most significant achievements as mayor was his advocacy of the charter school movement. Bloomberg believed that charter schools were a successful alternative to the existing public school system and that they deserved public advocacy and funding.. His successor, Bill de Blasio, on the other hand, is unwilling to extend public support to the charter movement and actively opposes its spread. Mayor De Blasio believes that all municipal resources for education in New York City should be channeled through the public education system. On one level, this position reflects Mayor de Blasio’s inability to acknowledge the success that charter schools have already enjoyed

and their potential to benefit millions of the city’s children in the future. Even more worrisome is the degree to which his actions show how much his policies are dictated by his relationship with the major public service unions and his unwillingness to risk his political power base in order to serve the people of New York City. Charter schools are typically fully privately owned and partialy privately funded non-profits. They exist alongside public schools, offering parents an alternative in some of the most under-resourced districts in the city that have habitually offered students the worst educational opportunities. Charter schools are unhampered by bureaucracies and have greater freedom to

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

hire and fire their non-unionized faculty. These schools are often popular with parents and students alike, and though the evidence is inconclusive, some charter schools clearly achieve remarkable results. According to a study conducted by The Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, “Charter students in New York City gained an additional one-month of learning in reading over their traditional public school counterparts per year of schooling. The advancement in math for charter school students was five months of additional learning for each school year.” In other words, the average student who stayed in a New York City charter school for four years was approximately two years ahead in

Domestic math and five months ahead in reading of his or her public school counterpart. These large differences demonstrate that New York City charter schools are, on average, doing a noticeably better job teaching their students than regular public schools. Mayor De Blasio and his followers use a number of arguments to support their anti-charter position. Many charter schools rely on the city public school system for

schools, depriving public schools of some of the most concerned, useful, and active parents. In addition, strong, idealistic teachers may be drawn to the opportunities of working at charter schools, where they think they can make a bigger difference. Furthermore, failing public schools, as opposed to exceptional ones like Bronx Science and Stuyvesant, are the onesvoicing dissatisfaction, as they see the success of charter schools as

support and often share buildings with public schools. Mayor De Blasio supposes that the space would be better occupied by a public school controlled directly by the city’s Board of Education. Furthermore he dislikes teachers’ unions’ lack of influence in charter schools. Charter schoolteachers, Mayor De Blasio states, have no protections and can be easily exploited by their administrators. Most of all, Mayor de Blasio and his supporters argue that charter schools take away resources from existing public schools, creating inequality in a number of areas. For example, motivated, conscientious parents are the ones who are trying hardest to steer their children to charter

somehow responsible for their own failures. The reality is, however, charter schools cover only about 6% of New York City in the public education system according to the New York Daily News. Moreover, charter schools grant teachers the opportunity to create a distinct curriculum and employ different teaching methods from those required by the Board of Education. Almost all aim to provide a school culture in which there are high expectations for academic success, low tolerance for misbehavior, and caring relationships between teachers and students. And while some charter schools have struggled to make an impact, the ability to innovate and create unique education-

The most disturbing aspect of his opposition to the charter movement, however, is the extent to which it shows his indebtedness to the teachers’ union.

al environments has clearly allowed some to succeed. Given these positive possibilities provided by charter schools, it is upsetting that Mayor De Blasio isn’t promoting the crusade. The most disturbing aspect of his opposition to the charter movement, however, is the extent to which it shows his indebtedness to the teachers’ union. The United Federation of Teachers supports teacher tenure, which guarantees educators with seniority preservation of their position unless they commit something close to a crime. The union, furthermore, opposes new evaluation procedures for teachers, which also protect teachers who perform inadequately from losing their jobs. The organization objects strongly to the Charter movement due to the lack of power it has in the schools, and De Blasio is unwilling to take on the powerful union whose support helped him get elected to office. He is hence willing to sacrifice the education of millions of New York City’s most vulnerable children, rather than allowing people who care about education to try to find new solutions to old problems. In conclusion, Mayor De Blasio’s decision is very worrying on a number of levels. It demonstrates his inability to acknowledge the success of the charter school movement and its potential future benefit. Even more worrisome is his refusal to stand up to a major union that helped get him elected in order to improve the education for millions of children in New York. HMR

yorkdispatch.com

October 2014

Domestic

e h T : d r a w r o F y c n g e n i d i k s o e r Lo P o t d a Ro

By Ananya Kumar-Banerjee

t was 2008, and the United States of America had two historic candidates vying for a chance to run for president. We live in a country that has gone through the civil rights and suffrage movements, a country that had evolved its ideals and understanding of its people over time. So, in 2008 when the Democratic party introduced it’s two candidates, a woman and a colored man, the change was palpable in the air. Americans felt that change was real On November 4, 2008 the first black president in our country’s history was ever elected. There were tears of joy and relief spilling from the eyes of 66.7 million voters. After forty-three presidents, change had begun in what appeared to be a homogenising trend. But, to be a woman - that was a whole other matter. Fast forward six years, and the percentage of women in the house and senate is about 20%, while the representation of people of color is no longer as big of an issue. Obama was elected with a plurality of 365 electoral votes, and his election showed broad-based participation. Why couldn’t someone like Hillary receive the same support from voters?

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a first lady, a two-time US Senator representing New York and Secretary of State. She is well versed in political matters and is anything but inexperienced. She went to law school at Yale and helped multiple senators in their campaigns for office. Throughout her life, Hillary has shown a passion for service.After her husband was president for eight years, Hillary found herself to returning to campaign for office, but this time, for her own presidency. In 2008, she ran in the primary elections with the hopes of becoming President, yet the polls showed that the majority of people favoured Obama to her. Obama was a charismatic speaker with a word of great force behind him: change. A different series of words follow Hillary around. She is blamed for a plethora of governmental failings that occurred during her time as Secretary of State. She was the first one that thought of healthcare, when Bill Clinton was president. Her bill did not pass then, but Obama brought it back, rebranding it as “Obamacare.” Another failure of hers is, debatebly, is the Benghazi attack, where four

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

koolnews.gr

American lives were lost. Many believe that Hillary is directly at fault. She also comes from great wealth, and some people feel as though this leaves her out of touch with a plurality of Americans. The Obama Administration’s new immigration policy leaves a lot of people on edge-- including Hillary Clinton, who unwittingly spoke out against the President’s new policy. Her inability to prove her loyalty to the President has caused many to lose respect for her, because if there’s one thing that matters, it’s loyalty. All these things come together and put heavy tarnish on Hillary’s image and reputation. But challenge yourself to look beyond the gray and into the sparkle and glimmer, and you will see the image you forgot: the Clinton Administration. The Clinton Administration boosted the economy, and appealed to demographics who were hardly pleased with years of conservative leaders. It led to years of what could almost be described as prosperity, the “good old days” of stasis. This was an era in which the government deficit actually began to be paid down! Hillary was quite obviously a large part of this hugely successful era, and

Domestic while some may question her political stance, some hear Hillary’s voice harken back to sixteen years ago. People have been attacking her from both left and right, looking for holes in the fabric of her policies, but the point to remember is that everyone is focused on Hillary because they know she’ll run, and more than likely, win. She recently made a trip to Iowa, a state that would be key in securing her a spot in the 2016 race. Countless magazines and newspapers have speculated, persuaded and “proved” that Hillary went on this trip, not to just promote her book, but for her bigger cause. While Hillary has refused to definitely make a decision until later on, many people

wear “revealing” clothing and women are not allowed to be sexual. “Woman” is a distilled, ancient ideal. Hillary does not bring forth this ideal; she coWWWmes with something else. Hillary represents change in tone and voice. The very fact that people are taking her seriously speaks to the changing roles of modern women in politics. Policies revolving around the presence of women in politics changed long ago: Hillary’s rise in the political ladder shows a change in people’s mindsets. People finally see it possible for a woman to take an executive leadership role, to run a country. There is a trust in a female, which is unheard of in the history of our country. It is something which changes everything.

woman to win? Yes, any woman is the right woman to be the first woman to win. Policies change from person to person and you could spend reams of pages deciding who is right for President, based on policies. But Hillary is right because of what she symbolizes for women. She is the right woman to be the first woman because she is the first one who has gotten thus far. While many people have other candidates they see as better: more liberal, more understanding of the lower class, more focused on changing the current immigration policy, etcetera, she is the right woman to be the first woman because she is here. Frankly, the beginning should not matter as long as the story exists. We all know stories

“She’s a woman with a voice who is finally being heard, and she’s the beginning of a hopfully endless dialogue.” are in support of her should she run. Currently, she is even leading in the polls. Besides her policies, her background and everything “important”, Hillary stands for something else. She stands for something big. Obama was for change, and Hillary is here to bring more. She is the mild form of what might some day be a condensed leader. She is a woman. This small fact is not in anyway small. Women only make up 20% of all representative bodies; women are paid 75 cents to every dollar a man is paid; women still face discrimination today. Women are not allowed to

Stop and look at the criticisms of her policies. Stop and look at everyone who criticizes her. Stop and realize that more and more people are criticizing her policies, not her “inadequacy”. Things are changing because this woman who might run for President is not just a woman. She’s a person, a politician. She’s a politician with policies, policies that can be criticized. She’s a woman with a voice who is finally being heard, and she’s the beginning of a hopefully endless dialogue. Is Hillary the right person to win? Yes, though this is debatable depending on your political standpoint. Is Hillary the right

with the most outstanding, shocking middles and the most dour beginnings. Some beginnings are downright offensive. So, maybe you didn’t read far enough, maybe you didn’t turn the page. I say that if you find the title agreeable and open books around you that aren’t to your liking, turn the page. I say that if you find the title dour, that you shouldn’t feel forced to open the book because it’s new. I say read the book’s words instead of staring at it’s cover art. Open the page, read the title. Do you want to read? I do. HMR

comopati.com

October 2014

Domestic

dallasnews.com

Ferguson: The Legal Road from Here

Eva Steinman

he story surrounding the August 9th shooting of Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri has generated a tremendous amount of media attention. The fundamental question remains whether Brown’s hands were raised when Officer Wilson, a white man, fired and fatally shot Brown, a black 18 year old, after an altercation between the two. The pertinent facts of the case are still coming to light. In fact, a newly discovered audio recording between two contractors, captured on a cell phone video taken approximately 50 feet from the shooting and suggesting that Brown’s hands were up, was recently released. The outrage from the teen’s shooting fueled violent demonstrations in Ferguson. While order has been partially restored, emotions continue to run high in Ferguson, where black citizens represent approximately two-thirds of the population. The shooting appears to have happened against a backdrop of preexisting racial tension within the Ferguson community. Based on

data from the Missouri Attorney General’s office, black citizens in Ferguson are disproportionately more likely to be stopped and arrested by law enforcement, with 93% of arrests being of black citizens. By contrast, 5% of the Ferguson police officers are black. Certain elements of the Brown case are clear. It is clear, for example, that Brown was jaywalking. It is also clear that Wilson fired multiple times at Brown, at least one of which he fired from his patrol car. Finally, it is clear that the unarmed teenager was shot six times, five of which were in the front of his body. Yet beyond these basic facts, the details of the incident remain unclear, with the police version of the story varying from eyewitness accounts. The police account suggests that Brown assaulted Wilson and attempted to grab his weapon while the officer was still in his car. According to this account, Wilson got out of the patrol car and fired at Brown after the teen had charged the officer. However, eyewitnesses assert that Brown stopped

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

and put his hands in the air before the fatal shots were fired. With such little clarity, it begs the question: what is the legal road from here (and how difficult will it be to prove the charges against Officer Wilson or, stated differently, exonerate him)? In order to answer this question, it is important to understand that the Brown case will likely proceed along three paths – a state murder or manslaughter charge, a Federal civil rights suit, and one or more civil suits – and to understand that each of these paths has its own process and nuances. At the state level, the St. Louis prosecutor’s office has already begun to present evidence on the case to a grand jury. Grand juries do not make a judgment on guilt or innocence; rather, they decide whether criminal charges will be brought against a potential defendant. In the Brown case, the grand jury is comprised of nine whites and three blacks. The racial composition of the grand jury reflects the demographics of St. Louis County (where Ferguson is lo-

Domestic

“Every reasonable official” would have known that his actions were unlawful cated), which is about 24% black and 68% white, with the balance comprised of other minorities. We expect the grand jury will continue to hear evidence in the Brown shooting case into October. This is partially because grand juries do not meet every day of the week. When they do meet, they do so in secret. During these meetings, the jurors review evidence presented by the prosecutor’s office and are free to ask questions. There is no judge in the room. It takes only nine of the 12 votes to approve moving forward with charges. If approved, the case moves to a regular trial, presided over by a judge, with a jury whose opinion must ultimately be unanimous. To be charged with first-degree murder, Wilson would have to be proven, under Missouri law, to “knowingly cause the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.” A person charged with second degree murder “knowingly causes the death of another person or, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury to another person, causes death of another person.” Manslaughter is a lesser offense that punishes killings due to recklessness, negligence, or the heat of passion. In the meantime, Officer Wilson remains a free man. This is because the state must establish a “probable cause” for an arrest or indictment. The legal definition of probable cause is “a reasonable amount of suspicion…to justify a prudent and cautious person’s belief that certain facts are probably true.” Until all the facts are presented to the grand jury, the presumption in this case appears to be that Officer Wilson has a reasonable claim of self-defense. In fact, even if criminal charges are brought against Officer Wilson, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Missouri law states that officers may use deadly force when they reasonably believe it is necessary to make an arrest and when they also reasonably believe that the threat from the suspect may “endanger life or inflict serious physical injury.” The Federal Government is also investigating whether Officer Wilson violated Brown’s “civil rights.” Civil rights are granted to US citizens by the Constitution, specifically by the Bill of Rights. The Feder-

al Government must demonstrate a willful intent by Officer Wilson beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof is extremely high in cases involving police officers. If the officer had an “objectively reasonable” belief that there was a threat posed by Brown, then the case becomes difficult to prosecute. In fact, the officer must act “willfully,” with a “purpose to deprive a person of a specific constitutional right.” Additionally, Brown’s family can file a number of “civil suits”. A “civil suit” is almost a misleading name, because it is not necessarily related to violating someone’s “civil rights,” although it could be. Rather, a civil suit is a lawsuit seeking monetary damages, as compared to a criminal suit, which is pursued by the Federal government or state. In this case the Brown family can file a civil suit against Officer Wilson, claiming he violated Brown’s civil rights. They can also file a civil suit against the Ferguson police department for instituting policies and procedures that contributed to Brown’s death. These civil suits could proceed while the criminal investigation and process are taking place. However, if no state or Federal charges are ultimately filed

against Wilson, then the civil suit may be more difficult to prove. Civil suits are determined based on a “preponderance of the evidence,” under which the winning side only needs to prove a greater than 50% chance that their assertion is true. This compares to a much higher standard in a criminal case, in which guilt must be determined “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Yet even with respect to a civil case, there are hurdles. Police officers receive “qualified immunity” and can be held liable only if “every reasonable official” would have known that his actions were unlawful – in other words, only if every reasonable official would conclude that Officer Wilson’s actions clearly constituted excessive force and not self-defense. And the police department, meanwhile, is liable only if it had policies or a pattern of conduct that encouraged excessive use of force or racial motivation, neither of which may be easy to prove. If all of this seems complicated, that’s because it is. The next major step along the legal road will be the grand jury decision, sometime in October. HMR

america.aljazeera.com

October 2014

Domestic

alive365.com

Abortion and the Supreme Court: A Decades Long Struggle for Women’s Reproductive Rights By Mehr Suri

t’s strange; usually when discussing women of the twentieth century, one recounts that this was an era of pain and struggle, a fight for women’s rights and freedoms, both on a political and social level. However, as I look back at it, I see an era of tranquility and serenity: an era where women were not hindered by the potential of having an unwanted pregnancy. Unfortunately, as time has progressed, women have been driven down a different path, a path filled with regret and sorrow, for they are forced to succumb to the idea that having a child will be their only option. It is because of the United States Supreme Court that women have been slowly stripped of their right to be able to deal with their body in whichever fashion they choose. Looking back on the landmark cases addressed by the Supreme Court, it is interesting to see how drastically the justices’ views have shifted to give rise to the ideas of the modern day. Thus, these abortion rulings have largely been irrational, therefore changing the societal ordinances of

decades ago, hurling us into a negligent modern era. One of the first iconic Supreme Court rulings concerning abortion took place in 1973, and it opened a myriad of doors for purposeful-miscarriage adjudication. The suit arose in June of 1969 when Norma McCorvey discovered she was pregnant with her third child. Norma found herself stuck: due to her income, it would be extremely difficult to provide for a fourth child. Upon returning to her home in Dallas, she was instructed by her close friends to falsely claim that she had been raped in order to skirt Texas statute and receive a legal abortion. This scheme, however, did not work due to the lack of a filed police report and any evidence backing up her heinous assertion. Desperate, she attempted to receive an illegal abortion but could not because the clinic nearest to her had been closed down by the police. At this point, she felt there was nothing else she could do. Feeling trapped, McCorvey organized a way she could fight to legally gain the abortion

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

she needed. Aiding McCorvey with her lawsuit were her close friends Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington. In 1970, they filed a suit on Norma’s behalf under the alias Jane Roe to avoid conflict coming Ms. McCorvey’s way. After both parties, Weddington and Coffee and the Texas District Attorney, Henry Wade, presented their respective cases, the district courts ruled in Norma’s favor based upon the legal merits of her argument, which specifically concentrated on the vagueness in the 9th amendment. However, the district courts declined to grant an injunction against the enforcement of the further laws barring abortion. Unhappy without a full triumph, Weddington and Coffee continued to pursue this case, forcing it all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Hearing both perspectives on the issue, the court relied on the concurring opinion by Justice Arthur Goldberg in 1965 in the case of Griswold versus Connecticut, finding in the decision for a right of privacy in Ms. McCorvey’s favor by a 7 to 2 vote. This landmark de-

Domestic

abortion.ws

cision led to an extension of a woman’s right to the decision to have an abortion; but, this right would have to be balanced against the state’s two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting life before birth and protecting the woman’s health. By disallowing multiple state and federal restrictions on abortions, this case prompted a national debate about issues including whether, and if so, to what extent, abortion should be legal, and rightly so. But, historically, this case set precedent for triumph after all of the scrapping and struggles they had so valiantly fought for in the past. This was the case that finally, fully put women on the map, giving them something they truly deserved. This was the case that set the United States on the path that it should not have ever veered from: giving women control of their reproductive rights, while

simultaneously preventing the harm of anyone or anything. Thirteen years later, the United States Supreme Court upheld its previous rulings in the ACOG v. Thornburg case by providing more information for mothers who were considering abortions, and overall making it an easier and simpler task. Before this case took place, the legislature of Pennsylvania passed a comprehensive abortion law, including three provisions. The first stated that the woman must be told the name of her abortion doctor, as well as the possible physical and psychological effects and particular medical risks of the abortion. The second provision mandated that clinics report the identity of doctors who were referring and performing the abortions, the woman’s county or city, age, race, marital status, number of prior pregnancies, date

of last menstrual period and probable viability of the child. Lastly, for post-viability abortions, this provision would require the use of the abortion technique to allow the child to be aborted when alive, as it would not present as great of a risk to the woman’s life or health. Though these provisions were in place for multiple years, in 1986, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists filed a case suggesting that these regulations were unconstitutional. After being heard by the US Supreme Court, it was concluded that the law was designed to deter women from exercising their right to choose abortion. It was concluded that the informed consent provision required irrelevant information, increased the patient’s anxiety, and intruded on the doctor’s judgment. The reporting requirement went beyond health-related matters

youtube.com

October 2014

Domestic and raised the specter of public exposure and harassment of women. Further, the post-viability provision caused the exact result it hoped to prevent: the provision required the mother to bear an increased medical risk in order to save the baby and failed to provide a medical-emergency exception for cases where the woman’s health was endangered. Constructing regulations to aid women was an even further step forward, piling on to the Roe v. Wade result almost a decade earlier; it provided women with all the information and opportunities that they

jorly barred misbirth options and was the essential backbone to this case. Signed into effect by President Bush in November of 2003, the act has been kept in place since the result of this ruling. The suit reached the High Courts after US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales appealed a ruling of the eighth and ninth circuit of the US Court of Appeals, who ruled in favor of LeRoy Carhart, striking down the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. The district courts’ reasoning for favoring Carhart’s argument relied heavily on the vagueness in the act, leaving space for it

by the physician to benefit the patient’s health.” The England Journal of Medicine was, in fact, right in stating that this case was a landmark decision, maybe even more so than the previously discussed cases. This landmark decision was so large that it single-handedly changed the course the previous justices had laid out. The order now was to prevent procedures that could potentially save the mother for the birth of this unwanted child: simply inhumane. As cold as this may seem, the Congressional body has continued to pass anti-abortion legislation that infringes on

“As cold as this may seem, the Congressional body has continued to pass anti-abortion legislation that infringes on the right of women to obtain a lawful and safe termination of pregnancy.” were entitled to, taking a strong stride forward in purposeful-miscarriage adjudication. Unfortunately, however, as we move in to the modern era, new justices took the reigns, erasing all of the progress their predecessors had made. Leaping forward almost three decades, giving rise to new justices, abortion controversy began to stir once again in the 2007 landmark Supreme Court ruling of Gonzales versus Carhart, this time causing a major shift in abortion legislation. This particular case arose with the questioning of constitutionality of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, which ma-

to cover much beyond partial-birth abortions, infringing on conventional medical practices. However, upon Gonzales appeal, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the congressional ban, with Chief Justice John Roberts noting that “it did not impose an undue burden on the due process right of women to obtain an abortion ‘under precedents we here assume to be controlling.” Nevertheless, an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine identified the case as a landmark: “This is the first time the Court has ever held that physicians can be prohibited from using a medical procedure deemed necessary

quotego.com

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

the right of women to obtain a lawful and safe termination of pregnancy. And this brings us to modern day society, where, in the year 2014, the United States Supreme Court continued to go down a misguided and irrational path by limiting abortion possibilities in the controversial Hobby Lobby v. Burwell case. It all began when Hobby Lobby, a small crafts company based in Oklahoma, was named as the defendant in a case concerning contraceptives. Run by a devoutly Christian family, the company refused to pay for its employees’ birth control as it violated Christian ideals. This, howev-

Domestic

locktonhealthcarereform.org

er, was illegal at the time due to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act: employers were mandated to pay for the all medical benefits, excluding dentistry, of their employees, such as the “morning after” pill. Hobby Lobby’s refusal to follow this mandate forced many of the company’s employees, represented by Secretary of Health and Human Services Sylvia Burwell, to file a lawsuit against the Hobby Lobby Corporation. This suit represented the first time a court has ever recognized a for-profit’s claim to their first amendment religious rights and freedoms. Due to the conservative majority in the Supreme Court, the contraceptive mandate was shot down by a 5-4 vote; it was further declared that “closely held”, for-profit corporations like Hobby Lobby are exempt from a law if its owners religiously object to said legislation, with regulation. The court said that mandate was not the least restrictive way to ensure access to contraceptive care; however, they failed to provide any alternative

for female employees of the corporations who do not wish to provide birth control. The decision was an interpretation of the religious freedom restoration act of 1993, as well as the vagueness of whether corporations are protected by the free-exercise of religion in the first amendment of the Constitution. In hopes of limiting this ruling to a small amount of corporations, solely “closely held” corporations were given this benefit. In spite of this, the limitation’s function was almost irrelevant as 90% of US corporations are “closely held”, and approximately 52% of the US workforce is employed by closely held companies. This outcome of the suit was quite ironic; it gave a company the same rights as a human, but in doing so, simultaneously stripped women of their right to contraceptives. It is cases much like these that make pragmatic thinkers suggest that the Supreme Court is taking a faulty route, and that this will only lead to negative effects in the future. The ruling of this case could push the Su-

October 2014

preme Court to go further in this direction, eventually divesting other rights of the men and women of the United States, which should not transpire at the hands of nine men and women. Looking at these four landmark cases, it is quite apparent that abortion legislation and rulings are perpetually reshaping; the thirty years bridging the gap in between the ACOG and Carhart cases represented a restructuring of social ideals. Not only have these recent justices deprived women of their right to attain an abortion comfortably, but there seems to be no pro-choice rulings in sight. This change of the tide represents the unfortunate trajectory the United States is on, such that previously accepted societal ordinances are slowly being overshadowed by new and frivolous lawsuits of the modern era. HMR

International

The Downside of Liberty: How Scotland Dodged a Bullet By Honor McCarthy

ince the Scottish National Party won the 2011 Parliamentary Election, its primary objection has been to institute an autonomous government, independent from the United Kingdom. Currently, Scotland operates as a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary democracy. The parliament is devolved, holding the power to implement legislative decisions and to control matters such as health, education, and transport within the country. However, the government of the United Kingdom presently governs financial and defensive matters. In order to determine whether Scotland would become independent, a referendum was held on September 18. Residents of Scotland aged sixteen and

older voted to remain part of the UK. Ultimately, Scotland functioning as an independent country would have been a poor route to take, for the Scottish and the British alike. First and foremost, if Scotland had voted to become independent, the currency would have lacked organization, hindering its economic development. Leading up to the referendum, the three major political parties of Britain stated that an independent Scotland would not be permitted to operate under the pound. Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland and leader of the Scottish National Party, responded to this by threatening to back out of Scotland’s agreement to shoulder its share of British debt. However, even if Scotland had continued using the pound upon independence, they would have had

independent.uk

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

virtually no control over the Bank of England and its monetary policy, defeating the point of becoming financially autonomous. Secondly, Scotland was ill equipped to position itself as a leader financially given its heavy reliance on North Sea oil and gas. Proponents of Scottish independence argued that success in the oil industry would enable Scotland to prosper, but they were metaphorically hitching their wagon to an aging horse. Two thirds of the available oil in the area has already been extracted, meaning there are only 30-40 years’ worth of production remaining. The decline in availability would have lead to a 38% fall in oil revenue in the next four to five years. As UK Prime Minister David Cameron said, with natural resources dwindling, it is more important than ever “to back the industry with the broad shoulders of the UK.” Any profits would have been outweighed by the £13.8 billion loss in government revenues due to the public sector pensions and North Sea revenues for FY 2015-2016. By liberating themselves from the UK, Scotland threatened the security and defense of itself and the UK. With a population of 64 million, Britain is a relatively large global power compared to Scotland, which has a population of about 5 million. The sheer size of a consolidated United Kingdom was an advantage Scotland could not match on its

International

“Proponents of Scottish independence argued that success in the oil industry would enable Scotland to prosper, but they were metaphorically htching their wagon to an aging horse.” own. Larger populations have both defense related and financial benefits: more peoples results in an increase of workers, consumption, and national savings. From a military perspective, a larger country means a more secure country. Defense, alongside the economy, was Scotland’s weakest card. As a member of NATO, the UK is Scotland’s best option for the time being. Currently, the Scottish make up ten percent of the armed forces. For Britain, independence means losing one tenth of their army, but more importantly, for Scotland, it is a loss of 90% of its previous protective force. Additionally, Scotland does not have the necessary facilities within the country for training purposes. Although, given its new size, it might not have necessarily needed as large an army, the security associated with those numbers and the resources of the UK is hard to ignore. These changes posed a threat to the security of both countries and would have greatly weakened the effectiveness of the Royal Navy. One of the UK’s three naval bases is in Scotland, where Britain’s missile armed submarines are stored. Had Scotland become independent, Britain’s Navy would have had to construct a new facility for its nuclear weapons and Scotland would no longer have access to them. In addition to reduced personnel, a Scottish defense force, at least for a period of time, would have lacked artillery engineering equipment, tanks, and submarines. Because of its vote against independence, the future of Scotland is bright; more citizens than ever are involved in the democratic process and its holds increased control over its own destiny. About 80% of the population voted in the referendum, a significant number when compared to the 60% who voted in the 2012 Presidential Election in the US. The vote reflects the growing politicization and vested interest the Scottish have in their future. As a Scottish official said, “people who were once disengaged with

politics turned out in large numbers”. This has a long-term impact; since the referendum, participation has doubled in the Scottish National Party, which could now increase its majority in the Scottish Parliament. By remaining part of the UK, Scotland has access to significant benefits, without shouldering the onerous economic burdens and military responsibility. Before the referendum, the British government pledged significantly more fiscal and political autonomy should they remain united. David Cameron stated that England would honor these promises, which include greater control over tax policy, public expenditure, and welfare

rates. Scotland’s economy can now maintain the benefits of operating on a larger scale and under the same legal system and currency, making for easier global and domestic negotiations. Ultimately, the referendum rallied the Scottish people around a cause, generating national pride and emphasizing the best of a democratic society. HMR

www.global-gateways.com

October 2014

International

todayonline.com

Al Qaeda in India Narendra Modi’s Challenge

Ankit Gupta

ecently, the new extreme jihadist group, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), has gained much popularity in the Sunni regions in the Middle East, specifically, Iraq and Syria. ISIS has a long history with another extremist group known as Al-Qaeda. Al Qaeda’s founder, Osama Bin Laden died in an attack by American troops in 2011. Since his death, Al Qaeda has been but a shadow of its former self. Al Qaeda’s losing control over the Middle East is

seen again when you take a look at ISIS, which is essentially doing what Al Qaeda couldn’t and create an Islamic State. Al Qaeda has realized that they are no longer an influential force in the Middle East; facing a decline in relative power, they have decided to add a new wing in India. Al Qaeda’s decision to expand into the Indian subcontinent seems irrational at first: India is over 80% Hindu and only 13% Muslim. Remarkably, this is actually precisely the reason Al Qaeda has de-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

cided to do so. India has a long history of violence over religion, especially near the Pakistan border in areas like Kashmir where the majority of the population is Muslim. On September 3rd, 2014, new Al Qaeda leader, Ayman al-Zahwari, released a video asserting that . “[Al Qaeda] wants Islam to return to the Indian subcontinent,… It will serve the Muslims in Burma, Kashmir, Gujarat, Bangladesh, Ahmedabad and Assam… [we] will liberate you from injustice and oppression,”.

International Qaedat al-Jihad in the Indian Subcontinent

September 2nd

September 3rd

September 6th

Al Qaeda Militants Allegedly Kill a Senior Pakistani Military Officer

Al Qaeda’s Indian Branch is Officially Announced

Al Qaeda’ Al Qaeda Militants Attempt to Hijack an Indian Frigate

He continued explaininf that this plan to start a wing in the Indian subcontinent has been in the works for two years. Is this move related to ISIS’ gaining popularity in Iraq and Syria? Given current geopolitical tensions in the Middel East, it undeniably is. Zahwari, and Al Qaeda are determined to expand into new territories and reclaim lost authority. Considering that India is are notorious for having a poor security infrastructure, managed by incompetent people this development has serious implications. In response to this development, the Indian government has assured its citizens that while this is a serious threat, it will be dealt with gently and efficiently. It states that, for now, there is no reason to worry, as “there is a strong government at the federal level.” There was also a recent election in India that was won by Narendra Modi, a man who is said to believe that India should be a land for Hindus. Despite his belief that Muslims and Hindus should coexist in India, his rhetoric will only exacerbate religious divides. However, Modi released a statement which stated, “Indian Muslims will live for India. They will die for India..” He continued, asserting that

of the 170 million Muslims living in India, there are only a few individuals who have affiliated themselves with Al Qaeda. The people managing India’s security infrastructure are not the only ones who are incompetent. After just two weeks of being established, this new Indian wing of Al Qaeda (Qaedat al-Jihad) has already failed to execute an attack against the United States. In an attempt to attack a US Aircraft carrier, Qaedat al-Jihad mistakenly attacked a Pakistani frigate that was docked at a port in Karachi instead of a Indian vessel. This embarrassment to Al Qaeda will definitely deter would-be jihadists from joining them and they will turn to ISIS. Though Al Qaeda’s Indian wing is weak and ineffective now, that does not preclude it from constituting a legitimate threat in the future. If the organization is able to gain the requisite resource and to organize them properly, it is perfectly reasonable to think that they might pose a threat in the future. Thus, the time for decisive action is now; if India can reform its security infrastructure, it will be able to cripple Qaedat al-Jihad, degrading any offensive capabilities they might have. There are no specific

policies, which must be implemented to do so. Security deficiency, a mentioned above, is a result of incompetency concerning the execution of policies not a fault of the policies themselves. It is the responsibility of Narendra Modi to streamline India’s government and design more effective methods of policy implementation. Additionally, Modi must “win over the hearts and minds” of his people. He should refrain from making statements that can be interpreted as anti-Islamic and focus on building a wide coalition of support for an opposition to al-Qaeda that encompasses all religious and ethnic groups. Though it is clear that he believes that Muslims and Hindus should coexist peacefully within India, one cannot ignore that he did state that “India should be a land for Hindus” a statement which will just give radical groups like Qaedat al-Jihad, ideological ammunition. Though this problem is relatively small, its potential to grow into a region-altering threat is big enough that India should take action to prevent its expansion: focusing on physical security deficiencies while ensuring that radicalization does not occur. HMR

“Though Al Qaeda’s Indian wing is weak and ineffective now, that does not preclude it from constituting a legitimate threat in the future.” October 2014

International

Siddharth Tripathi

oe Biden allegedly said to Vladimir Putin’s face, “Mr. Prime Minister, I’m looking into your eyes, and I don’t think you have a soul”. The annexation of Crimea, the shooting down of flight MH17, and Putin’s support of the separatists in East Ukraine are all ways to quantify the extreme harm Vladimir Putin has caused. He has poisoned the beliefs of Russian people with deceit and anti-western propaganda. At the end of the cold war it seemed as if the days of expanding imperial empires were over. However, Mr. Putin has other ideas. His continued thirst to revitalize Russia into the old USSR started long before the annexation of Crimea. To counter Putin’s expansionist leanings, the US and the West must be far more committed for a long-term confrontation with Russia. The Economist put’s it best; Putin has

made Russia a place where “truth and falsehood are no longer distinct”. It is critical to stop President Vladimir Putin, and his belligerence, once and for all, even if it means bringing back the Cold War. In the past, Russia has always gone out of its way to cause conflict with the West. First, in 2008, Russia invaded Georgia with a full-scale ground invasion of around 9000 troops. Furthermore, this invasion was in direct defiance of the opinions of the West, with the then Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Gordon Brown, explicitly telling Russia there was “no justification for continued Russian military action in Georgia” which would threaten the “stability of the entire region and risks a humanitarian catastrophe”. Putin continued regardless. It was hypothesized that Russia wanted to take control of the region to seize con-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

trol of the essential oil pipelines vital to the US because of it’s continuous effort to become less oil dependent in the Middle East. Fortuitously, in the end, the Georgian invasion failed due to actions on the ground. The second example of Putin’s defiance of the West was in Syria. After allegations that Syrian President Bashar Al Assad had used chemical weapons on his own population, it seemed as if the West and the US were seriously considering possible military action against the regime. However, Russia, having a permanent spot on the United Nations Security Council, and therefore veto power over any crisis bill, denied the West UN support. Coincidentally, CNN reports that Russia is “ one of Syria’s biggest arms suppliers…(and) contracts with the Russian defense industry have likely exceeded $4 billion”. Russia, once again, protected it’s own interests and under-

International mined Western policy, even at the cost of foregoing the opportunity to re-stabilize the region. Both these actions represent Russia’s continuous belligerence towards other countries. The West and the US needed to recognize the Russian threat and take action, but failed to do so yet again. This was a harbinger of what was to come in February of 2014. The annexation of Crimea began on February 28, 2014, when 2,000 Russian troops had landed by several

erating in the logic of partnership, rather than the logic of defense and deterrence”. Russia has come out of the Crimea annexation unscathed, with only a few minor blisters. Soon after the annexation of Crimea, an extremely unfortunate tragedy occurred; Pro-Russian separatists shot down Malaysian Flight MH17. All evidence points to Mr. Putin being cause of this disaster. First, the missile which had brought down the plane looks to be

from European nations has been scarce, due to the fear that sanctioning Russia’s oil, gas, and business sectors will affect their economy. For example, Britain has imposed sanctions, but is hesitant so as to not affect the city of London’s lucrative Russian businesses. Barrack Obama has said that it will lift up the sanctions placed if Russia removes all of it’s troops from Ukraine. Once the US removes these sanctions, and even if Russia does retreat its troops,

Putin is not facing harsh enough consequences. The West must impose long-term threatening sanctions on Russia’s economy. Russian military helicopters which then were dispersed over Crimean airspace. The next day, troop numbers increased to 6,000. The Russian government, known for its manipulation of the legal system, quickly passed a bill justifying its invasion of Ukraine. The West was outraged. Germany’s president Angela Merkel put’s it best, “Russia cannot be allowed to invade other countries that surround it and try to shift Europe’s border’s with impunity”. President Putin is not at liberty to simply invade another region, seize control of it, and make it part of Russia. But what is the role of NATO in all of this warmongering, NATO – an organization whose original purpose was to protect the stability of its region from Russian aggression? The Foreign Policy website claims that NATO has held meetings at the “NATO-Russia Council, NATO-Ukraine Commission and hosted a visit by Ukrainian interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk at the alliance headquarters”. Additionally, NATO has cut down on mutual exchanges with Russia, and has “offered to increase partnership activities with Ukraine”. All that activity is just that – activity. NATO lacks a strategic purpose, and anything resembling actual execution of comprehensive policy is nowhere to be found. There hasn’t been plausible threat of action that might even prevent Russia from continuing its path of destruction. Furthermore, the only action on the part of the US has been the implementation of underwhelming and feeble sanctions. The Foreign Policy website concludes “NATO seems to be stuck op-

from Russia, and it was the Russian military that instructed the missile’s crew. President Putin is also indirectly responsible for this tragedy, because at the end of the day this is Putin’s war. He supplies these separatists with weapons and tanks. Sure the separatists are the ones who launched the attack, but in reality, Mr. Putin is the one who shot the missile from behind the scenes. New sanctions have been imposed attacking Russia’s largest bank, oil companies, and one of Russia’s largest arm’s suppliers. However, even with these sanctions, support

Russia will not have faced adequate punishment for its crimes. The annexation of Crimea has caused hundreds of civilian deaths and destroyed stability in the region for the foreseeable future. Putin is not facing harsh enough consequences. The West must impose long-term threatening sanctions on Russia’s economy. Vladimir Putin has lied to his people and has lied about his actions. It’s time Mr. Putin learned that no man or woman should ever escape the consequences of their actions – and in Russia’s case, their actions were heinous indeed. HMR

marxist.com www.global-gateways.com

October 2014

International

Middle East and North Africa Emigration Crisis

Jacob Chae simplychanneling.wordpress.com

eople travel and move to America for many reasons including business, education, marriage, family, and even vacation. Ever wonder why America is coined with the name “the melting pot?” That is because our country is a diverse community with people from various cities ranging from China to Australia. We Americans take many things for granted, and one of the most significant issues in the world is immigration. It is important to understand that immigration relies on the acceptance of the individuals of the country one is immigrating to. The fact that America accepts others for who they are should be firmly rooted in people’s mindsets. The idea that here in America we are safe in our homes and are not under persecution does not run parallel with certain situations for people living in the Middle East. Currently when we look at the problems in the Middle East, the word “crisis” would just be considered unembellished. So much has occurred in the past and is occurring in the present that has put the Middle East in a world separate from ours. Issues including ISIS and the Israeli conflict stick out and countless more are developing. Problems in the Middle East are clearly overflowing

and not many resolutions have been made. However one topic that is prevalent and rampant is the issue of illegal immigration. Due to events such as the uprisings in Syria, many people are fleeing from their homes to seek refuge in other places nearby. These people are driven by the fear that if they stay where they are, they will end up dead or live a harder and treacherous life. Many individuals have a justified desire to start a new career in a new country. However these days due to higher demand and slow insufficient action, being granAted refuge is an infrequent task. Therefore, people have no other option but to trust random unauthorized people they’ve never met before and cross countries by water. Even more devastating news is that the majority of these unauthorized people are associated with human trafficking, drugs, and warfare. These human traffickers are targeting impoverished and impecunious cities where money is scarce and crime is widespread. These people that run these human trafficking businesses are without doubt hazardous and dangerous people. For example, according to Euronews, human traffickers off the coast of Malta deliberately drowned 500 migrants. Only 6 people survived this incident. The more

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

shocking news is that the boat was escorted by a criminal gang and according to the survivors, “the smugglers forced a number of people into the water and deliberately rammed the boat and waited in the area until the ship had sunk.” Also in another region, Libyan coastguards said that a boat carrying 250 African migrants travelling to Europe capsized off Tripoli with 200 feared dead and the Italian Navy reported that in October 2013, 400 illegal immigrants were killed when another boat capsized. Overall, the United Nations said that as many as 130,000 illegal migrants have arrived in Europe last year. The majority of these immigrants attempted to cross from North Africa and the Middle East in unsafe and flimsy vessels due to the fact that this is their only available option. With the rise of terrorist organizations such as ISIS, the demand for illegal transportation will rapidly increase. America and the world as a whole should take a deeper look into this issue. Yes, everyone is aware of the fact that America has its own immigration issues dealing with the border between America and Mexico, but this European immigration crisis is resulting in an innumerable amount of deaths. So far, the only major beneficial action that has taken place is

International the Italian armed forces setting up a task force to help save the lives of illegal immigrants. Surprisingly, this operation has become very successful, and it has already saved the lives of 1,600 illegal immigrants who were on board seven boats on their way to Italy. Despite this obliging and charitable act on part of the Italian armed forces, not much has been done. Other countries involved around this crisis such as Libya, Syria, and others should take some action or at the very least assert a position on this topic. The United Nations and the European Union should not hold back and wait while the death toll keeps on rising at a fast constant pace. Immigration has been a constant problem throughout the past couple of decades. However, we can see that a red-alert should be enforced upon the Middle Eastern and African immigration mishaps. The United Nations and the European Union should take action by either supplying proper transportation for these immigrants or improving their refugee and immigration systems around the world. Immediate action is essential right now when the dilemmas in the Middle East are continuously worsening by the day. While some action should definitely be taken regarding the issue of illegal immigration to Europe, another key aspect is transportation. From issues dating back to examples of the two catastrophes of Malaysian airlines to the Sewol Ferry Incident in Korea, transportation seems to becoming faultier and defective. It is clearly evident that if some action were to take place on this issue on immigration, it would not be a swift overnight change. Agreements would have to be made between countries, and the United Nations would be heavily involved, taking into account the other world issues going on simultaneously. It would take many days and even possibly many months to be enacted. However one thing that could help out in advance would be to take better safety procedures in the manufacture of instruments of transportation. If car, plane, and boat manufacturers were required to boost and improve their systems to provide more cautious and safe end results, then many illegal immigrants might not die. The cheap and erroneous material of the boats that these immigrants are using to travel is making the ship prone to either breaking down during a voyage or

capsizing. These rules that would be put into place for these manufacturers would definitely take a shorter time and have long lasting results for the near future. Travelling conditions should definitely be improved. These human traffickers ruthlessly smuggle immi-

compromise might be the solution to this crisis. This compromise would consist of countries making some exceptions by being more lenient and less harsh on human trafficking organizations by not enforcing such strict measures. As an immigrant from South

“The United Nations and the European Union should take action by either supplying proper transportation for these immigrants or improving their refugee and immigration systems around the world.” grants on boats like animals. They cram as many people as possible and often go tremendously over the normal capacity of the boat. According to Free Speech Radio News, the “reckless negligence” is becoming more prevalent in human trafficking these days and now this negligence is escalating by involving acts of violence, such as traffickers ramming their boats into people after disposing them in the sea. Not only does this go against proper maritime conduct, but also it violates human rights. Most importantly, immigrants whether illegal or not, should have the decorous and most suitable transportation provided to them. Despite the sketchy and fragmentary business of these human traffickers, human trafficking should offer better travelling conditions. Even though human trafficking is illegal, due to the current surge of immigrants, a possible

Korea and now a present day American citizen, believe that everyone regardless of their race or social class should have the ability to immigrate to other regions of our world. The endless opportunities that are prevalent when going to a new environment are just so valuable that it is extremely difficult to bear what many of these hopeful immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East are going through. To finally find the chance to move from a rough zone of warfare and terror to a placid and prosperous European country is a wonderful opportunity. Not only do I support the fact that some form of action must take place by either the United Nations or the European Union for the benefit of these immigrants, but I also strongly believe that it will be ideal for the countries where these immigrants are coming from to take a stance in this fight as well. HMR

www.global-gateways.com www.guardian.com

October 2014

International

The Enemies of Our Enemy patdollard.com

Will Scherr

or years the Middle East has been a perfect breeding ground for chaos, war, and terrorism. A culmination of religiously motivated assassinations on heads of state has made stable government impossible. In cases where leadership was stable, rulers were ruthless and led with an iron first for decades. As the world has seen time and time again, regimes that give few basic liberal rights to their people will eventually topple. The Western world witnessed it in 1776, and now, the world is witnessing it today. For the past five years, conflicts in many Middle Eastern countries have turned the government against its people. When there is not secular fighting, the Sunni and Shia sects resume their constant conflict. There is also the added component of the conflict with Israel, and very few countries have had a positive view or working relationship with the Jewish state since it’s founding in 1948. However, the fact that many of the countries that have berated Israel in the past are now willing to work with the Israeli government shows how much of a threat ISIS is. Fighting within countries weakens the power of the ruling government, allowing terror groups to set up strong holds. In Syria and Iraq in particular, ISIS has

grown out of control. The non-existent border between Iraq and Syria has allowed ISIS to create a strong hold in northern Iraq and Syria, kidnapping westerners, killing Muslims that are deemed not conservative enough, recruiting more members everyday, and plotting attacks against western targets. ISIS has kidnapped and killed Turkish, Israeli, British, French, Iraqi, Syrian, and American citizens and is spreading to the borders of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia. However, its reach extends beyond whatever border it has spread to. Beheadings in Yemen and terror threats all throughout Europe and America, as well as recruits from western countries, have proved that ISIS and its tactics have taken a global route. This broadening of horizons is the reason why ISIS can help unite the world. Stopping the spread of ISIS is in all nations’ political and religious interests. This unity amongst Middle Eastern nations is already under way. John Kerry, The U.S. Secretary of State, recently traveled to the Middle East in order to gain support in the fight against ISIS. The overwhelming response to assemble the coalition against ISIS demonstrates the ability for countries of all religions, beliefs, and policies to

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

come together for a single cause. Countries such as Turkey, Israel, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia have all joined in an effort to combat ISIS. The Islamic countries have pledged to support Kerry along with Israel, showing a united front in the Middle East to combat the extremist threat. All of those countries are fundamentally different from Israel, and while that is not an excuse for the lack of support for Israel in past conflicts, it certainly provides an explanation as to why these countries have been at ends over the years. As a matter of fact, almost all of the countries in the Middle East have been at odds with each other because of fundamental beliefs. Support is only available from one country to another when the interests align. In the case of ISIS, the terrorist group has over-expanded itself too quickly and has committed egregious humanitarian crimes that no country can stand for, making other recognized groups, such as al-Qaeda, uneasy. The world, especially Western powers, learned from their mistakes when they underestimated Al-Qaeda’s power and strength. During the 1990’s and early 2000’s Al-Qaeda was able to expand from Afghanistan and Pakistan to the northern portion of Africa. They took advantage of

International

“The Islamic countries have pledged to support Kerry along with Israel, showing a united front in the Middle East to combat the extremist threat.” weak governments by offering the citizens of those countries food, money, shelter, and healthcare, something none of those governments could provide. This support allowed Al-Qaeda to fester and raise money in these lawless countries, eventually leading to the attacks on Western and secular sites. In 1998 Al-Qaeda blew up two United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and in 2000 Al-Qaeda attacked the USS Cole in the Yemeni port of Aden. Both of these attacks were significant, and many other deadly attacks occurred before them, but there was insignificant action taken each time until September 11th, 2001. After 9/11, the world finally responded to Al-Qaeda on a large scale. However this retaliation is still taking its course thirteen years later. During this time Al-Qaeda has still been able to launch attacks all over the world including countries that ISIS is threatening. Unlike ISIS, Al-Qaeda’s base and leadership was stationed in the lawless mountainous regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. These mountains are far from the Middle East and Northern Africa, deterring those nations from sending troops to the mountainous border. Instead, those countries with strong enough militaries made attempts to combat jihadists in their own countries. However, countries like Somalia, Yemen, and Iraq after the fall of Sadam Hussein were neither trained nor funded properly to combat the jihadist movements. This weakness allowed Al-Qaeda to set up shop in the Arabian Peninsula, the horn of Africa, and Iraq, the center of the Middle East. It was after the fall of the Sadam Hussein regime in Iraq when Al-Qaeda planned and carried out many of their signature attacks such as the London and Madrid Underground bombings, the attempted shoe and underwear bombings, the numerous oil refinery attacks in Saudi Arabia and hotel attacks in Egypt and Morocco. All of these attacks and more were carried out once chaos hit Iraq. Once again, chaos is hitting Iraq again, however this time, there are combat sol-

diers fighting the extremists. Before the United States pulled out of Iraq, Al-Qaeda had to deal with fighting coalition troops, suppressing their effectiveness within the region. The United States pulled out of Iraq, with the hopes and aspirations that the Iraqi army could control their country. However the Iraqi President at the time was preoccupied with ensuring the Shiites were in control in the government, ignoring any other conflicts within the country. The Iraqi President appointed people as generals out of political favors, not based off of merit or any pervious military background. This led to a lack of willingness and skill in the Iraqi army to combat ISIS. From 2004-2010 Al-Qaeda was entangled in battles with professionally trained soldiers from the United Kingdom and the United States, and they still managed to pull off attacks against other nations in the Middle East and the West. Now ISIS, similarly to Al-Qaeda, is in control of parts of Iraq and is carrying out attacks. However ISIS is facing a tired and diminishing Kurdish Army, and an Iraqi Army that lacks the willpower and skill to fight ISIS.

All of these factors make ISIS more dangerous than Al-Qaeda. ISIS has immediately established a stronghold in Iraq, which is something that took Al-Qaeda a while to achieve and is provoking the quick action from neighboring and Western nations. The world saw how quickly terrorist attacks escalated once Al-Qaeda was able to entrench its roots in Iraq. The countries in the Middle East had to deal with the pain these attacks created. Now Middle Eastern countries are watching the birth of an even more ruthless jihadi organization appear right on their doorstep. The world is witnessing how ISIS is tearing apart Iraq and Syria and how well funded and equipped they are to fight. However, ISIS is relatively new to the international community and action is under way to hamper any future plans ISIS has. In the past decade, the Middle East has been flipped upside down by terrorism, creating a cesspool of chaos and evil that needs to be cleaned up immediately. No country wants a repeat of the last ten years; this is where the interests align and unity forms. HMR

veteranshour.com

www.global-gateways.com

October 2014

Features

Are Jobs Back? Henry Shapiro A

fter one of the worst recessions this nation has ever seen, our nation has made strides to recover. Although we have been out of a recession for roughly 5 years and stock indexes such as the Dow Jones have risen to all time highs, many people, including myself, are still unsatisfied with the US recovery. Weak fiscal and monetary policy in the current administration, the implementation of programs such as the Affordable Car Act, and complete grid lock between Democrats and Republicans have caused us to have an incredibly weak and prolonged recovery. The US still has not addressed problems such as growing inequality between the upper and lower class. Although the 2016 presidential election is still far away, many Americans look to the upcoming midterm elections to help eliminate the current political stalemate between Republicans and Democrats and to hopefully put us in a situation in which reform and sustainable job are plausible. The key to the future of our economy is job creation. One of the most import-

ant things that job creation does for our economy is help increase the number of consumers. Once we have established a larger consumer base, more people start spending money on various goods such as homes, cars, and other products. This increase in consumption can lead to further increases in income inequality and job growth. For example, for every house that is constructed, 2 jobs are credited as a direct consequence of the labor required, and 2 jobs are created as an indirect result of people spending money on furniture, mortgage, etc. The movement

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

of wealth to the lower and middle classes shortens the income gap between the wealthy and poor. Since October 2010, the US has experienced constant job creation, and recently, we experienced a 200,000 jobs per month streak that lasted for six months. In August, the unemployment rate dropped to a low of 6.1%. Although recent job growth seems to show a healthy recovery, many economists argue that concerns due to a lack of access to credit as well as the possibility of rising interests rates have created uncertainty about the future

Features

? of our recovery. Recently, there has been discussion in Congress about the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, the raising of the minimum wage, and the raising taxes on the wealthy. Due to the political gridlock between Republicans and Democrats, no action has been taken so far to put these ideas into effect. With the upcoming midterms, the possibility of either Republicans or Democrats getting the upper hand could lead to these ideas coming to fruition, which will determine the future of our economy. If Republicans win a majority of the Senate, many believe new reforms such as the repeal of Obamacare may be on the horizon. On October 1st of this last year, the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, was officially implemented. Already 8 million Americans have signed up for Obamacare. Although many criticized the rocky start of this program after the Obamacare website crashed, the worst of this program is just starting to be seen. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office reported that Obamacare would cause a loss of roughly 2.5 million jobs. The loss of jobs is due to increased operational costs and taxation on businesses, which in turn growth. Obamacare penalizes any business that has 50 or more employees that does not provide full health care coverage to all of their employees. Due to the increased costs of expanding, many small businesses, which produced 64% of jobs created from 1993 to 2011, cannot afford the cost of expanding. As a result, these businesses cannot afford

to grow; this limits the potential for jobs, especially in terms of the lower class. Because these health care premiums account for a high percentage of what a lower paid employee makes, Obamacare essentially increases the minimum wage by 14%, which according to Forbes magazine, will cause a loss of up to 100,000 jobs per year. In addition, the tax increases on various businesses and industries could have a catastrophic affect on their growth. The Health industry alone is suspected to have a loss of roughly 425,000 jobs because of tax hikes. With a high probability of Republicans taking over both the House of Representatives and the Senate, many believe that a repeal of Obamacare may be seen in the upcoming year or two. This could result in the US saving a significant portion of jobs that would have been lost due to Obamacare. Due to rising concerns of income inequality, it is likely that Democrats may push to raise the minimum wage if they gain an upper hand in the midterms. When looking at the minimum wage, we have to look at how price of labor is determined. The price of labor is determined by supply and demand. Additionally, because there are many types of laborers with a variety of skill sets, there are multiple prices for different types of labor. When you artificially set the price of labor by establishing a minimum wage, you essentially remove all jobs that would pay laborers less than the minimum wage because their labor is not worth the minimum wage. If the minimum wage is raised to $10.10 in the next year, according to the CBO, over 1 million jobs will likely be lost. This could have catastrophic effects on the economy as well. Another key issue that may be addressed after the midterms is taxation of

October 2014

the wealthy due to increasing popularity of income redistribution. If Democrats are able to secure the House of Representatives, chances of further taxation on the wealthy is high. Because wealthy individuals have larger amounts of disposable income than the average American, many people believe that they should be taxed more because a lower or middle class family is more likely to spend that money. In actuality, the disposable income the wealthy have is used to help create jobs and stimulate economic growth. Because the wealthy often invest their money or put it in a bank were it will be lent out to various businesses, this money is used to help stimulate growth. When their money is invested or lent out, it allows businesses to grow and expand, thus resulting in the creation of more jobs. According to Ernst and Young, a tax hike on the wealthy could cause a loss of roughly 700,000 jobs. These negative effects could be seen in the near future if Democrats gain an upper hand in the upcoming elections. The upcoming midterm elections will not only shape our nation’s political landscape but also shape the future of our economy. The midterms will shape the future of America’s economy and the job market, which many students such as myself will be entering in the future. With recent employment numbers showing a decline in job creation and with concerns about interest rates and the availability of credit, the midterms may shape the future of our recovery and our ability to create jobs. In order to ensure the future success of our nation, we need to strengthen our countries’ fiscal policy with the basic principles of free market capitalism that has guided our nation to prosperity since its creation. HMR

Features

Goodbye Republican Party Lexi Kanter

alexwhite.com

bsolescence is the epitome of political failure. As the Republican Party continues to lose the support of various demographics it has become evident that changes must be made to avoid becoming obsolete. The GOP has recently been falling behind in approval ratings specifically with women, minorities, and young voters. According to a poll conducted by CNN this past May, only 27% of nonwhite voters and 37% of women voters approved of the job Republicans have done in congress. In addition, more than six in 10 women said they have an unfavorable view of the party as a whole, as did 58 percent of voters between 18 and 39 years of age. The increasingly conservative image of the party is one reason that the Republican Party has been unable to broaden their support network. Currently there is what the New York Times is calling a “civil war” taking place within the Party. The ultra-conservative hardline Tea Party Republicans and the comparatively moderate establishment Republicans are divided. The ultra-conservative members of the party including Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Michelle

Bachmann, and Ted Cruz have recently been taking the spotlight and appeal to the core supporters but repel most other demographics. For example, to the wider population, the 16-day government shutdown led by some of the Tea Party Republicans only enforced the negative perceptions of extremism and unwillingness to compromise. The GOP’s standpoint and comments on issues including women’s health, LGBT rights, immigration and government

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

to Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, include the anti-abortion statement by Missouri congressman Todd Akin that in instances of “legitimate rape” the female body will not become pregnant by “shutting the whole thing down so abortion is not necessary.” GOP Indiana Senate candidate Richard Mourdock argued that abortion should not be legal even in incidences of rape and incest because, “God intended it to happen.” Another example

“The only way to win major elections is to appeal to the broader population instead of just their core constituencies.” aid contribute to the loss of the support of women, minorities, and younger voters. Some of the ultra conservative members of the GOP have been known to take uninformed and absurd standpoints on many of the topics that are most important to women especially. This phenomenon has been called the “War on Women.” These “violent acts against women” according

of this “anti-feminist rhetoric” is the statement made by influential radio personality Rush Limbaugh concerning contraception in health insurance. He explained that contraception should not be included because when a woman accepts government money in the form of contraception, she is “being paid to have sex and therefore it makes her a prostitute.”

Features The inability to gain more of the minority vote stems particularly from the GOP’s stance on immigration reform. Conservative Republicans are opposed to granting a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants. According to Michael Dimock, director of the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, there is also a percep-

ly, Republicans do not have the support of voters will shape the future of this country. The Republicans can no longer completely rely on their core supporters, namely, older white males to pull the party through elections. One key example of this issue is Mitt Romney’s loss of the 2012 presidential elections. In contrast to the belief of many

tions that they are open-minded and their ideologies are not stuck in the past. The GOP also needs to be adamant in creating comprehensive and effective immigration reform. Lastly, the party needs to prove to middle and lower income Americans that they are working to help them succeed and feel secure financially instead of working to

“More than six in 10 women said they have an unfavorable view of the party as a whole, as did 58 percent of voters between 18 and 39 years of age.” tion within Hispanic communities that Republicans do not represent their standpoint on issues nor want them in the country. The GOP’s standpoint on laws such as stop and frisk prevents them from broadening their appeal to African American voters. Similarly, their standpoint on government assistance such as welfare and healthcare prevents them from attracting middle and lower income Americans. The inability to connect with younger voters is a result of the Republicans’ view on LGBT rights. Younger generations see their standpoint as an intolerance towards alternative viewpoints. According to a Nov. 14 report by the Pew Research Hispanic Center, 40 percent of the population growth of citizens of voting age between now and 2030 will be Hispanic, 21 percent will be African American, and 15 percent will be Asian American. Only 23 percent of that growth will be white. In addition, while Republicans do better among older voters, especially those over 65, they are losing the support of voters in their 30’s and younger. Essential-

Republican strategists, the high unemployment rates and sluggish economy were not enough to counterbalance the votes of women and minorities in favor of Obama. It is essential that the Republican Party begins to re-strategize if they desire to avoid a repeat of 2012 in the primaries and the upcoming 2016 presidential election. First and foremost, the Republican Party and especially the ultra-conservatives need to understand that the only way to win major elections is to appeal to the broader population instead of just their core constituencies. They need to rebrand themselves by letting go of the hardline rhetoric and strategy that the GOP has recently adopted. The GOP is not expected to change their policies on many of the previously mentioned social issues. However, they do need to stop offending and alienating the social and ethnic groups that they are trying to attract. The Republican Party needs to use language that conveys to women that they are trying to address their concerns and are on their side of the issues. They need to convey to younger genera-

September 2014

impede their efforts. As Anna Navarro who worked for Senator John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign said, “It is difficult to broaden our appeal when you still have Republicans using negative rhetoric towards immigrants, minorities and women. Too often the voices of reason get drowned out by louder voices that hurt the effort of broadening the base.” With upcoming elections rapidly approaching, the GOP needs to reflect on the strategies it have used in the past as well as the strategies it have recently adopted. More importantly, the Party must consider long-term options for the future that will be effective and sustainable. Reform within the Republican Party will not only benefit Republicans, but it will benefit Democrats as well. If the party can move away from extremes, there will be less gridlock and compromise will be easier to achieve in Congress. This will greatly benefit the American people. However, if the Republican Party cannot find a way to change its ultra-conservative attitude and image, obsolescence will be inevitability. HMR

Features

CALLING ALL TO THE DERBY kdvr.com sanduskyregister.com

THE RACE TO THE KENTUCKY SENATE SEAT

SOPHIE MALTBY

he Kentucky Senate Race is a classic tale of the underdog. Washington Veteran and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) is being challenged by a newcomer to the world of politics, Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes (D-Kentucky). Recent polls conducted on either side of the aisle show that Grimes showing a slight lead. This election and the impact the results will have on the nation is one of great importance to not only the people of Kentucky, but also the United States as a whole. The United States Senate is currently entrenched in crippling gridlock that McConnell is encouraging as Minority Leader. The Senate has yet to be able to pass comprehensive immigration or education reform, and is currently facing a crossroads: to allow extremists from both parties to hold positions of power, or to elect sensible, compromising, and moderate representatives. Kentucky politics can be largely explained by the state’s congressional districts. The First and Second Districts represent (roughly) the Jackson Purchase

and Pennyrile areas of the state, whose voting patterns are similar to that of the Deep South’s. The Third and Sixth Districts represent urban Louisville and greater Lexington, while the Fourth District represents the Republican suburbs of Cincinnati (OH) and Louisville. The Fifth District is an amalgam of two older districts, one of which was “old mountain” Republican territory, and other of which was heavily unionized and largely Democratic coal mining country. The objective for Republicans is to garner support in the Fourth and Fifth Districts and hold their ground in the First and Second. Democrats are trying to augment their bases in Louisville, Lexington, and the coal mining areas of the Fifth. At the age of 72, Mitch McConnell has represented the state of Kentucky since 1985. His position of power allows him to hold sway over many of the other Republican Senators. As with anyone who has been involved in the Senate for as much time as he has, often times the nature of money in Washington gets in the way. Alison Grimes is a much need “breath of fresh air”, who stands for what the coun-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

try needs and will help accomplish things in the Senate as opposed to exacerbating gridlock and retrograding the nation that the people have worked so hard to build. One of the attractions of Grimes to her constituency is her local view of Kentucky. A recent attack ad against McConnell points out his prejudice against his own people, showing how he neglected the people and focused on furthering his agenda in Washington. He refused to support a bill that cracked down on heroin trafficking in the state, saying he doesn’t take positions on state legislation. He received criticism for believing that the only good solutions come from Washington. The ad finishes with saying that “Alison Lundergan Grimes thinks a good idea is a good idea, no matter where it comes from or who thought of it: Republican or Democrat.” Of the colossal amount of money circulating around Washington from oil companies and lobby groups who are trying to get politicians in their pocket to increase their personal wealth, the Koch brothers are not only the most prominent, but also the wealthiest lobbyists in Washington. As

Features

“Alison Grimes is a much need ‘breath of fresh air’ who stands for what the country needs and will help accomplish things in the Senate” of September 23, 2013, their combined net worth approached $83.6 billion dollars, which is higher than the wealthiest individual on the list – Microsoft founder Bill Gates, at $77.8 billion. In a leaked audiotape of the Koch brothers’ secret June 2014 retreat, McConnell admitted that the Republicans would be lost without the Kochs, and revealed who the real power is in the GOP. Mitch McConnell, speaking to the Republican Party, said, “I want to start by thanking you, Charles and David, for the important work you’re doing. I don’t know where we’d be without you.” The inconvenient truth of the matter is that McConnell does know where he and his party would be without the super PACs made possible by the Kochs and other big-money donors, and that place is certainly not Washington. Extreme Conservatives are serving to an increasingly small demographic, for their policies do not serve to better the people, it only serves to better the pocket size of their donors. In this election cycle there was $290 million donated to candidates, and according to some accounts there was as much as $500 million spent. Without this massive amount of money, there would not be a tea party; the 2012 presidential race would not have been at all competitive, and most of the Senate races that are currently contentious would be trending Democratic. The Republicans have lost the popular vote of last six out of seven presidential elections, and McConnell and other party leaders know that the Kochs are the only thing keeping them in the game. It is not surprising that McConnell is one of the most vulnerable Republican incumbents, with Grimes running only a few points behind him. Nor is it surprising that more than $100 million may end up being spent on the race, making it one the most expensive contests in Senate history. Millionaires know they can count on McConnell. For this particular election, Mitch McConnell has spent millions of advertising, but has been unable to build any kind of

lead on Grimes. In dozens of polls, the Kentucky Senate race has been tied for months. Grimes has run a solid campaign that has focused on McConnell’s status as the ultimate Washington insider McConnell has tried to label his Democratic opponent a “puppet” of President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, but all of his attacks have fallen flat. Mitch McConnell has insisted on making his campaign about Barack Obama, using the same tired thrusts against the left that voters have heard for years. Much like his “just say-no agenda” in the Senate, Mitch McConnell has been running a campaign without any semblance of a platform, apart from not voting for Grimes, in Kentucky. New to the world of Washington, Grimes has appealed to the people of Kentucky as someone who will represent them and their interests. After Mitch McConnell blocked Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Massachusetts) student loan refinancing bill on September 16, Grimes went on the offensive and used McConnell’s latest obstruction to argue that the Senate Minority Leader has a long record of voting against the best interests of Kentucky residents. In fact, McConnell leads a record number of filibusters as Senate Minority Leader during Obama’s tenure, forcing more than a quarter of all cloture votes in the history of the senate since the beginning of this nation. Recent polls have the two candidates closer than ever, and either of the candidates could come out on top. What is troubling for McConnell is that despite being one of the most powerful Republicans in the nation, he is locked in a statistical tie with Grimes who holds a 10-point lead over him in the Bluegrass region (anchored

by the cities of Lexington and Frankfort), a 27-point lead over McConnell in the Jefferson County area (anchored by the city of Louisville), and an 8-point lead over McConnell in the suburbs of Louisville and Cincinnati (right outside of Ohio). It is the goal of the Democratic Senatorial campaign to force McConnell into retirement to see that Democratic money will continue to flow into Kentucky, and it is the primary goal of the Republican Senatorial campaign (and the Koch brothers) to make sure Alison Grimes never sees the walls of the Congressional Chambers. There are no real surprises in terms of which candidate is winning traditional political demographic groups: McConnell has a 13% lead with men and is seen more favorably by voters who make $50,000 or more, while Grimes holds a seven-point lead with women and does better with voters making less than $50,000. McConnell’s policies and ideals are geared sharply toward the entirely free market economy and little to no government regulation, which tends to be something that appeals largely to people in a higher socio-economic bracket. Grimes, on the other hand, is more a person of the people, someone who cares about the localness and the communities of Kentucky, and less about individual person’s deep need to increase his or her own wealth. Democrats view the Kentucky Senate race twofold: an opportunity to defeat a Republican leader, a major symbolic victory that last occurred in 2004 when then-Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) was defeated by former Republican John Thune; and more importantly, the Kentucky race as a key part of the political beachhead needed to protect their vulnerable Senate majority in November. These midterm election are so close between party lines that Democrats need every democratic candidate that is running to win in order to keep the Senate blue.

“The inconvenient truth of the matter is that McConnell does know where he and his party would be without the super PACs made possible by the Kochs” October 2014

features

danzigercartoon.com

If McConnell wins and the Senate turns red, the gridlock currently metastasizing through the houses of Congress and Capitol Hill as a whole will be worse than ever. Recently McConnell has dipped a few points in the polls due to discoveries by fact checkers that he made false statements in reference to Grimes’ stance on hot-button issues to try and dishearten voters from lending their support to her on election day. Moreover, Grimes is gaining momentum while McConnell continues to tread water. Mitch McConnell has a legitimate chance of being run into retirement along with Eric Cantor in Grimes continues to receive the support, donations, and media attention she has been getting. The Republican Party is now a branch of Koch Industries, who may now impose their view of the world on the rest of the nation and force congressmen and women and senators to accept bribes in order

to keep their position, in exchange for less regulation for their oil drilling. The Kochs provide a false sense of security for politicians. They know that if they do not accept the “donations” in exchange for support of the Koch brothers’ views, the two will find another right wing extremist who will back them and funnel their campaign all the way to Washington. On the other hand, if they do accept these “donations” their job will have the backing of the Kochs and their big-money friends. The Democratic Party and the progressive movement need to formulate their own idea of what a free and fair society looks like, and be ready to forcefully engage in debate with these ideas. As of right now it is next to impossible for someone to pursue the American dream, it is just that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and it is all disguised as a meritocracy. This is a debate we can win, but we have to aggressively engage it. The Kochs may

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

want to go back to a Social Darwinist society where only the wealthiest and their friends flourish, but the fact of the matter is that most Americans do not. We need to make very clear what the Kochs, and the Republican Party that they now control, stand for—and what we do in response. Ridding the Senate of McConnell will not solve the whole problem, but it is a small step that can be taken to show the Kochs that we as a people believe in the free and fair society upon which this country was founded and that we do not believe in the corporatization of Washington and our representatives that we elected being bought out to allow oil moguls to increase their personal fortunes. Grimes does not stand for the influence of money in politics and legislating. Throughout her career she has shown that politics is about the people, and improving the lives of our fellow Americans. HMR

Features

ITâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S TIME FOR THE U.S. TO REGULATE POLLS SYDNEY KATZ

he upcoming 2014 elections will decide whether Congress is controlled by Democrats or Republicans. Therefore, there is clearly a lot at stake and each party is spending millions of dollars and is relying upon the results of polls to ensure their candidate wins. The results of polls are appearing on the front page of major newspapers and are often the lead story on the news. Polls are a very powerful tool, but they need to be regulated. It is too easy to manipulate the outcome of a poll. Since people will continue to rely on polling data to elect officials and how to vote on important issues like gun control, abortion, voter reform, and immigration, the government needs to step in and pass legislation to curb the manipulation. Polls can influence the public voters especially during an election year. The selection of the questions used in the poll, the means by which the poll is taken, and the polling population can certainly

www.theguardian.com

influence the outcome of a poll. Was the survey taken from persons of a specific demographic background or area of the country? Lots of things can be done to influence the outcome of a poll. Should polls be subject to full disclosure? For example, if a poll was conducted via telephone, by mail, or in person, can influence the results. U.S. law prohibits calling a cell phone number without permission of the owner of the cellphone; therefore, pollsters will not call a cell phone number. Not all Americans have phones and some only have cell phones. Calling home phone numbers during the day can also influence the outcome of a poll as pollsters wonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t reach members of the workforce at home during the day. Therefore, polls can be manipulated. In most cases, people only see the results of the poll and they are not given enough information on how it was conducted, where it was conducted and who ultimately paid for it. Certain countries in the world have

October 2014

regulations over the use of polls. For instance, in Canada it is illegal to publish the results of opinion surveys that would identify specific political parties or candidates in the final three days before a poll closes. The blackout window lasts 24 hours before polling in France and five days in Russia. Polls, however, can be manipulated and the voter may be too influenced by the outcome of a poll. There should there be regulation of polls. The pollster should be required to disclose more then the margin of error of a particular poll. The results should list the questions asked in the survey, the demographics of the polling population, and the way in which the poll was taken. Candidates and organizations such as political parties and businesses are spending millions of dollars on polls and therefore it is time for the U.S. government to step in and pass regulations providing for full disclosure of polls.

Features The results of a poll can have a big influence on public opinion and an election. Studies have been done which show the “bandwagon”, or “copycat” effect. The effect describes how certain voters will change his or her vote based on the outcome of a poll and how a person may form his or her first opinion based on reading or seeing the results of a poll. If a poll shows a candidate with a big lead or the results of a poll showing a majority of people voting a specific way on an issue, then certain people may follow the majority. The theory is people like to be on the winning side. If a voter does not have a strong opinion, then he or she is likely to lean in favor of the side

all reported and predicted that Thomas Dewey would defeat Harry S. Truman in the 1948 United States presidential election. Newspapers throughout the country proclaimed in their headlines “Dewey defeats Truman.” Ironically, Harry Truman won the 1948 election and became the thirty-first President of the United States. Exit polls can also have a tremendous effect on the outcome of an election. An election exit poll is a poll taken immediately after a person votes in an election. Unlike an opinion poll, which asks a voter how he or she will vote, an exit poll asks how the person voted. No one has to show proof to the taker of

dicated that John Kerry beat George Bush, sparking a huge controversy over exit poll accuracy and election fraud. Post election research revealed in ten of the eleven battleground states exit polls revealed John Kerry won, but it was not actually close when the votes were counted. In the 1998 election, the exit polls showed Michael Dukakis had gotten more votes than George Bush. Interestingly, George Bush actually won the presidency by more than 7 million votes. Research has revealed exit polls can easily be manipulated by conducting them in only certain towns and cities, which may not reflect the demographics of a particular state. Exit polls can

“CANDIDATES AND ORGANIZATIONS SUCH AS POLITICAL PARTIES AND BUSINESSES ARE SPENDING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON POLLS AND THEREFORE IT IS TIME FOR THE U.S. GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND PASS REGULATIONS PROVIDING FOR FULL DISCLOSURE OF POLLS” he or she thinks is winning. Other people have been known to change their vote and vote for the underdog. Studies have also shown voters will follow the results of a poll by wrongfully assuming people who voted were familiar and had researched the issue and therefore knew the most about it. Lots of studies have been done on the effect of polls on the results of an election. It is well documented voters may end up supporting a candidate just because the candidate did very well or poorly in a survey. Showing poll results in close races can significantly effect the outcome of an election. In 1994, the Journal of Politics published the results of a study which showed Independents are twice as likely to vote for the Republican candidate if the Republican is expected to win. It was also found that when the Democrat was expected to win, Independents and weak Republicans were more likely to vote for the Democratic candidate based on the results of a poll. Therefore, passing legislation prohibiting the taking or releasing of poll results within days of an election may eliminate the bandwagon or underdog effect. It will ensure the democratic process works and people vote based on their beliefs not on how other people voted. Polls should also be regulated because they cannot be trusted. In fact major polling organizations including Gallup and Roper

an exit poll of how they actually voted. In 1982, the results of an exit poll were inaccurate because people lied to pollsters rather than admit they voted for the white candidate. This has been called the “Bradley” effect of exit polls, and it has been documented in other exit polls taken during an election. The Bradley effect was observed in dozens of elections throughout the U.S. from Virginia and North Carolina, to Illinois and California. It started with George Deukmejian’s surprise win over Tom Bradley in 1982. Voters will lie to the pollster making the survey unreliable. Voters in exit polls give inaccurate responses to pollsters because they do not want to be seen as racially motivated. The inaccurate exit polls are published and people rely on them in selecting a candidate. Exit polls are easily manipulated and often biased. The United Kingdom and Germany have adopted extremely strict regulations banning the media from collecting or reporting exit polls. In fact, in these countries it is considered a criminal offense to release exit poll data before the polls close. Exit polls can also be misleading and often cause voters to stay home and not vote. Releasing the results of an exit poll before the polls have closed in a district known for favoring a political party or candidate will mislead voters as to whether their vote will count. In 2004, the exit polls in-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

also be easily manipulated by pollsters targeting a specific age group or sex. Overall, to allow the democratic process to work, the publishing of exit polls and surveys should be regulated. People should not be given the opportunity to vote based on the outcome of a poll since the poll can easily be manipulated. HMR

Features

SAME OLD PARTY By Dahlia Krutkovich

he key to the Republican Party winning the Senate this election cycle is the same as it’s been for the last ten years: the galvanization of niche or minority groups. Despite every political columnist, strategist, and observer repeating this ad nauseam on every news channel, major publication, and forum in those ten years, the Grand Old Party only seems to have learned the value of a diverse constituency in the last few months. Looking no further than the combined seven Hispanic, twenty-one female, and singular black representative the Republicans boast in both bodies of Congress, it would be apt to diagnose the party with a diversity, and by extension, a relatability problem. To mitigate this claim, several younger, more ethnically

diverse “rising stars” within the party have been fleshed out and hurriedly pushed onto the national stage. These men and women have been branded “the GOP’s facelift,” supposedly paving the way for the young, new, and fresh Republican party, which will be full of young, new, and fresh opinions and policy. Though, frustratingly, these younger politicians only act as a superficial change. Instead of offering variation on social, environmental, or economic issues, the planks that comprise the platforms of hopefuls Mia Love (Utah) and Will Hurd (Texas), the most prominent of the new generation, rarely break away from party line. After championing restrictive and malicious legislature targeted at disadvantaged groups and blocking bills that would help these subsets of voters, namely women and

October 2014

racial minorities, the GOP has earned itself the homogenous constituency of white Christian males over the age of fifty. Having unanimously blocked bills such as the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have strengthened equal pay laws for women in the US, and promoting voter ID laws throughout the country, which would exclude over five million blacks and Latinos from elections, Republicans have found themselves in the rather difficult position of having to appeal to people whose interests they do not represent. Further exacerbating its problem, the party also has a dearth of physical representation for minorities: 89% of Republican representatives in the Senate are white men, while only 47% of Democrats are. In spite of the fact that finding representation in politics is a challenge unless you

Features

“The superficial evolution of the GOP is one in name only.” happen to be a straight white man, there is a better chance of finding it within the Democratic Party over the GOP. Since its formation in 1854, the Republican Party has never elected a black woman to Congress. However that may change with Mia Love, a Mormon Senate hopeful from Utah’s 4th who ran for the same seat in 2012 but lost to six-time incumbent Jim Matheson, who has since retired. The most popular and thus-far well known of the new generation of conservatives, Love spoke at the RNC in Tampa two years ago and polls show her win to be nearly guaranteed with a staggering twelve point lead over her competitor. Although, instead of being a voice of women’s reproductive rights in the party, her policy on the subject is the same as the other twenty-seven women she will be sharing an office with after January: defund Planned Parenthoods, take away government subsidized birth control, and avoid talking about it all together.

% ARE

WHITE MALES 38

OF HOUSE REPUBLICANS

When asked in an interview with Fox News in 2012 about whether she believes that the Republican party’s ‘War on Women’ has been harmful to the reproductive rights gained in the last thirty years she responded: “Personally, I think women have suffered more with President Obama in office. Since his inauguration, the rate of unemployed women has gone from 7% to 7.8%. I would like the federal government to let me keep some of my own money to pay for those contraceptives if I want to.” While the statistic is correct, and in fact, 92.3% of jobs lost between the President’s inauguration and the interview had belonged to women, it is completely irrelevant to the conversation and question posed and completely ignores those who may hold jobs that do not pay well enough for the luxury of birth control. In 2011, a record 1,100 regulations on abortion had been passed nation-wide. Of those 1,100 restrictions such as bans, mandatory ultrasounds, and waiting periods, Love dis-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

agrees with none of them. Like most of her contemporary “rising stars” and even older, more antiquated counterparts, Love’s platform stays strictly on the right side of most issues, such as military spending, immigration reform, and environmental exploitation. Without much else to say, Mia Love’s platform is disappointingly run-of-the-mill for any Senatorial Republican candidate, stuck in the arrested development that has proved so fatal to mass appeal. Will Hurd, a mixed race candidate running for Texas’ 23rd Congressional district for the second time, faces the same problem Love does: reflecting his constituency. The 23rd district in San Antonio is reliably neither Democrat nor Republican, rather, in the last twenty years, the district has not voted the same party into representation twice in a row. In conjunction to polling data having shown that the district leans slightly right and electing a Democrat in 2010, if all patterns hold, Hurd is projected to narrowly take the seat. Despite this, his platform and policies are vague, and the few idealistic opinions he presents forthcomingly are either harmful or irrelevant his voters. The 23rd is also the largest Congressional district in Texas, a bloated area stretching from the western suburbs of San Antonio to eastern El Paso, which also happens to include the longest US-Mexican border contained solely by any Congressional district in the United States. As is usually the case in larger districts, the 23rd faces chronic problems with education, healthcare, and not to mention immigration reform. However, upon searching for Hurd’s stances on these issues in interviews, articles, and the campaign’s own website, of those three topics, he only mentions immigration briefly, stating that he wants to “Secur[e] our borders by making border security [and] countering drug traffickers [...] a national intelligence priority.” Though, with the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act having passed the Senate in 2013, US-Mexican border security is a main topic of discussion not only in Congressional dialogue, but also in national discourse. Thus leaving Hurd with the topical non-stance of opening a dialogue that

Features

“NO ONE SHOULD CONGRATULATE POLITICANS.” already exists. While the absence of easily accessible information is justifiable considering that he has never held office, it draws uneasy parallels to the Romney campaign three years ago. A disagreeable stance is better than an unclear one. It allows the voters to know what they are endorsing, and by electing that candidate, implementing. Though dodging questions and offering ill-defined policies is not something from which the singularly Republican Party suffers, it’s a widespread problem in politics on any level. Even the current liberal administration’s foreign policy is murky and redundant. Watching Josh Earnest ungracefully jump through semantic hoops on national television is evidence enough that the problem plagues the American political landscape regardless of office or party. It would be lazy to claim this only to be an ill from which the GOP suffers. Though regardless of poorly executed Presidential policy, Hurd is an ardent proponent of slashing public spending by 16% across the board, including welfare support, which would be disastrous for his district’s anemic economy. With an unemployment rate of 8.8% and a median income of $46,232, depleting funds devoted to government programs designed to help people in these situations would only further exacerbate these numbers. Instead of offering meaningful, much needed reform to these support systems, Hurd only cites “reaffirming the Republican Party as the party of all Americans trying to move up the economic ladder” as a keystone of his platform. What Republicans fail to realize is that people cannot “pull themselves up by the bootstraps” without any basis to do so. Relying on government

programs is not a source of pride or an action perpetuated by laziness, often times it’s a last resort for families. No one will be able to start their own small business on meager credit lines paired with steep interest rates; it isn’t feasible. With that kept in mind, as of August 2014, the GOP has infused $800,000 into Hurd’s campaign to further bolster his chance of winning. Hurd himself outlines yet another case of stagnation and hypocrisy within the Republican party: instead of readjusting his out of touch economic policy to fit the immediate problems within the community, he clings to his pre-conceived notion of what would work in theory. Supporting a blind slashing of budgets because the party dictates you say so is not constructive, only insultingly lazy and a disservice to the population whom you serve. The superficial evolution of the GOP is one in name only, and it serves to highlight that a far deeper, more drastic ideological reevaluation must be undergone before anyone can call the party modernized. Claiming reform because a few new, more ethnically and gender diverse candidates are thrown into the mix without any substantive policy reform is patronizing and condescending; it assumes that minorities would only vote for these candidates because they see themselves in them. No one should congratulate politicians, regardless of political alignment, on increasing diversity in office when a few more Senators of color does not change the

October 2014

fact that this should have happened twenty years ago and still is not at the level it needs to reach. HMR

Features

Campaign Finance Reform 2

016 will be the first year my mother will be able to vote in a presidential election. She came from Ecuador to study in a US university and decided to continue working on Wall Street on a work visa. It never occurred to her that she needed to become a citizen until after I was born, and the lines at immigration when returning to the US from a trip abroad made it clear to her that she would need to become a US citizen. As she reviewed the Citizenship test

Zoe Mavrides

speech, and the identity of our American democratic system. The primary conflicting factor in Campaign Finance Reform threatening these vital concepts is political greed. It may be tempting to ignore the complexity of the issue and simply accept that Campaign Finance Reform is necessary to prevent deep pocket lobbyists and other interests to dominate the outcomes of elections. That said, analysis and research on this issue leads one to the conclusion that cor-

“At stake are the vital concepts of freedom of speech, and the identity of our American democratic system.” brochure, she was shocked by the complexity of our electoral system. Her experience inspired me to explore the method through which candidates obtain the means to become elected. This exploration led to my conclusion that the debate over Campaign Finance Reform is central to the viability of the American Democracy. Campaign Finance Reform, a controversial topic, attempts to solve questions paramount to what we are as a nation. At stake are the vital concepts of freedom of

porations, just like individuals, must have a right to free speech. The big question is: do we have the right to impose greater restrictions on corporations’ speech than those we would allow for individual speech because corporations’ resources are almost invariably vastly superior to those of individuals? In order to understand campaign finance, it is important to know what PACs and Super-PACs are. According to the Federal Election Campaign Act, a PAC, a Political Action Committee, is an organization

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

receiving or spending more than 1,000 dollars (unless its is established at the State level, in which case it depends on the electoral laws in the State in which its’ established. PACs fund campaign contributions from members of the committee to donate towards a campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation. Super-PACs are PACs that may take part in unlimited political spending as long as such spending is independent of the actual campaigns. Super-Pacs do not have limits on how much money they spend supporting a specific candidate so long as they meet the independence test. As unfair as the current status quo may seem, Super PACs have been virtually exempt from legislation. In 2002, the McCain–Feingold Act, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, attempted to provide a framework for campaign spending. However, the American public did not take a hard look at the inner workings of Super-Pacs and Campaign Financing reform in general until the case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission. In the Citizens United case (2009), the Supreme Court heard arguments raised by The Federal Election Commission against a

Features documentary in favor of a specific political candidate produced by Citizens United. Citizens United argued their right of freedom of speech, while the FEC cited previous laws limiting advertising as elections drew closer. As a result of this case, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was overturned. Corporations, unions, and associations that are considered PACS were given permission to express themselves without the support of a candidate. As long as you were independent from/not endorsed by the candidate you were advocating for (a Super-PAC), it was ok for these organizations to do and say whatever they wanted to. As the Supreme Court’s decision

that political speech by corporations or other associations should be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not natural persons”(Justice Stevens), the courts opened the gate to abuse from unlimited spending of Super Pacs. Unlimited spending by any group can threaten a principle vital for maintaining the integrity of our American democracy- the principle of equal time, which means that two dissenting points of view deserve equal time to be presented to the American public. For example, after the State of the Union address, the opposing party is granted equal time to present their rebuttal. Enabling any group such as corporations to have access

“It would be naïve to believe that those who benefit the most from the loopholes of campaign deregulation would argue in favor of limiting Super Pacs’ advertising spending.” in the Citizens United case was not unanimous, the idea to rework campaign finance laws has been revisited several times. On Thursday September 11th, a motion to amend the Citizen United ruling was proposed in the Senate. However, the motion was rejected given opposition from the Republican Party. The regulations put in place after Citizens United were maintained as a result of a 54-42 vote. Despite the controversy of this topic, when the Supreme Court equalized the Speech rights of corporations to those of individuals and therefore rejected “the notion

to vastly unequal resources to present their view can preclude others with more limited resources from having the ability to present their point of views with equal capacity. Justice Stevens puts forward this idea in his dissenting argument: “Concerns about the disproportionate influence of corporate speech can be addressed only by reducing the influence that corporate speakers would have if speech were left to private ordering”. Many may argue that the same principle that applies to economic issues such as free market should be applied to the political arena. If that were the case, we would be

October 2014

destroying the basis of an equal society and democracy itself; relegating our leadership to selected ‘chosen ones’. Those that have the backing of corporations and wealthy individuals thrive in the current system. If we were to accept that corporations should define our leadership, then, would we trust corporations to look after the best interest of all members of society? We all know of multiple cases were corporate greed has not had qualms in putting profit ahead of environmental or humanitarian consideration; this is the bottom line of the argument in favor of Campaign Finance Reform. We must demand a comprehensive and detailed reform package that limits how much Super Pacs can influence political campaigns. Alternatively or in parallel, the FEC should provide matching funds to opposing points of view that do not have access to comparable resources in order to establish an even playing field for political debate. It would be naïve to believe that those who benefit the most from the loopholes of campaign deregulation would argue in favor of limiting Super Pacs’ advertising spending. We can only expect results if the electors take a proactive approach to demand reform. We should advocate for reform using our votes. In 2016, my mom will be able to vote for the first time. I will follow soon in 2018. Our vote has power, and as the Citizenship Brochure clearly states, with rights come duties. Changing our country for the best is our duty. As American citizens, only our votes can reform a system that is inherently flawed. HMR

Economics

The Key to ISIS’ Power Chris Shaari

ince the summer of 2014, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), a group of ruthless terrorists, has made its way into the Northern sections of both countries. ISIS plans to establish a caliphate over Iraq and Syria, which is an Islamic state led by a supreme religious and political leader. If ISIS succeeds in establishing a caliphate, it will be known as the IS, the Islamic State. ISIS is always looking for ways to fund its military and possible future government. The most reliable source of money for ISIS is from the oil fields it controls. ISIS currently has control over oil fields that yield a quarter billion dollar annually. If ISIS expands its territory to all of Iraq and Syria, it would enter the top five oil producers in the world. The funding at that stage would be so high, billions of dollars every year, that they would much more easily fund a caliphate. This is why the Obama administration needs to crack down on ISIS’s oil fields. United States President Barack Obama has taken some actions against ISIS so far. He began deploying US military forces into Iraq this past summer, in order to slow ISIS’s progress in establishing a caliphate and to defend American assets. He also authorized aerial strikes against

ISIS militants when ISIS pushed into the Kurdish capital of Erbil and surrounded thousands of citizens on Mount Sinjar, both in Northern Iraq. The US intervention does not come as a surprise, since the United States is known for intervening in foreign affairs in an attempt to provide international aid. However, more attention needs to be given to ISIS’s oil. ISIS is already established in Iraq, which is the seventh largest producer of oil in the world. The Kurdish capital of Erbil, where ISIS pushed into, is an oil boomtown. It is filled with western oil companies, namely Chevron and ExxonMobil. Seeing ISIS expand into such profitable areas was a red flag for the Obama Administration, and it helped lead to the airstrikes against ISIS this past summer. The exact number of fields that ISIS has taken is not known, but reports suggest that ISIS exports 10,000 barrels of crude oil per day. The Obama administration is faced with the incredible task of cutting off funding for ISIS, and a major part of that is reducing its profits from oil. When western companies stopped buying oil from ISIS due to the negative public image, ISIS began selling oil illicitly all over the Middle East. Black market oil

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

trading involves selling oil at incredibly discounted prices, with the hopes that the buyer and seller are never revealed. However, the New York Times has footage showing that the oil is trucked into Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan, or sold to vendors in regime-held areas. Still, even with the reduced prices for oil on the black market, ISIS has the upper hand.

“Reports suggest that ISIS exports 10,000 barrels of crude oil per day.” ISIS has control of a booming oil business, and has made a mark on the global economy. At one point, ISIS was able to corner the market and the price of crude oil per barrel rose from $96 to $106. Western companies were forced to pay these high prices in order to keep their supply. However, the United States responded to this by producing more oil. In fact, the United States is close to passing Saudi Arabia as the world’s top oil producer. The United States produced so much oil that the price actually fell

Economics

“Northern Iraq accounts for only 25% of the country’s production, whereas Southern Iraq accounts for the other 75%. The world needs to stop ISIS from expanding its territory into Southern Iraq.” to $92, and this result raises a potential solution: western companies could rely on domestic oil or oil from countries such as the U.S., which would eliminate reliance on oil from ISIS. It should also be pointed out that oil is not the only source of revenue for the militants. ISIS has also received money from kidnapping foreigners and demanding millions of dollars in return. When ISIS kidnaps someone, the home country of that person is alerted and forced to make a decision: either let him or her be executed, or pay millions of dollars for his or her return. If the country pays ISIS the amount it asked for, the hostage is returned, but that also acts as an incentive for ISIS to kidnap more people. Protection rackets are another revenue source for ISIS. Protection rackets are operations in which criminals provide protection for people and their properties. Protection rackets are especially common in areas where law enforcement and the judicial system are weak. The

Middle East is a breeding ground for protection rackets in light of constant disputes amongst bordering countries. Protection rackets are common in the black market, where transactions need to be run smoothly. ISIS uses its soldiers to protect organizations in the area, and then charges them. In terms of the oil trade, ISIS guides transactions and is also the seller of the oil. The amount of money ISIS has earned from these protection rackets is unknown, but it is significant. In the end, the problem at hand with the greatest magnitude is the Iraqi oil fields. U.S. airstrikes and Kurdish military forces have done a good job of containing ISIS to just the northern Iraqi oil fields, but if ISIS were to prevail and find a way into Southern Iraq, then the problem would be on a much larger scale. Northern Iraq accounts for only 25% of the country’s production, whereas Southern Iraq accounts for the other 75%. The world needs to stop ISIS from expanding its territory into Southern

October 2014

Iraq. The Obama Administration has attempted to do this by trying to persuade Turkey to “crack down” on the extensive sales network ISIS has created. However, this did not succeed. According to a recent New York Times article, “Turkey’s failure thus far to help choke off the oil trade symbolizes the magnitude of the challenges facing the administration both in assembling a coalition to counter the Sunni militant group and in starving its lifeblood. ISIS’ access to cash is critical to its ability to recruit members, meet its growing payroll of fighters, expand its reach and operate across the territory of two countries.” Relying on domestic sources of oil rather than on ISIS’s supply, increasing surveillance on Iraqi and Syrian oil fields, and providing supplies for Iraqi and Syrian militaries are critical to stopping ISIS. The Obama Administration needs to address the problem of ISIS’s oil before it is too late. HMR

Economics

Taking Stock of China’s Economic Potential

Brian Song

n September 19th, shares for Alibaba, China’s largest online retailer, started trading on the New York Stock Exchange. It was the largest IPO the world has ever seen, and raised approximately $25 billion. The event had people all over the world scrambling to buy a stake in the Chinese e-commerce company. Alibaba’s success is just another sign of China’s continual economic growth and success, and serves to disprove those who think China’s economy is slowing down. Two supposed signs of slowdown are the shrinking of several sectors of China’s economy like industry and retail and anti-trust probes China has conducted, which target foreign companies. In reality, the first sign is not a negative sign at all. China’s economy still has an enormous potential for growth. However, China targeting foreign companies with their anti-trust measures, and action must be taken against this. The rise of China’s economy started in

1980. At this time, after the death of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping became as the leader of China. Under his leadership, China shifted away from its previous Communist policies to adopt more capitalist economic measure. China allowed entrepreneurs to start their own businesses and privatized many of the businesses that had previously been state-run. China opened its economy to large-scale foreign investment. The government used public subsidies to stimulate urbanization and real estate. In the end, drawn by the vast amounts of cheap labor, an educated workforce, and new infrastructure, investors began to pour into the area. Soon, the private sector, and especially the manufacturing industry of China took off. Now, it has experienced decades of double digit GDP growth and has emerged as one of the leading economic superpowers, slated to soon be the largest economy in the world. As of late, China’s economy has been

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

slowing down. Most recently, there was a dip in industrial output, which is now at 6.9%. People point to the ailing housing market as an indicator of a downward trend. Steel demand has fallen, and steelmaking material prices have fallen by 40%. Retail sales are also down, and industry growth is not expected to reach its government set growth target. Exports have fallen by a stunning 18.1%. As a result, stocks have fallen amid the resulting concern and there seem to be endless articles on a “Chinese Economic Slowdown, “Economic Gloom”, and a “Stumbling Economy”. This “slowdown” is not a threat because China still has enormous amounts of untapped economic potential. Alibaba is a prime example the promise the future of China’s economy holds. In China, Alibaba serves as a combination of Ebay, Amazon, and Paypal. It owns Tabao, China’s largest shopping website, which resembles Ebay and Tmall, for business to consumer shop-

Economics ping. People pay through alipay.com, which is similar to Paypal. Alibaba also has a large stake in Sina Weibo, the largest Chinese microblogging site that can be said to be a combination of Facebook and Twitter. The success of these sites has followed the increase in the amount of people who use computers or smartphones and have access to the internet. Another noteworthy factor is that Alibaba has a monopoly over these industries because of government bans of tech companies like Facebook and Twitter. Currently, there are over 1.3 billion people in China but the middle class is still quite small compared to those of western developed markets. China’s slowdown does not matter because the nation has the potential to produce a massive middle class, which is already compromised of between 300 million and 500 million. When asked about the “economic slowdown”, Jack Ma, the founder of Alibaba, said that Chinese domestic consumers are growing and doing much better than the outside thinks. These consumers are the people who are the man consumers in need of products, a secure payment service, or just a little bit of social media. This is the group that will push the Chinese economy forth and make it the largest in the world. With such enormous potential, China could only be headed for economic growth. Another reason people might believe that China’s economy has exhausted its potential for growth, is the anti-trust policies the government has enacted. Recently, there has been growing outcry that the probes have been mainly targeting foreign companies. The probes range from raiding company headquarters to investigate suspected “monopolistic practices” to investigating the sellers of a company’s product. When found guilty of such practices, companies are charged with fines as much as 10% of their sales. In a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, the United States Chamber of Commerce said that China has using these policies to advance policies that favor domestic companies. The Chairman of the US Chamber of Commerce, Jeremie Waterman, states that “China is wielding its antitrust law in a discriminatory manner targeting foreign companies.” Mary Ohlhausen, a Commisioner at the Federal Trade Commission, says that the antitrust policies are being influenced by politics, and the debate over China’s economic direction. China knows it has to move away from its planned economy and towards successful private

businesses. These policies, which target foreign organizations, would help those domestic businesses. So far, tech companies like Microsoft, car manufacturers like Volkswagen and Chrysler, and even baby food manufacturers have been subject to fines or investigation. This discrimination of foregn companies is a point of contention between the United States and China and has also decreased foreign investor confidence. In response, China has been trying to reassure its investors and the outside world. At a World Economic Fair in Tianjin, China’s Premier Li Keqiang gave a speech to over 1,000 global business leaders. He said, “China continues to welcome foreign investment, and the door will open even further.” Xu Kunlin, director general of the anti-monopoly bureau at China’s National Development Reform Commission has reiterated this claim, saying that foreign and Chinese companies are treated equally. In response to the anti-trust measures that China has enacted, the US may enact anti-China trade policies. This is unacceptable, and the U.S. should instead confront China about these issues and engage in diplomatic talks. The two nations cannot work together unless they are on an equal playing field. Alibaba has proven that Chinese companies can thrive in the current business environment. The company transformed from a group of 17 friends in an apartment to the global organization it is known as today. It embodies the true essence of an entrepreneurial success. In the same way, other companies following its footsteps will prosper. In this case, the only reason China is using these policies is to make the playing field uneven, a business practice that the United States should not leave alone. China is at a pivotal moment. While there has been a slight downtick in the economy, these are just slight fluctuations, and are not a serious issue. Fueled by the potential of the growth of the middle class and increased consumption, there has and will be an overarching trend towards China’s tremendous economic success. My real concern about China is the recent anti-trust probes. The U.S. should immediately address these issues with China. For now, the future of China’s economy, its foreign investors, and its relations with the U.S. are still very much up in the air HMR

October 2014

Timeline of China’s Economic Growth 1977 Hua Guofeng implements “Open Door” policy

1986 China is the United States’ 3rd largest trade partner

1993 Creation 2000 special economic zones, which encouraged foreign investment

2007 National People’s Congress passes the Anti-Monopoly Law

2009 World bank announces that China is the 3rd largest global economy by GDP

2014 Alibaba became one of the most valuable tech companies after raising $21.8 billion from its U.S. IPO

Economics

Japan’s Baby Steps to Economic Recovery Alex Karpf

hinzo Abe’s ascent to the office of prime minister of Japan has been followed by a wave of drastic economic reforms. While Japan’s recent prime ministers have done little to impact on the country’s economy, Abe has already passed reforms and has plans for more. That the current prime minister has introduced such radical and different economic policies is a sign of improvement, and Japan’s Federal bank has managed to pour vast amounts of money into the national economy. However, Japan should rethink how it will solve persisting economic issues that plague the country’s growth, like debt, deflation, and an export of labor. Simply raising taxes and manipulating the yen’s value will not sufficiently carry the national economy into strong growth. It’s important to first understand why such extreme fiscal action by the government is necessary at all. Japan’s economic woes can be traced back to 1990 and 1991, the years of an infamous asset price bubble. Stocks, bonds, and real estate rose to inaccurately high levels in the 1980’s until they crashed in 1990 and 1991. Although prices were expected to recover, they never did; the resulting loss of wealth indefinitely paralyzed Japan’s economy. Though 21st century economists have called the 1990’s “the Lost De-

cade” for Japan, due to a loss of economic growth, this loss is thought by some to have continued into the 21st century. Japan’s GDP has decreased since 1995, and its wages have not grown at all. Today, two massive economic issues plague Japan. The first is its national debt, which as a percentage of Japan’s GDP amounts to 220%. This ratio is the largest for any country in the world, and it means that all the money Japan’s economy generates in an entire year couldn’t pay off even half the country’s debt. Japan’s second economic plight is consistent currency appreciation, or deflation. Deflation is almost always toxic to economies. Debt becomes more difficult to pay as currency value increases, and consumers endlessly wait to actually make purchases, assuming the price of products will eventually decrease more. If Japan wants to pay off its rising debt, deflation will hinder efforts to do so. After six ineffective prime ministers in seven years, Shinzo Abe has entered office and assumed his position with hopes to solve these issues and revitalize the Japanese economy. Abe’s first point, or “arrow,” of his plan was a massive stimulus package, announced in January and valued at 10.3 trillion yen ($1.4 trillion). Japan’s government public-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

ly anticipated the package to create 600,000 jobs and boost the country’s GDP by 2%, through investment in both the private sector and infrastructure. Mr. Abe’s policies were at first widely supported and were seen as the economic jolt Japan had needed since the beginning of its Lost Decade(s). However, high expectations for Abenomics stumbled in the second quarter of this past year, when Japan’s value-added tax increased from 5% to 8%. Abe intends this national sales tax to combat the deficit and plans to increase the tax to 10% by 2015. Sales of many products peaked at multiyear highs from January to March in anticipation of the tax hike, but the second quarter of 2014 saw GDP and consumption sharply decrease. While strong negative growth is expected to be temporary, the sales tax could have long-term consequences on Japanese consumption and could therefore impact the health of the country’s economy. Indeed, Abe has put in place policies that attempt to mitigate the “burden” of this tax hike by giving tax cuts to employers that raise their wages and granting assistance to low-income homebuyers. But if Abe wants first to freeze the growth of Japan’s debt to GDP ratio and eventually lower it, increasing sales taxes could increase revenue but also harm GDP.

Economics

Japanese lawmakers, however, seem to believe that tax hikes should be accompanied with an increase, not a decrease, to Japan’s 2014 initial budget. Japan’s parliament last December increased the budget by 3.5%, adding drastically to sectors such as defense and social security for an increasingly ageing population. Abe’s effort to sharply increase revenue is canceled out by unnecessary hikes to the national budget. Japan must stop funneling money into programs such as defensive capabilities already provided by the United States and an ageing population who will cost Japan billions in welfare programs. The nation should simply reverse any increases to defense spending and then subtract more from the defense budget in the near future. Welfare programs for the elderly are a bit trickier. As of now, every Japanese citizen who pays into the pension system for 40 years and who is 65 or older receives payments of 792,000 yen a year. This is about $141,120 to every single Japanese senior citizen who lives 84.6 years, Japan’s life expectancy. This rapidly growing group will make up 32% of the population in 15 years and 40% in 40 years. Hence the nation’s pension program to the elderly is beyond realistic, a financial nightmare. Japan needs to establish the minimum

age of membership to the program to 70, in order to increase contributions to the program, avoid a wider deficit, and encourage the elderly to remain in the workforce. Abe and the Bank of Japan have also set a goal of 2% yearly inflation by the end of 2015, and intend to reach this goal with the radical policy of unlimited monetary easing. Monetary easing describes the process by which a central bank increases the amount of currency in circulation, most commonly through purchasing securities and other assets from the public and hence injecting money into the economy. With more money available, the value of each unit of currency decreases, and inflation occurs. Abe has also made it easier for banks to get loans from the government and to loan that money to Japanese citizens, placing more money in the hands of Japanese citizens. Resulting inflation encourages businesses to export out of Japan, as their products are less expensive and therefore more competitive in the global market. There are risks to continued easing; because interest rates on government bonds decrease, investors desiring a higher profit may invest in bonds with higher rates and higher risks. If these bonds fail at another economic downturn, the investors’ losses are increased. Manufacturers and other businesses can-

October 2014

not be expected to move to Japan because of a devalued currency. Instead, it’s important for Japan to foster a more hospitable environment. Abe has suggested, but not put in place, the third part of his economic plan: structural reforms, changes in Japanese laws that regulate businesses and markets. Decreasing corporate taxes, allowing companies to fire employees, and requiring companies to include independent members on their boards of directors are all proposed changes yet which have not yet come to fruition. With China and South Korea as competitors in the manufacturing sector in East Asia alone, the nation can to offer other incentives to businesses and not only to rely on pouring money into circulation. There is, of course, opposition from labor unions and other groups against these ideas who don’t recognize the urgency of Japan’s economic predicament. Prime Minister Abe can choose not to shy away from pushing these controversial views through Japan’s congress, even if it costs him some popular support. At the end of the day, though, Japan’s economy needs inflation. Through a radical program of monetary easing, Japan can accomplish just that, and take a first step in paying back its debts and revitalizing consumers and businesses. HMR

Science and Technology

PRO VAED PRASAD

THE DRONE AGE CON TEDDY KAPLAN

PRO: TECHNOLOGY OF THE FUTURE F

or many years, companies and governments around the world have been using drones. However, only when Amazon, the world’s largest online retailor, expressed interest in using these unmanned vehicles to deliver goods to customers, did debate about the feasibility of commercial drones began. According to Matt Burns of TechCrunch, “If any company in the U.S. could pull this off, it would be Amazon” because “the retailer has demonstrated its knack for modernization time and time again.” Throughout this debate there have been misunderstandings regarding what these small-unmanned aircraft systems (sUAS)

can do. Since these sUAS’s have a range of just ten miles, Amazon does not intend to use them to expand delivery to remote places. Instead, Amazon plans to use drones to quickly and efficiently deliver products to cities that are near the company’s warehouses. According to Jeff Bezos, CEO and Founder of Amazon, the drones can carry products under five pounds, which covers about 86% of Amazon’s diverse inventory. Amazon endorses the use of commercial sUAS’s, and support from other groups is mounting. These supporters have recognized that commercial drones will inevitably be implemented domestically because

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

they are profitable for businesses, convenient for consumers, great stimulants of economic growth for the government. Amazon is not the first company to deliver products via drones. “Other countries are already doing it,” Jeff said, referring to nations such as Australia, where school textbooks are delivered using UAVs, and the United Kingdom, where Domino’s delivers pizzas with drones. Why are so many companies turning to drones as a method for delivery? Drones are an effective method of reducing the cost of deliveries. Amazon’s shipping costs are equal to 4.7% of their revenue, which totaled about $17.1 billion in the

Science and Technology

“Supporters have recognized that commercial drones will inevitably be implemented domestically because they are profitable for businesses, convenient for consumers, and great stimulants of economic growth for the government.” third quarter, and Amazon is doing everything it can to reduce those costs. Amazon’s use of commercial drones will help not only the company but also the US economy. Jerry Lemieux, a retired US Air Force Colonel who now works for the Unmanned Vehicle University in Phoenix, Arizona, said, “There is already a forecast of 70,000 jobs in three years, and a $13 billion impact to the US economy. And I think that’s a low number.” Other sources, including the Association for Unmanned Vehicle Systems, have predicted 100,00 jobs will be created. The study also claims, “Every year that integration is delayed, the United States loses more than $10 billion in potential economic impact. This translates to a loss of $27.6 million per day that UAS are not integrated into the NAS.” Amazon is not the only organization that understands the numerous benefits of these UAS’s; Congress has recognized them as well. According to Amazon’s Petition for Exemption, in the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Congress directed the FAA “to safely accelerate the integration of civil unmanned aircraft systems into the national airspace system” and, under Section 333 of that law, gave the FAA power to grant innovators “expedited operational authorization” to do so. When should we expect Amazon to release their drones? While commercial drones have been legal in Australia for

more than a decade, they are still banned in the US. In 2015, the FAA is due to lay out guidelines for drones’ sharing American airspace, which is the most crowded in the world. However, with support from Congress, Amazon, and numerous other companies, it would be no surprise if the rules the FAA will impose allow Amazon to operate drones under 400 feet. Despite the perspicuous benefits of allowing these commercial drones to fly, there is opposition to the possibility. Some opponents of commercial drones believe that having camera-aided drones flying to individual homes may infringe homeowners’ privacy and potentially foster spying. This concern comes from paranoia. Everyday, people deliver mail and packages to our homes. The thought of mailmen “trespassing” and spying on us is hardly a concern. The same will be true for Amazon’s drones. Implementing Amazon’s drones is still very ambitious task. However, these unmanned flying vehicles are incredibly versatile, so commercial usage of drones is an inevitable advancement in technology. Drones have already been used in a myriad of ways. In fact, very recently the FAA has approved the use of drones for moviemaking. On Thursday September 25th, the FAA approved the use of drones for six movie companies, Astraeus Aerial, Aerial MOB, HeliVideo Productions, Pictorvi-

sion, Snaproll Media and Vortex Aerial, for films and television shows. These are the first, but are most definitely not the last, approved uses of drones in continental USA. According to Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, “These companies are blazing a trail that others are already following, offering the promise of new advances in agriculture and utility safety and maintenance. As we’ve seen, uses for unmanned aircraft are only limited by our imagination.” In order for the FAA to accept these exemption requests the companies have promised to film on closed set and fly the drone within sight of a remote pilot at a speed and altitude no greater the 57mph and 400 feet off the ground. If you are someone who is scared or skeptical about the capabilities and usages of drones, I highly advise that you get used to them. With corporate titans such as Amazon and political powers such as the U.S. Congress investing millions in the development of this technology, I can assure you that drones will be in flight rather soon. The scope of commercial sUAS’s extends from movies to agriculture, product delivery to weather surveillance, and just as Foxx said, “uses for unmanned aircraft are only limited by our imagination”. These sUAS’s will become as common and as integrated in your daily life as mailmen. At least now there is something else your dog can bark at. HMR

“If you are someone who is scared or skeptical about the capabilities and usages of drones, I highly advise that you get used to them.” September 2014

Science and Technology

CON: THE THREAT LOOMING OVERHEAD T

he increasing dependence of society on technology has caused companies to feel pressured to implement new devices to adapt to the changes around them. Last December on CBS’s show “60 Minutes,” Amazon revealed its stunning new release: the Amazon Prime drone. This prototype is currently pending approval from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). While the commercial drone may initially seem like an innovative product, the drawbacks far outweigh the potential gains. The use of commercial drones induces various concerns, especially regarding the threat of drone shootings, the effects of drones on personal privacy, the question of drones’ ability to fly in poor weather, and the logistics and pricing of these commercial drones. Thus, it is not worth the risk for consumers to purchase items with the Amazon Drone. There are over 8 million people living in New York City, and many of these people are Amazon shoppers. If the Amazon drone is in service, New Yorkers will want it to deliver their products. However, is it even possible for these drones to safely navigate the city streets? Inevitably, at least one drone will hit some type of object, whether it is a building or tree, and the drone could fall on a pedestrian. Additionally, as there are 3 very large airports in the New York metro area, it is very plausible for

a drone to hit a plane. This is not possible in New York City, but could happen in any large city, such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, and Seattle, where the drone is being worked on and where Amazon is headquartered. The potential of an excess amount of drones could also cause a problem. In order for Amazon to successfully construct a drone-based delivery system, the company would need many drones. Forbes breaks down the Amazon sales: 26 million items are ordered daily. Most orders are delivered digitally, for example an E-book, but still about 2.5 million are shipped per day. Assuming that drones would deliver about half of these, more than 1.2 million drones would fly each day. These numbers can lead to a few problems. The first is the amount of drones that would be needed is exuberant. Since Amazon guarantees deliveries within 30 minutes when using the drones, which are still pending FAA approval, we can assume that a single drone would be able to account for 1 package an hour, as the drone would need to return back to the storage facility and then pick up another package. This would mean that 50,000 drones would be needed, not to mention replacements for any that develop problems. This totals about 100,000 flights in New York City a day. The notion of allowing 100,000 drone flights to occur above

busy city streets crowded with other drones, buildings, and planes is absurd. Additionally, if the FAA gave Amazon the approval to do this, other companies, like Apple and Google, would certainly get approval too. This would mean even more drones would be flying overheard. There is no possible way the drones could navigate the streets without the risk of drone crashes and potential injuries for innocent people below. Another potential problem is the price that consumers would need to pay to have their package delivered by drone. As the Forbes article states, if the FAA were to give approval for the Amazon drone, they would most likely make Amazon hire remote pilots for the drones. However, with a fleet of 50,000 drones, the company would need more than 150,000 qualified drone pilots. To cover these additional costs, Amazon may require customers to pay more for shipping. In light of this, the benefits of fast delivery may not outweigh the drawback of higher prices. Currently, Amazon Prime offers free two day shipping. However with this potential drone, R. John Hansman, a professor at MIT says, “They will have to be a significant premium for this kind of delivery, so the products would need to be worth a $100 to $200 delivery fee for a five-pound or so package.” This is an absolutely outrageous price for a simple package, when you can go

“However, is it even possible for these drones to safely navigate the city streets? Inevitably, at least one drone will hit some type of object...” 50

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Science and Technology to a store to buy a similar thing or wait a day for free shipping (with Amazon Prime, which is only $99 a year). Another problem with drones is that their success depends on external conditions, such as weather. However, drone expert Missy Cummings is quoted in a CNN article saying, “They can fly in some precipitation, but certainly not heavy precipitation…It’s hard to make it a really solid business if the weather

should decrease the value of shipping. Amazon’s drone-based delivery system also increases the potential for security risk within our borders. These delivery drones could easily end up in the wrong hands. Drones fly lower to the ground than airplanes and are smaller, so drone hunters can shoot them down from the sky. A drone hunter is a person who shoots at a drone from the sky and then takes the drone and the goods

called distribution sites. Because of this 10-mile rule, people in rural areas will most likely not be eligible for the benefits of drone shipping. Thus, a larger percentage of the deliveries will be in cities, causing an increase in air traffic. The final obstacle in the implementation of commercial drones is the fact that it is unlikely that the FAA will approve the drones. The FAA understands the dangers that these drones pose to

holds you back. They’re going to have to work on that.” As Cummings said, a business needs to be able to operate in all conditions, and when it doesn’t, value of the product that the consumer receives decreases. This is especially true with products delivered by Amazon’s drones. Higher prices are a possible consequence of drone shipping, and if prices increase, customers will expect the drone deliveries to be better and more efficient than the old deliveries. If the drone deliveries were unsuccessful, as they could be in bad weather, customers would be disadvantaged because they would end up paying more for an unsuccessful delivery system. This makes little economic sense, as the volatility of the drone delivery system

it is carrying. Regarding the shooting down of drones, Cummings said, “It’s not [done by] people who hate drones… It’s people who want those packages.” She added that to prevent these people to from shooting down the drone, or “drone hunting,” the drones will need to fly at least 300 feet in the air. With an increased altitude required for delivery, the drone will need to waste more battery in its ascent and descent. As previously mentioned, the battery life of these drones is only 30 minutes. The increased altitude may prevent the drones from being able to complete deliveries within the time constraint set by their battery life. Amazon is planning on making deliveries within a 10-mile radius of its so-

American citizens and the impracticality of their implementation. Even if the FAA approved the use of commercial drones, it would be difficult for these drones to meet any FAA safety regulations, especially if a remote operator does not control the drones. While the proposed Amazon drone, which could make deliveries in less than 30 minutes, seems like an innovative invention, after considering the real implications of utilizing drones for commercial use, it is clear that these drones would hurt the consumer, rather than helping him or her. HMR

“After considering the real implications of utilizing drones for commercial use, it is clear that these drones would hurt the consumer...”

September 2014

Science and Technology

GMOs: Should We Really Be Scared? Jack Vahradian

ater this year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture may approve Arctic Granny Apples as the first genetically modified apples to hit supermarket shelves. Ever since the first genetically modified organism (GMO) was created for civilian use in 1982, countless practical uses have arisen, such as the modification of bacteria to produce insulin and the creation of animals with high-protein meat. GMOs have always been controversial, mainly because the practice is displayed to the public as a radical technology that has not been tested much. Certain groups also consider genetically modifying animals to be “torture” to the animals. While the subject of GMOs remains highly controversial, the FDA states in its GMO regulation guidance, “Genetic engineering is a cutting edge technology that holds substantial promise for improving the health and well-being of people as well as animals.” Overall, the benefits of GMOs outweigh the problems they cause. It is often thought that no long-term testing has been carried out on GMOs, so many believe that there is no way of knowing the long-term effects of consuming GMO products. As previously mentioned, GMOs have existed since 1982, and they have been tested for issues ever since. To put this in comparison, the production and testing of GMOs began seven years before the creation of the

World Wide Web. In the twenty-two years of GMO’s existence, there has been little, if any, evidence that these organisms can cause chemical imbalances in the body. Extensive research has been put into GMOs due to the potential dangers these organisms could cause, and researchers have discovered that many of the problems that would make GMOs unsafe were greatly exaggerated. In the case of the Arctic Granny Apples, the producers of the Arctic Granny simply took genes from the non-modified Granny Smith strain of apples and suppressed the gene that causes browning, preventing certain antioxidants from being broken down and thus increasing the shelf life of the apple. Furthermore, humans have been genetically modifying organisms to yield better traits since the start of agriculture. While selective breeding isn’t thought of as genetic engineering in a modern sense, we bred certain organisms with favorable traits until there were entire populations of these new organisms with modified traits. As such, genetic engineering is as old as the cultivation of crops, and therefore is not as radical a technology as some claim. Genetic modification of plants is becoming widespread very quickly and gets substantial attention as a result. However, modern methods of genetic engineering are very different from traditonal versions, and they have the

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

potential to be dangerous if used incorrectly. The main difference between conventional selective breeding and modern genetic engineering is that modern methods make choosing desired traits much easier, and they can be implemented into an organism in a much shorter amount of time. Monsanto, the largest producer of genetically modified plants, states on their website that they currently modify plants to have increased shelf life, higher-yielding harvests, pesticide and herbicide immunity, more resistance to weather, and more nutrition. Many of these traits may not seem beneficial to a developed nation with a massive surplus of food, but some of these traits can prevent a bad harvest season, which in less developed nations, could lead to a massive famine. As such, the use of GMOs is very beneficial in less developed nations. While there have been many problems with GMOs put forth by the public, most have been debunked by research. Two potential problems with GMOs are the accidental activation of toxins and allergens in the organisms and the abuse of herbicides and pesticides, which creates “super weeds” and insects that are immune to all current herbicides and pesticides. When a company alters the genes of an organism, it is possible that a gene could be inserted or removed; such an error could activate a toxin or allergen in

Science and Technology the organism. Nevertheless, the FDA is well aware of this issue, and it has changed GMO policies so that all GMO products must go through testing before they can be sold. Arctic Grannies have undergone extensive testing for toxins and allergens, and no test has found that they do contain these substances. Thus, the FDA has authorized their sale in the U.S. FDA-regulated testing removes this potential danger from the United States, but companies that aren’t willing to carry out testing for their products can still sell them in countries that haven’t passed similar legislation regarding GMO testing. While testing itself isn’t very costly, having to redesign an organism’s entire genome because of one allergen found while testing is very expensive. The risk of having

currence would be impossible, as the digestive system breaks down the proteins and carbohydrates found in DNA, thus preventing the foreign DNA from entering our bloodstream in its original form. In addition to this basic biological knowledge, studies from 1000 samples of human blood have shown only the broken-down components of DNA, which are not only harmless but also vital for any organism to replicate its own DNA. The controversy behind GMOs expands beyond simply whether or not they can be produced. Many groups are requesting that legislation be passed forcing products using GMOs to be labeled. According to Colorado State University, supporters believe that they have the right to know what’s in their

they are released to consumers. It would also be difficult to pass a legislation regarding the labeling of GMOs because the term “genetically modified” is very broad, and would need to be redefined by the FDA. Overall, the supposed problems about GMOs put forth by the public have been refuted by research, with the exception of resistant weeds and insects, which are exclusive to genetically modified plants. When you compare this one problem to all of the benefits that GMOs bring, GMOs can and will be beneficial to health and society as a whole. These benefits are amplified further in undeveloped nations, where these organisms can produce the extra food necessary to maintain a sufficient food supply, which is absolutely vital

“Arctic Grannies have undergone extensive testing for toxins and allergens, and no test has found that they do contain these substances.” to spend large amounts of capital to completely redesign the genome of the organism being modified may drive certain companies away from countries that enforce this testing. Should a company decide that it does not want to take the risk of having to reengineer its product, it will lose the opportunity to sell its products to some of the biggest agricultural markets in the world. The other problem, which is more relevant in the U.S., is that genetically modified plant’s resistance to herbicides and pesticides could cause farmers to abuse the two products, since there is no risk of killing the crop. In addition to the environmental problems that this overuse would cause, it would also result in weeds and bugs that are immune to modern herbicides and pesticides. According to Popular Science, it takes up to $256 million and 9 years to produce a new pesticide, while a new herbicide will be unobtainable for many years. However, according to UCSUSA, the solution can be obtained by using practices of basic agroecology (the study of ecological processes that operate in agricultural systems), such as crop rotation, the use of manure instead of synthetic fertilizers, and taking advantage of the weed-suppressing chemicals that certain plants reduce. This practice could replace the need for herbicides and pesticides, which would eliminate the problem altogether. Another worry with GMOs is that “horizontal gene transfer” could result in human absorption of genes in consumed GMO products. According to the FDA, such an oc-

food, and that labeling will allow consumers to avoid products that cause them problems. However, as previously mentioned, genetically engineering organisms is neither a recent innovation nor a radical one, so GMOs should merely be included along with the other ingredients, and they should not need to be specially labeled. In addition, if one does not want to consume any products from GMOs for one reason or another, he or she could always purchase certified health foods. These products by definition cannot contain any GMO products, but they are more expensive in most cases. As for the potential health problems, the FDA has passed regulations making sure that there are no health problems associated with the products before

October 2014

to society. As a result, GMOs should be legal for use, although regulatory measures such as strict toxin testing should be maintained to moderate the industry; problems could arise if GMO producers try to cut corners. Additionally, there is ultimately no reason for the labeling of products that contain GMOs, since it has been proven that GMOs do not cause any health problems; forcing their labeling would be unnecessary bureaucratic interference. Overall, though GMOs get large amounts of public dissent, they are nevertheless very beneficial to society. HMR

Science and Technology theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com

EBOLA : A MEDIA MYSTERY Noah Shapiro

utside a Liberian hospital, two men and a small child have collapsed, unable to muster any strength to enter the facility. They lay there for hours removed of their clothing, incapable of summoning the strength to even stand upright. These people are stricken with one of the most dangerous viruses known to man, the Zaire Ebola Virus. The Ebola virus is a terrible pathogen that wreaks havoc upon the human body and kills 55% of its victims. However, despite the significant amount of people killed by natural threats such as the Ebola virus, media coverage seems to fade in light of other threats around the world, namely terrorist threats such as ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant). While coverage of the Ebola epidemic is not completely lacking â&#x20AC;&#x201D; international support against the virus is insufficient, if not shameful â&#x20AC;&#x201D; a coalition of powerful nations has already been assembled to fight against ISIL. This is not to absolve ISIL or any of its affiliates from the cruel atrocities that they have committed but to focus more upon the issue at hand and to understand why Ebola is overlooked in several aspects. For the most part, Ebola

is overlooked in comparison to terrorist threats because the fear is not as prevalent in America whereas terrorist organizations kindle fear within the hearts of Americans through strikes such as 9/11 or the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing. Ebola has sporadically popped up from the middle of the 20th century until today, ranging in both severity and fatality rates of up to 200 people. The precise origin of Ebola within nature is uncertain; however, the disease is believed to originate from bats that have been known to host other pathogens that result in such viruses. Ebola is a systemic hemorrhagic fever that results in severe symptoms that quickly place the infected in a critical state of health. Many people die of Ebola because of organ failure, excessive blood loss resulting in shock, and other lethal symptoms including severe brain dysfunction that induces comas, seizures or strokes. While most victims of the disease typically do not survive the course of the pathogen, even if one does survive the disease, the long-term effects are crippling. Essentially, if one gets Ebola and is not treated, in part due to the very limited range of drug options, it would be near-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

ly impossible for him or her to continue a normal life afterwards. There are currently 5,335 reported cases of Ebola and 2,622 deaths from the disease collectively from 5 different nations. (Liberia, Nigeria, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Senegal). The WHO (World Healh Organization) reports that the outbreak could last for another nine months, while more skeptical researchers claim that it could last a whole year. If this is true, and the cases and deaths for Ebola double monthly for the next nine months, then the world could be looking at a near-pandemic that will have infected over two million people and killed over one million. Unfortunately, even the most optimistic researcher claims that Ebola will infect only a few hundred thousand people, most of whom will die; the few survivors will endure long lives filled with crippling impairments. So why does the world sit idly by as hundreds of thousands of people have the potential to be stricken with Ebola and await their agonizingly pain-filled ends? Perhaps it is because Ebola does not seem like as much of a threat as terrorism despite its equally high and potentially high-

Science and Technology er death toll. Because. as the fact remains, for most people, the strength of hatred against those to blame far surpasses the strength of empathy for those in need. People are inherently more attracted to thoughts of revenge, violence, and “justice” as opposed to care, compassion and aid. If someone had the option of reading a story about a man who shot an innocent child and was then hunted down and killed by a CIA agent or a similar story where a man shot an innocent child and then a doctor helped cure that child, people would generally pick the former. This is why everyday several articles are published about ISIL and their every move, but at the same time coverage for Ebola in Africa is lacking and is losing momentum progressively. Another reason why Ebola in Africa has lacked American media coverage is because the problem used to seem distant. People are only slightly interested by the prospect of an epidemic across the Atlantic Ocean, but once the disease reached America, news articles and national intervention increased exceptionally. It seems rather strange that when one or two people become infected with Ebola, national attention to the topic increased as much as it did when thousands of people die of Ebola in another country. This lack of coverage helps us understand why so many countries are failing to send more aid to West Africa.

Surprisingly, the country leading in the amount of doctors sent over to West Africa is Cuba. Instead of sending more doctors than Cuba over to West Africa, America will send 3,000 thousand troops to prevent violence against Ebola workers who are targeted by the public. It is worth noting, however, that the United States will be sending a few more health care specialists, more supplies to help treat the disease, and workers to build centers where the sick can be taken. If America had sent 3,000 trained doctors rather than troops over to West Africa, it would have more than doubled the amount of doctors within the region and easily surpassed the WHO’s goal for 1,500 health workers to curb the epidemic. But once again, people care more about the “fight” against Ebola rather than treating people with the disease. While Ebola in Africa should be portrayed more in the media, the issue with combatting diseases like Ebola doesn’t stop there. World leaders have to realize that distant issues like this are equally as important as, if not more demanding than, terrorist threats. If news channels and papers constantly focused on just how detrimental these kinds of natural threats can be, they could hasten the rate at which nations respond to these kinds of catastrophes. While American support is lacking, some other countries are helping to alleviate the calamity in separate ways. China

is sending over millions of dollars of supplies and materials and Canada and Britain are developing vaccines, which have shown promising results in animals such as primates. The vaccine that Canada is developing is known as a DNA vaccine. A DNA vaccine works by taking an antigen/ protein from the disease that one is trying to establish a vaccine for and expressing it within another bacterium that is harmless. Then, a human is infected with those bacteria. The test subject’s immune system will kill the bacteria but develop antibodies specific to the antigen from the original disease, leading to immunity against that pathogen. Overall, the world has reacted too slowly to the rising Ebola threat which could lead to the demise of hundreds of thousands of people. The media must present more moving reports and stories that call upon one’s natural sense of empathy in order to receive a reaction from international communities and governments. Humans frequently underestimate the power of nature and tend to focus on the dangers of one human to another, but in reality, the real danger is out there, within the diseases, natural disasters and threatening climate changes. Countless disasters have hit so hard, gained immediate but temporary media coverage, only to lose international aid and attention long before the suffering has actually ended. HMR

iknowtoday.com

October 2014

Science and Technology buergernaehe-bielefeld.de

Looking Past the Clouds of Fukushima Karen Jiang

n Japanese, the word Fukushima literally translates to “lucky island,” an ironic name for an area that seems to be flooded with everything but luck. March 11, 2014 marked the third anniversary of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster – the worst nuclear accident since Chernobyl. Today, the Fukushima prefecture is still far from recovery, from both environmental and mental perspectives; radiation levels are still dangerous, and the anxiety and depression of Fukushima residents may be even more lethal. Despite the catastrophic effects of Fukushima, nuclear accidents should not overshadow the overwhelming benefits of nuclear energy. When placed in responsible hands, nuclear power can be an incredibly powerful source of clean energy with immense environmental and economic benefits. The original accident occurred when a tsunami, triggered by a 9.0 Earthquake, struck the plant and caused a meltdown of six nuclear reactors. Massive amounts of radioactive material were released into the air, water, and environment surrounding the plant, causing over 300,000 people to evacuate the area. The tsunami

killed neary 20,000 people, and evacuation problems resulted in 1,600 of those deaths. It has been estimated that infant females near the accident have a 70% higher risk of developing thyroid cancer, and infant children have a 4% higher risk overall for developing all cancers. Today, over 6,000 workers attempt to minimize the damage at the site of the incident. They struggle along in suffocating gear, entering the power plant and surveying the destruction in areas that no one has entered since the accident. Every three days, the workers deploy another storage tank to hold radioactive water, adding to the 1,300 tanks already sitting in the nearby forest. Leaks are not uncommon, and the Tokyo Electric Power Co. (TEPCO) has admitted that nearly 300 tons of contaminated water is being released into the Pacific Ocean every day. TEPCO’s latest plan is to build a frozen wall around the damage reactors to prevent radiation from entering the environment. However, scientists believe that even if these new solutions succeed, it will still take over 30 years to decommission Fukushima Daiichi. From the perspective of previous

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Fukushima residents, the future looks stark. Radiation levels are still many times higher than what is safe to live in, and many people still live as evacuees. A mental health crisis is taking place in Fukushima, with many residents suffering from anxiety, stress-induced health issues, and depression. People have lost their will to live, causing suicide levels to skyrocket. Barns with suicide notes written on their walls scatter the Fukushima prefecture, and families of suicide victims feel stigmatized and disgraced. Though the Japanese government and TEPCO have reassured residents that the situation is under control, citizens know this statement is far from the truth. From Fukushima’s aftermaths, it is indisputable that the nuclear disaster was a catastrophe, but it was one caused by humans, not by nuclear science – a distinction that needs to be made clear. The accident found its roots in politics, lack of management, and blatant carelessness. As shown by Fukushima, nuclear power can have disastrous effects if placed into the wrong hands. It is no secret that Fukushima was fundamentally caused by problems such as political corruption, as

Science and Technology over 70% of donations to the current ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party, came from electric-company executives. These donations were presumably used to cover up flaws in nuclear power administration, while proper investigation could have prevented the Fukushima disaster. Fukushima Daiichi was 40 years old when the accident occurred and should have been retired many years ago, but TEPCO turned a blind eye to these facts until the disaster forced them to face the consequences of their mistakes. Even then, TEPCO has also been guilty of masking to severity of the accident by hiding documents and claiming that radiation levels are much lower than they actually were. The company’s efforts and ability to minimize the damage have been repeatedly questioned due to an overall lack of urgency and a halfhearted effort to prevent waterleaks. TEPCO’s actions evidence the disastrous effects when nuclear power is placed into the wrong hands, but they certainly do not lead to the inference that all governments are abusing their control of nuclear power. With proper management and rigorous upkeep, human error can be largely eliminated and nuclear accidents will be prevented. If management issues are taken care of, nuclear power can be an environmentally beneficial source of clean energy, as it provides massive amounts of energy with very little Carbon Footprint. Currently, there are 435 nuclear reactors in 31 countries across the world. In the United States alone there are 104 nuclear reactors, which are responsible for providing about 20% of our energy, a number that should grow in the coming years. Nuclear energy may be expensive in comparison to fossil fuels, but it is a sustainable investment that will pay off in the long run from an economic perspective. A shift towards nuclear power will lower the United States’ economic dependence on foreign coal and oil. Promoting energy independence reduces the leverage that foreign countries have on our economy, a switch that which will become increasingly important as sources of fossil fuels are quickly depleting. Secondly, nuclear power plants create jobs, as each plant has over 10,000 workers. Furthermore, nuclear plants cause drastically fewer deaths per year than other energy sources. In a ranking of all

energy sources conducted by Forbes, nuclear power is responsible for the fewest deaths of all sources of energy, and scientists estimate that on a global average,

clear power or other sources of clean energy can help slow down the rate of global warming, allowing us to conserve the earth for future generations. Finally,

“Due to accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, a strong stigma surrounds nuclear power and has created a irrational fear of all things nuclear.” coal power has caused 170,000 deaths per trillion kilowatts, and 15,000 alone in the US. On the other hand, nuclear power causes a minimal 90 deaths per trillion kilowatts, nearly 2000 times fewer deaths than those caused by coal. Although coal provides 50% of the world’s energy and nuclear power only provides 17%, this fact doesnot minimalize the immense gap between mortality rates. Contrary to public opinion, Scientific American claims that an average coal power plant emits more than 100 times more radioactive coal waste every year in than the radiation of a comparatively sized nuclear power plant. Above all, our environment needs alternative sources of energy. The emission of greenhouse gases by fossil fuels is causing the alarming effects of global warming: holes in the ozone layer, rising sea levels, and climate change. Animals are suffering from the effects of their changing habitats without the ability to adapt quickly enough. Switching to nu-

October 2014

nuclear power produces much less waste than people presume (about 1,000 times less than other forms of EPA-registered hazardous waste, such as mercury and PCBs). However, the public’s mindset is thwarting the development of nuclear power. Due to accidents like Chernobyl and Fukushima, a strong stigma surrounds nuclear power and has created a irrational fear of all things nuclear. In reality, the number of large-scale nuclear accidents is extremely low in relation to the number of reactors around the world. In the U.S., the Nuclear Regulatory Commission imposes stringent safety standards that are followed and executed by all American power plants, drastically diminishing the likelihood of nuclear accidents. Fundamentally we need to remember that human error is a far greater threat than technology; the science is there, but we must look past Fukushima and recognize the overwhelming benefits of nuclear power. HMR

Science and Technology

ALS Ice Bucket Challenge: Raising Awareness or Self-Promoting? Benjamin Shapiro

gulfelitemag.com

myotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS), commonly known as ALS, has a mortality rate of nearly 100% and kills 90% of the people it affects within 10 years of a diagnosis by paralyzing its victims slowly through the deterioration of the nervous system until the body shuts down entirely. Better known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease, ALS only affects 1 in 50,000 people and was a relatively obscure issue to the American public until this summer. In July, ALS victim Peter Frates participated in the already circulating ice bucket challenge and filmed a video bobbing his head along to “Ice Ice Baby” by Vanilla Ice. He challenged a number of his friends to dump a buckets of ice water on their heads or donate $100 to ALS research within twenty-four hours. Thus the ice bucket challenge became the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge and began to gain serious momentum through the wide reaches of social media. By mid-August, the ALS Association – a well-known and highly influential charity – had raised $13.3 million as compared to $1.7 million in that same time frame during last year. Over 260,000 new donors gave to the association, due in no small part to the challenge’s popularity. The Ice Bucket Challenge was on fire as it ran through so-

cial media, and friends all challenged each other, raising awareness for the disease and making a name for ALS. However, many people have not been pleased with the chal-

selfless one. To this end, Will Oremus of Slate Magazine wrote, “More than anything else, the ice bucket videos feel like an exercise in raising awareness of one’s own

“‘It’s trendy to pretend that we care, but eventually, those trends fade away… instead of actually doing something, you can just pretend like you’re doing something by posting things all over your Facebook.’” lenge. Critics of the challenge believe that dumping ice water on one’s head is not a sensible way to raise awareness for this serious illness, and that after people run out of friends to dare or the weather gets too cold, the Ice Bucket Challenge will be forgotten, and by default, so will the disease. When considering the delicate issue of an incredibly fatal malady, it is important to keep in mind the people it affects; however, in the case of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, it can fairly be said that these actions have done wonders for Lou Gehrig’s Disease that will have a lasting effect. Among the most prominent of the complaints that people expressed about the Ice Bucket Challenge was the idea that it is a gimmick used to flaunt oneself disguised in an act of charity, a selfish act masked in a

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

zaniness, altruism, and/or attractiveness in a wet T-shirt.” While this opinion is understandable, it doesn’t actually expose a problem in the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge. It is unlikely that people would commit to the challenge just to promote themselves, or at least not consciously do so, and regardless of whether they mean to make a difference or not, they end up making that difference anyway. When one person creates a video, they promote awareness about the disease and challenge more people to do the same or donate. Though it may seem like self-glorification, it still fulfills the goals of trying to re-shape the fight for a cure to ALS. Arielle Pardes of Vice Media, an open dissenter of the Ice Bucket Challenge, wrote “It’s trendy to pretend that we care, but eventually, those trends fade away…

Science and Technology instead of actually doing something, you can just pretend like you’re doing something by posting things all over your Facebook.” In reality, this argument is flawed in that it claims that social media is a misused tool in advocating for this disease because it hides the true severity of this disease. In fact, social media is the main reason that the challenge was such a success, because it spread like wildfire through entire communities. The heart of this problem is the idea that self-promotion is a violation of our implicit social code when dealing with a serious issue; however, in the interest of the greater good, self-promotion is just a harmless side effect to enhanced recognition of the disease and increased donations. The greatest product of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge was that it made millions of people conscious of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Before the summer of 2014 the issue was practically unknown to the general public, but was soon blown up by the rush of the challenge across multiple facets of social media. Still, many people deny that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge actually made a substantial difference in the understanding that surrounds ALS. In Oremus’ criticism of the challenge he said, “As for ‘raising awareness,’ few of the videos I’ve seen contain any substantive information about the disease, why the money is needed, or how it will be used.” In a literal sense, Oremus is correct in that people do not include an explanation of the disease in their videos. However, to say that the lack of explanation is not substantial promotion for the disease would be unfairly discrediting the efforts of the challenge. In fact, Anil Dash, an independent writer for Medium. com, shared Oremus’ misinterpretation of the challenge, saying, “participants seemed largely disconnected from harsh reality of ALS, saying almost nothing about the disease.” Rather, one of the most important factors in promoting awareness is simply mentioning a product and showing it to consumers in an interesting and friendly manner so that they become interested and invest time in that product. Similarly, by simply mentioning ALS without giving any explanation as to what the disease is, participants raise awareness for the disease by encouraging others to look into it. With the aid of the Ice Bucket Challenge the disease has been mentioned more than a few million times through social media. Contrary to this negative belief, the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge has reshaped the name of ALS by drawing attention to it across

the country without people having to explain the actual disease within their videos. The most important criticism of the ice bucket dare involves its painting a very serious issue in a softer light that can be considered inappropriate and even offensive. Dash describes the delicacy of the situation well in his argument, saying, “ALS is a brutal, exhausting disease that ravages both those who are afflicted as well as their families and loved ones, the lighthearted tone of many videos from the challenge seemed tone-deaf.” This is the most vital issue surrounding the Ice Bucket Challenge, as it is an unavoidable side effect of the dare. ALS is terrifying there is no avoiding that fact. Regardless, the Ice Bucket Challenge has created an important fundraising technique that has reached millions of Americans. The only aspect of the challenge that should be altered is not a part of the challenge itself, but rather the responsibility of the viewers to take a step back from the silliness and recognize the gravity of this serious issue. Overall, the positive results produced by the Ice Bucket Challenge have outweighed criticism that stems from the humorous and entertaining aspects of the phenomenon. Generally, charitable fundraisers aren’t met with resistance from the public and the media; however, certain fundamental features of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge struck a nerve with people for these diverse reasons. When looking at the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge it is important to realize that there is more to the

massive social media event than a simple fundraiser for the disease. In order to try and understand the personal impact of the dare that affected so many people, I asked a friend of mine to express her opinions on how the disease affected her and how the Ice Bucket Challenge has changed efforts to find a cure for the disease. Her father has ALS and this is what she said: “Before the Ice Bucket Challenge I would tell a friend that my father has ALS and they would ask if he would get better, or simply state ‘Oh, I don’t know what that is.’ And that was the answer I expected, but now it is comforting that people know what I am talking about and that they are somewhat educated on this horrible illness.” Within the period of a single summer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease has become a topic of interest to thousands of people across America. The pre-existent ice bucket challenge has become the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, and has brought on a whole new meaning. Through its quick life in social media the challenge brought awareness to millions of people over social media and as a result raised millions of dollars for the ALS Association. The controversial fundraising ploy also received negative attention from people who believed that a stunt on Facebook could not really change ALS research and awareness for the better. However, in the aftermath of these events, it is clear that Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis will never again be the same little-known illness it was to the general public before the summer of 2014. HMR

Peter Frates, the “founder” of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, with family and friends as a bucket of ice is poured over his head at Fenway Park. This event is generally accepted as the beginning of the challenge.

October 2014