You are on page 1of 48

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

February 2014

Article |18-19

G a t e s - G a t e | 12 - 13 M r. P u t i n , Ta k e D o w n T h a t W a l l | 3 4 - 4 5 T h e F i r s t A m e n d m e n t s P e r s o n o f t h e Ye a r | 10 - 11

Issue IV.iv 1

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt


Political Discussions of The Lawrenceville School
Founded 2010 Ex Ore Discipulorum Veritas

elcome to The First Amendment. This publication serves as a platform for the world views and political perspectives of The Lawrenceville School community. We hope that you use this magazine not as a partisan mouthpiece but rather as a way to engage in a constructive debate on the issues of the day. While the First Amendment to the Constitution grants us freedom of speech and the right to civil debate, how to appropriately accomplish these ends remains a controversial issue. Yet one thing we can agree on is the value of hearing opposing perspectives for an inclusive and prosperous society. In a community that can often ignore what happens outside of its gates, this magazine serves as inspiration to discuss those issues that beset the world beyond. It is this inspiration that fulfills one of the most important parts of the Schools mission statement: responsible leadership, personal fulfillment, and enthusiastic participation in the world. We love to argue here at Lawrenceville, but rarely does anyone seem to leave a conversation adopting a different stance. So as you read The First Amendment, please take the time to understand the viewpoints that differ from your own. If you still disagree, then feel free to tell us in as little as two sentences or a full article. Send your submissions to: FirstAmendmentLville@gmail.com -The 4th Board

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt


EX ORE DISCIPLoRUM VERItaS
Editor-in-Chief Shubhankar Chhokra 14 Executive Editors Stephen Clarke 14 Andrew McLaughlin 14 Ombudsman Malcolm Palley 14 Associate Editors Jimmy ODonnell 15 Jared Solomon 15 Design Editor Ashlyn Lackey 14 Graphics Editor Isabelle Gotuaco 14 Jeremy Berman 14 Senior Columnists Maya Peterson 14 Sarah Pieringer 14 Copy Editors Maeve Devlin 14 Kyle DSouza 14

Senior Staff Caroline Armour 14, John Avendano 14, Amber Boykins 14, Matt Ramey 14 Staff Writers Rajiv Balasuriya 15, Joon Choe 15, Aulden Foltz 15, Jonas Frumkin 15, Clifford Gilman 16 , Fernando Guerrero 15, Anuj Krishnamurthy 15, George Lankas 15, Sabrina Li 16, Aleks Stajkovic 15, Leon Smith III 16, David Xin 15, Patrick Yu 15, Jason Zhang 15, Karen Zhang 15, Lisa Zhu 15 Artists Whitney Huang 15, Elaine Jiang 15, Karen Zhang 15, Lisa Zhu 15 Faculty Advisor Robert Shaw P14 16

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
- Amendment One, The United States Constitution

INSIDE
NatIoNaL

America the Free? | 9 Andreas Vandris 14 Gates-Gate | 12-13 Jason Zhang 15 Pentagon or Penthouse? | 14-15 Anuj Krishnamurthy 15 Things are Just Impeachy | 18-19 Leon Smith III 16 The Pro-Life Diaries | 20-21 Matt Ramey 14 Head Banker In Charge | 22-23 Patrick Yu 15 Wage War | 24-25 Aleks Stajkovic 15 A Blunt Reality | 26-27 Jimmy ODonnell 15 and Jared Solomon 15 Wheres John Kerry? | 28-29 Ashley Kim 15 and Hailey Kruger 15
CoLUMNS LEFT Wondering: Macklemore | 6 Maya Peterson 14 MIDDLE of Nowhere: Lville Power Dynamic | 7 Jeremy Berman 14 A Little to the RIGHT: Winter Olympics | 8 Sarah Pieringer 14

INtERNatIoNaL

The Reverse Crusades | 30-31 Clifford Gilman 15 Mr. Putin, Tear Down This Wall | 34-35 George Lankas 15 All Thaid Up | 38-39 Joon Choe 15 The U.N.s Iron Fist | 42-43 Lisa Xu 15
The Hands of the People | 44-45 Sabrina Li 16
FEatURES

The Pro-Life Daries | 20-21


Matt Ramey 14

Person of the Year | 10-11 Jared Solomon 15

Head Banker In Charge | 22-23


Patrick Yu 15

Only in America: Laws | 16-17 Aulden Foltz 15 Feminist Tweets | 32-33 Spectrum: Affirmative Action | 36-37 Karen Zhang 15 Top 5: 2013 | 40-41 Fernando Guerrero 15 Political Haiku | 46 Lisa Zhu 15 and Karen Zhang 15 Pop Perspective: Fracking | 47
Issue IV.iv 3

The Reverse Crusades | 30-31


Leon Smith III 15

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


f

Dear Editor, In the previous issue of The First Amendment, senior columnist Sarah Pieringer 14, in her piece, A Little to the Right, detailed her opinions on voting in America and the two-party political system. She argues that the two-party system is flawed and that the democracy machine is broken. However, the two-party system is not the problem, but rather the people who are voting as part of it. She then says that ignorance is very prominent among the voting population, and even in the Lawrenceville community. This ignorance is arguably the real problem that plagues our political system; people voting and supporting a candidate without even knowing his/her stance on the different issues. No matter the number of political parties, uninformed voters will still be casting their votes and the way to combat this, is not to change our political system, but rather to educate future voters, such as high school students, so they can form their own opinions and make decisions based on the candidates opinions and qualifications instead of their political affiliations. Students, like you and me are the future voters of this country, so stay informed and keep reading. -Yiannis Vandris 17
Dear Editor, In the previous issue of The First Amendment, Jonathan Marrow 14 criticized the Obama Administrations reorientation of its foreign policy towards the East Asian region in an article titled The Pivot to Asia. Marrow seems to have understated the significance of Chinas recent territorial aggressions and its hegemonic ambitions as well as the benefits of the strategy. Claiming that the pivot to Asia plan may bring about potentially catastrophic confrontations between the two strongest nations in the world, Marrow overlooks Chinas hostility towards the USS Cowpens last December. The instance, one of many, displayed Chinese mistrust and defiance towards America: a Chinese navy vessel forced the American ship to leave international waters by nearly colliding with it and forcing it to pursue a different route. If China does not fear agitating another international power, then why should the US feel frightened of doing so? Furthermore, through the Pivot to Asia, the US has improved relations with rising powers in East Asia, including India, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Such actions do not demonstrate unwarranted desperation by the US but rather show Americas interest to maintain its considerably respected and powerful image in the area. The US has even strived to stay on good terms with China, having launched numerous meetings and dialogues to encourage cooperation between the two nations. Through these reasons, American focus on East Asia should be integral to its foreign policy, not condemnable. -Akash Bagaria 16

Political, Economic, and Social Discussions of The Lawrenceville School

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR


Dear Editor, Death of the Tea Party by George Lankas 15 encapsulates everything that is wrong with the current hegemonic view of the Tea Party. What Lankas fails to comprehend is that the decrease in popularity of the party as shown in recent polls do not reflect an organic disenchantment among mainstream America. Rather, such views stem from how leftwing politicians have demonized the party as extremists and anarchists, a pathetic show of partisan mudslinging in the name of the betterment of America. In reality, the platform of the Tea Party-- limited federal powers, fiscal discipline, a power transfer from Washington honchos to the average Joe-- all reflect the views of the mainstream. To discard this view because a couple governors didnt get elected last cycle is foolish. Tea Partiers are still in early stages of development and will inevitably revalue their image. To compare them to Myspace and the Harlem Shake is a pitiful attempt to close ones eyes at the undeniable truth. Wake up, Lankas.
-Daniel Kim 14

Dear Editor, In the last issue of The First Amendment, your writer Jeremy Berman, compared the hat policy of Lawrenceville to gay marriage in our country in an article called Middle of Nowhere. While it was in some ways a logical comparison, being gay and wearing a hat are two different situations. Wearing a hat is a choice students at Lawrenceville make. However, I believe being gay is by nature. It isnt a choice someone makes, as people just dont wake up one morning and say, Im going to be gay today! In my opinion, someone doesnt choose to be gay like one chooses to wear a hat. -Clarice Lee 16

Dont let democracy die; send your opinions to...

firstamendmentlville@gmail.com

LEFT Wondering

Column

The First Amendment

IV.iv
than others. This lyric ignores queer rappers and singers of color who exist comfortably within the Hip-hop community such as Le1f, Mykki Blanco, Frank Ocean, and Roxxxane, who advocate for the acceptance of queer people and incorporate their activism into their everyday lives, which is more than we can say for Macklemore. From what we know, we havent seen Macklemore display any true altruism. He used his star power to bring attention to the struggle of queer people, but he is also profiting from and exploiting those struggles without regard for how the actual community feels. Not only is he disregarding the needs of the queer community, but he, by erasing the existence of queer rappers and appropriating queer issues, is consequently feeding into the marginalization of queer artists, many of whom are of color, arent as palatable, and thus lack the same opportunities to thrive in the mainstream. Macklemore admits that his race, sexual orientation, and gender have made it easier for him to succeed, but seems to just accept that hes in a position of privilege rather than actively working to deconstruct the system that, based on arbitrary characteristics, has so unjustly brought him to the top of the rap game (in terms of chart performance and accolades). He sent a text to Kendrick Lamar saying, Its weird and sucks that I robbed you. He also mentioned that he was gonna say that during the speech, but the music started playing and [he] froze. Because simply expressing that sentiment wasnt enough, he posted a screenshot of the text on instagram, only to turn what should have been a humbling act recognized by Kendrick Lamar into a self-congratulatory spectacle. We arent saying that Macklemore doesnt deserve a career at all, but as queer people of color we dont feel comfortable with a man who can never understand our struggles trying to speak for us.

Maya Peterson 14/Senior Columnist


I am a woman; I believe that I should hold dominion over my body, not a mans dogmatic religious agenda. I am a person of color; I know what its like to be questioned more than a white person and trusted less. I am queer; I know how it feels to be treated as a second-class citizen, and have my love for people deemed abnormal, because the Bible says so. I am not a Democrat, surely not a Republican. I believe in being myself and not trying to assimilate in order to appease those who cant handle .

change

HY THE GRAMMYS Were a Rip Off and it Goes Further Than Macklemore: 1. He isnt a good rapper. 2. Hes doing nothing new, hes just more famous. 3. He should not be idolized as if he were the voice of queer people! 4. He appropriates rap culture and overshadows the people he himself is claiming to represent. 5. He talks the talk, but doesnt walk the walk. Macklemores music is juvenile and cliche. His flow is weak and his rhymes are simplistic. Although he is an independent rapper who came up on his own, he doesnt hold a candle to the rappers who were in his category or the countless legendary rappers and musicians in general who never received a Grammy. The list is astonishing: Biggie Smalls, Tupac, DMX, Jimi Hendrix, Nas, Snoop Dogg, Busta Rhymes, Mos Def, Run D.M.C, Kendrick Lamar, and MANY more. Macklemore is not the first person in the Hip-hop community to acknowledge queer rights. And although Drake said, Its not about who did it first, its bout who did it right, Macklemore didnt do it right either at all. First off, Macklemore presents himself as someone who understands the underground, anti-big record label aspect of hip-hop, which, at its root, rejects mainstream criticism for its lack of relevance. His lyrics imply that he

sees hip-hop at the nadir of progressive thought in the music community and considers it in need of his saving. This opinion is clearly influenced by the mainstream, capitalist music industry. Although I would be remiss to claim that homophobia doesnt exist in hip-hop, the assumption that hip-hop is the only homophobic genre worth mentioning is absurd. Rock music, for example, is riddled with homophobia, an example being One In a Million by Guns n Roses. The lyrics go something like, Immigrants and faggots/ They make no sense to me...start some mini Iran/Or spread some f***** disease. While we know that tolerance is necessary, we are wondering why the onus has to be on hip-hop artists to reach a level of tolerance that artists of other genres are not obligated to reach. Unknown fact: The Thrift Shop beat was ripped off from the song Wut by Le1f, an actually queer rapper of color. Not only did Macklemore borrow from a black, openly gay rapper, but his hit song Same Love contains anti-black sentiment. Macklemore raps, If I were gay, I would think hip-hop hates me. This is problematic for a couple of reasons. He perpetuates the notion that hip-hop is inherently homophobic, while presenting himself as the only conscious rapper. This is an implicitly racist opinion, considering hip-hop is a salient part of black culture, that propagates the idea that black culture is more homophobic

6 The First Amendment

MIDDLE of NOWHERE
Jeremy Berman 14/Senior Columnist

Column

The First Amendment

IV.iv
and the enforcement of these rules, ensuring Lawrenceville students are aware of their rights and making enacting an unpopular decision more difficult and more transparent. In regards to the structure of our administration, I think Lawrenceville could learn a few things from the government. One difference between the Lawrenceville and US government is the freedom of expression. In the US, as written in the Constitution, we are entitled to freedom of speech and press. At Lawrenceville, our freedom is limited in both regards. Ironically, in this very magazine, entitled The First Amendment, the articles are pre-read by both faculty advisors and magazine editors to ensure their appropriateness for publication. While a necessary measure, this censorship limits honest and open discourse via Lawrenceville publications. This censorship is understandable, however, since it is the Lawrenceville administration that helps fund the publications, and therefore they are entitled to edit and preview prior to publication. Newspapers like the New York Times are privately funded, relying on consumers to endow their operations, so they have the liberty to discuss and write whatever they desire. I think a possible solution to make Lawrenceville publications more honest and representative of the student body would be to establish a censorship board complete with students and adults. Each contentious censorship would be held to a vote and discussion, ensuring only the most appropriate of censors be enacted. Lawrenceville could better its community, in this case, with inspiration from the government. Both Lawrenceville and the Unites States government are nowhere near perfect; the two have much to learn from each other. By constantly evaluating each administration, we can create a better-suited establishment that gives us the most freedoms, and ultimately the most benefits.

Im here to give you some trivial non sequiturs with nontrivial implications. An independent with no filter, Im here to take the party out of political party because the only true usage of the word should be to describe Irwin ragers. Join me as I shove the real world into the Lawrenceville bubble.
fter hearing that Headmaster Duffy delivered a State of the School address last week, I realized how similar our schools administration and the United States Government really are. Of course, for each similarity there is a difference, and thats what makes this comparison so interesting. The United States Government works extremely well in some cases, giving its citizens the most freedom of any country, however, our government also has its shortcomings and unsuccessful policies. Similarly, I think Lawrenceville has had its fair share of failed or unsuccessful policies. By comparing the Lawrenceville administration to that of the United States, one can see the differences in the way both organizations run themselves. Then we can see if we can apply some successful facets of one to the other in order to make both bodies better. The organization of each administration is vital to its success, progress, and transparency. The US government is divided up into three bodies, each with specific roles: the legislative branch, the executive branch, and the judicial branch. The legislative branch contains Congress, and its main function is to create laws; the executive branch has both the president and vice-president and is predominantly in charge of enforcing the laws; the judicial branch houses the Supreme Court, which decides if the laws are constitutional. This system has led to one of the

worlds most powerful democracies for hundreds of years by ensuring a balance of power. Lawrencevilles government, as I understand it, isnt necessarily as balanced or organized. Our legislative branch, or all the people and organizations tasked with making decisions,

By constantly evaluating each administration, we can create a better-suited establishment that gives us the most freedoms, and ultimately the most benefits.
seems to be made up of Head Master Duffy, the many deans of departments and athletics, housemasters, and perhaps most influentially, the Board of Trustees. In fact, the Board just approved Strategic Directions II, a form of legislation that is the blueprint for the Schools future. The executive branch appears to be made up of mostly the same people, with the exception of the Board. Similarly, there is some overlap in the members of Lawrencevilles judicial branch, made up of Headmaster Duffy, the Deans, Housemasters, and the Disciplinary Committee. I think it would be helpful for Lawrenceville to adopt a type of branch system to streamline the rules

Issue IV.iv 7

A Little to the RIGHT

Column

The First Amendment

IV.iv
targets. The U.S. Olympic Committee sent out a memo in January advising athletes that wearing conspicuous Team USA clothing in non-accredited areas may put [their] personal safety at greater risk. Prudent measures must be taken to reflect our reality. Does this mean that the games should not be allowed to continue? After all, if no games were to take place then we could eliminate the possibility of a related disaster. The alternative would be to continue with the games with the knowledge that doing so flirts with hazards. There is no perfect solution. Some might call abandoning the games giving in and letting the terrorists win by allowing them to use our fears against us. Yet, if discontinuing the games would concede victory to terrorists, would putting thousands of people in harms way claim victory for everyone else? In this situation, there is no winner. There is also no clear solution. As long as we live with the threat of violent terrorist demonstrations, we must do so in acknowledgement of our limitations and in consideration of our actions implications. Today, we lack the resources and intelligence to extinguish the threat of terrorism. Indeed, we cannot tailor the world to eliminate room for ideological objections, and we cannot defend every man, woman, and child from violence. However, we can choose to push our society in that direction. We can choose to pursue prospects of peace and to embrace opportunities to send our own message to people who are looking to violence as a means of communication. By choosing to host the Olympic Games, we unite nations, set aside our differences, and celebrate what it means to be human. We can hope for the best, prepare for the worst, and live for the day that these, Olympic ideals become a global reality.

Sarah Pieringer 14/Senior Columnist So I guess you could say I am experiencing a bit of a political identity crisis. A self-declared centrist/ moderate/independent/what-have-you, I hope to spend a good deal of time this year allowing current events and political quagmires to mentally marinate and keeping you all up to date with what I come up with.

uring the first school meeting last year, President Nick Fenton strutted his stuff down the aisles of the KAC. Fashioned in a pink gown and a crown, Nicks impression of Queen Elizabeth introduced STUCO Class of 2013s theme of #unity with a comedic note that even the old lady would appreciate. The inspiration for this grand entrance came from the 2012 London Olympic Games. Embodying international cooperation and competition, the Olympics theoretically represent the ideal of global harmony. In the London games, a total of 10,961 athletes came together from 205 countries. The United States sent 230 athletes to Sochi, Russia to join the 6,000 total athletes competing in the 22nd Winter Games. These international competitions are associated with the Olympic Movement, an initiative spearheaded by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) with the aim of building and protecting a better, stronger, more peaceful world through sport. Despite this noble goal, the Olympics have been stained by violence in the past, most notably the attacks on the 1972 games. During the 1972 Munich, Germany Olympics, eight assailants from the Palestinian Black September Organization broke into an apartment complex housing the Israeli Olympic Team, killed two Israelis, and took nine other athletes

hostage. Ultimately, all nine hostages, one West German policeman, and five Black September members were killed. Consistent with modern terrorism, the attacks were connected to an ideological premise. This precedent for terrorism at what is supposed to be a peaceful spectacle has contributed to a lurking sense of apprehension accompanying the building excitement in anticipation of this years games. Since October 15th, 2013, three suicide bombings, together claiming the lives of more than 30 people, have taken place in the city of Volgograd, roughly 500 miles from Sochi. Many speculate that these attacks are connected to the games. Last summer, the leader of a militant group called Caucasus Emirate called on Islamic separatists to take action to disrupt the Olympics, an event he described as satanic dances on the bones of our ancestors. Security is being taken very seriously in Sochi. The Russian Olympic Committee has taken the lead in safeguarding the Winter Games. More than 40,000 troops and police are assigned to cover the games in a city with a population of 350,000. The United States government has also taken precautions to protect the estimated 10,000 American citizens expected to attend the Olympics. The State Department issued a travel alert last month noting that events of this nature can make attractive terrorist

8 The First Amendment

Editorial

The First Amendment

IV.iv

America the Free?


Coca Colas ode to multiculturalism
Andreas Vandris 14

he Super Bowl has become as much as about the commercials that fill the gaps in the action as the sport itself. With the cost of a 30 second commercial at $4 million, advertisers place enormous value on showcasing their products and services to an estimated audience of over 110 million people. Coca Colas Super Bowl ad offered an ode to American pluralism (including people of various, races, ethnicities, and religions) as a chorus of bilingual young women sang America the Beautiful in seven languages. The ad was met with heavy fire on social media from right-wingers who felt that the patriotic song was being defiled by other languages. On his blog, former Tea Party congressman, Allen West, wrote: If we cannot be proud enough as a country to sing America the Beautiful in English in a commercial during the Super Bowl, by a company as American as they come doggone we are on the road to perdition. Todd Starnes, a Fox News commentator, criticized Coca Cola as the official soft drink of illegals crossing the border. Twitter was full of comments deriding the commercial for being unpatriotic, tagged with the hashtags #f***coke and #AmericaIsBeautiful. Coca Cola stood firmly

behind its commercial and released a blog post reaffirming the spot as a great example of the magic that makes our country so special, and a powerful message that spreads optimism, promotes inclusion and celebrates humanity values that are core to Coca-Cola. The company ran a longer version of the ad during the opening ceremony of the Sochi

America at its core is a nation which was founded on the principles of individualism and free spirit taking that away under the pretense of patriotism is inane.
Winter Olympics on February 7th. Although America prides itself on being the land of freedom, it is clear that there still exists deep-rooted and prevalent hate for those that are supposedly foreign. The political undertones are not reason enough to justify the outward derision towards others. America at its core is a nation which was founded on the principles of individualism and free spirit - taking that away under the pretense of patriotism is inane. One of the largest compa-

nies in America and one that is, in the words of West, as American as they come, has firmly declared its support for the diverse and multicultural place which our nation has slowly yet steadily become. While the commercial itself should not be taken as an endorsement by Coca Cola for immigration, it does beg the question about who should be considered American. Recent immigration laws such as Arizonas SB1070 have provoked discussions about our borders and how we control them. In June of last year, the Senate passed the Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act that would make it possible for over 11 million undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. The Social Security Administration estimates that the bill would add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while only costing $33 billion. A comprehensive immigration reform law would implement a unified federal program and fix the patchwork of state laws that currently exist. There is no doubt that Coca Cola ran the ad knowing the potential backlash. Perhaps it did it anyways following the old mantra that Any advertising is good advertising. Regardless of the reason, the ad offered the people an opportunity to reconsider what it means to be part of America; a nation where the poorest come with dreams in hope of building a new life. Acceptance should be more than just in words reconsidering our current immigration laws is the first step towards building a greater and more accepting America.
Issue IV.iv 9

Person of the Year

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt

The First Amendment

IV.iv

PERSON OF THE YEAR


EDWaRD SNoWDEN
Jared Solomon 15 10 The First Amendment

Person of the Year

The First Amendment


party, either Democrats and Republicans from Dick Cheney to John Boehner to John Kerry have accused Snowden of anti-American activities, exaggerating the NSAs actions and motivating unnecessary conflict. While some may disagree with Snowdens actions, he deserves to be welcomed as a hero. Snowden did not mean to cause a panic in America or begin international disputes. He did not even have the explicit intent of provoking change. Snowden wanted no more than to open the American peoples eyes to the unconstitutional acts of the US government, allowing the people to decide whether or not they wanted change. He publicly stated, Remember, I didnt want to change society. I wanted to give society a chance to determine if it should change itself. All I wanted was for the public to be able to have a say in how they are governed. Despite what people believe about Snowden and his behavior, his impact is undeniable. He has successfully given the world the information he wished to give, enlightening America and bestowing upon the people the potential and responsibility to change society to what they wish it to be. Furthermore, his information is still making news just recently, Brazil expressed interest in the NSAs surveillance of German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Snowden did more than just open eyes to existing surveillance, but to the very real digital footprint left by all activity. As a result of Snowdens information, many more people are aware of the truly complete lack of privacy present with much of modern technology. While Snowdens contributions have not gone wholly unrecognized, he has been deprived of much of his deserved recognition. Both USA Today and The Guardian named

IV.iv
him its Person of the Year for 2013, and he was awarded the Sam Adams award for excellence in intelligence and the German Whistleblower Prize. That said, Snowden deserves significantly more praise for his actions. Time magazine named Pope Francis I Person of the Year instead of Snowden, sweeping the years most impactful figure under the carpet. Time described him as a Dark Prophet the doomsayer of the information age. Yet with this description, Time sells Snowden short. He

he United States of America lauds its freedom, its liberty, and its independence for all. Throughout history, it has been known as the nation of liberation, and it hopes to continue that trend today. Or so we thought, until Edward Snowden opened the American peoples eyes to their true independence, sacrificing his own liberty in the process. Snowden, an exemplar of Americas free spirit, alerted the American public to the National Surveillance Agencys (NSA) secret workings.

In early 2013, he contacted several journalists, wishing to expose hidden global surveillance conducted by the NSA. This surveillance allowed government access into parts of citizens personal lives previously thought to be private.
To many, Snowden is a hero, a fighter for the preservation of Americas liberty. In early 2013, he contacted several journalists, wishing to expose hidden global surveillance conducted by the NSA. This surveillance allowed government access into parts of citizens personal lives previously thought to be private: Internet accounts and history, phone calls, text messages, etc. Snowden wanted only to help America remain a nation of liberty and preserve the ideals upon which the country was founded. Although many see Snowden as a hero, others see him as a villain and a terrorist. High-ranking government officials maintain that the NSAs activities were essential to the countrys defense, and by exposing them and breaking his contract, Snowden has committed treason. This view is not limited to a certain

That said, Snowden deserves significantly more praise for his actions. Time magazine named Pope Francis I Person of the Year instead of Snowden, sweeping the years most impactful figure under the carpet.
is far more than a doomsayer - he is an international hero, a man who has sacrificed his way of life to spark true social change. The magazine chose Snowden as the runner-up for the superlative, discarding Snowden as a mere could-have-been and rubbing even more salt in the unsung heros metaphorical wounds. For all he has done, Snowden has sadly not been recognized to the extent that he deserves. By exposing Americas crimes, he was forced to give America up, fleeing to Russia to escape persecution. Snowden sacrificed his life in the United States to uphold his ideals, leaving behind all that he had for the sake of the American people. He is truly a hero, a selfless man whose name was unheard of until last year and has emerged from the shadows to enlighten and empower the people of the world. Heres to you, Edward Snowden.

Issue IV.iv 11

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

Where DUTY ends and

GATES-GAT

Jason

ast month, former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates published a book, entitled Duty: Memoirs of a Secretary at War, which has stirred up storms of controversy in the United States. It directs unforgiving criticisms at, it seems, everyone-- from President Barack Obama, to VP Joe Biden, to the whole of Congress. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a politician in the nations capital that Gates doesnt disapprove of. The book, though, seems

unrepresentative of Gates. Throughout his career in various high-ranking government offices, Gates has shown himself to be an able, bipartisan leader. He started government work early, being recruited by the CIA in 1966. He soon rose among its ranks and leapt between government branches, working with institutions such as the Air Force and the National Security Council. Eventually, he ended up as the Director of the CIA, from 1991 to 1993 under President George H.W. Bush.

12 The First Amendment

After resigning from the CIA, Gates worked for a few years as the University President of the Texas A&M University, before returning into politics as Bushs Secretary of Defense. Even when Obama defeated the Republicans, Gates was asked to stay as Secretary of Defense

National

The First Amendment


pieces of Gates anger were directed at Biden. In his book, Gates writes that although the Vice President was simply impossible not to like, he was wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades. A majority of the book, though, centers on the decisions of Obama. Gates particularly despises the Presidents inexperience and temper. Never mind that the President had made some especially difficult decisions concerning the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Dont Ask Dont Tell policy; Gates despised that Obama ordered him and at one point was livid over what he perceived was a lack of respect due to his youth and lack of military experience. The former Secretary of Defense criticizes just about everybody in Washington in the book-- except one. While Gates spouts objections against Obama and Biden, he says nothing against Former President George Bush. True, he disapproves of Bushs staff and cabinet, but one can plainly see that Gates has nothing but respect for Bush. In fact, at one point, he commented that Bush risked reputation, public esteem, credibility, political ruin, and the judgment of history on a single decision he believed was the right thing for our country, when the President decided to push more troops into Iraq. This thought, which is not only fiercely anti-Democratic-- and thus partisan-- does not qualify whether or not the decision to invade was a right one (although he later implies the decision was wrong) Through all this, there is a persistent theme to the book-- the politics in Washington overshadow the work done. Uncivil, incompetent in fulfilling basic constitution-

IV.iv
al responsibilities (such as timely appropriations), micromanagerial, parochial, hypocritical, egotistical, thin-skinned, often putting self (and reelection) before country -this was my view of the majority of the United States Congress, wrote Gates. To support this, Gates recounted several times where Congressmen were infatuated with self and reelection. For instance, If Senator McConnell of Kentucky was calling, it was probably to make sure a chemical weapons disposal plant in his state was fully funded. Gates also despised the unprofessional way that he was treated by Congress, and by officers working under the president. He said that he felt exceptionally offended by the constant adversarial inquisition-like treatment of executive branch officials such as himself, by members of Congress. He accused Congress of asking rude, insulting, belittling, [and] bullying questions, which were often personal. To be fair, Gates makes a good point. In an increasingly partisan age, when senators and representatives are voting more and more along party lines and often all too eager to jump on the little mistakes of the opposition, such rudeness and inefficiency is commonplace. But we must not forget the alternative. We must remember that democracy has its virtues and its iniquities. The price that comes with having each voice heard is disagreement, and disagreement almost always leads to incivility. No matter what, our Republican Democracy, though with its occasional faults, is infinitely better than a one-party autocratic system, which sacrifices freedom for a lack of argument. Maybe partisanism isnt such a bad thing after all.

TE

d transparency begins

n Zhang 15

under Obama, until 2011, when he resigned. Upon his resignation, Obama presented him with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nations highest civilian award. Gates was seen as one of the foremost bipartisan leaders of his generation. In a time when the government is shut down because of differences between parties, such leaders are sorely needed. In office, Gates was widely considered the to make things better. Perhaps some of the biggest

Issue IV.iv 13

PENTAGON OR PENTHOUSE? RAISE YOUR GLASS Defense Spending in the Age of Austerity
Anuj Krishnamurthy 15

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

20th century legislation, 21st century needs


n the past couple of years, Congressional demands for fiscal austerity and decline in popular support for armed conflicts have led to the slashing of over sized federal budgets namely those of the U.S. Department of Defense and military branches. In the fiscal year of 2014, the budget allocated for Department of Defense expenditures totaled $526.6 billion, a cut of $3 billion since 2012. But while defense spending has been reduced, it still constitutes about half of the White Houses discretionary federal spending education, veterans benefits, and health care together make up less than one-fifth. A bloated military budget is not sustainable. As the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, any form of military spending can disrupt the fiscal health of our country for decades to come. A 2013 study reported that the cost of the two wars was $1.7 trillion, and this enormous sum could balloon to $6 trillion in the next 40 years. Consequently, future generations will have to bear the burden of impish imperialism and cruise-missile callousness of those that came before. The Pentagon, particularly, has spent a vast amount of money 14 The First Amendment

Courtesy of David B. Gleason

Anuj Krishnamurthy 15
on fruitless military innovations. The U.S. Department of Defense poured $1.58 trillion into a F-35 fighter jet program that cost 70% more than originally designated, as well as Littoral Combat Ships, which cost $440 million apiece. Neither program has yet yielded any cost-effective, battle-ready product. But defense spending is not necessarily excessive and gratuitous; the benefits of government spending in the spheres of military research and development have truly benefited society. During the Vietnam War, federal expenditures into the space program led to an Apollo mission that put the first man on the moon. Simultaneously, the government funded the ARPANET project, the precursor to the modern Internet. A generation of youths and adults alike, inspired by spaceflights, awed by military might, and unsettled by the communist threat of the U.S.S.R, rose and engaged in society to an enormous extent. This government spending ignited the zeal and determination of the American people we need that same inspiration once again. The future of warfare lies in smaller tactical teams, fewer foot soldiers, and more strategic, surgical strikes. Conventional warfare, marked by huge infantry columns, cumbersome weapons, and giant fleets, is no

Courtesy of Third Way

National
longer a viable strategy, as illustrated by the unrelenting, surprisingly effective power of inadequately armed guerrilla insurgencies in the Middle East. Therefore, defense spending will be most fruitful when applied to science, technology, and engineering. Pouring defense money into research and development may sound somewhat counterintuitive, but by fostering the militarys technological capabilities, we are increasing the effectiveness of our armed forces while simultaneously setting the groundwork for new economic sectors and industries involved with these new technologies. Defense spending can, and should, engender economic growth and scientific advancement. So, if we are to spend more than $500 billion on national defense, we should do it in a way that doesnt lead to military excess and overspending.

The First Amendment


The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), founded in 1958 after the Soviet launch of Sputnik, is a prime example of successful defense spending. This governmental organization invests, funds, and oversees military research in the fields of communications, materials science, and cybersecurity. With a budget of only $2.9 billion for the year 2014, DARPA is a cost-effective, productive fiscal venture. The agency has generated precision guidance and navigation technologies, stealth techniques, unmanned aerial vehicles that keep servicemen from harm, night vision applications, and advanced networking to connect various military units. The agencys ALASA program can potentially make space travel and space transportation incredibly cheap for less than $1 million, a 100-pound satellite can be shot up

IV.iv
into Earths orbit. Other projects include High Productivity Computing Systems, which is currently laying the foundation for huge leaps forward in the realms of affordable supercomputing for local governments, companies, and the armed forces. Our current defense spending needs to be drastically changed. As the nature of warfare evolves, and as modern societal and economic demands for new technologies need to be met, a simple reallocation of defense spending funds can overturn the poor condition of and reinvigorate our entire nation. By investing in military technology instead of traditional expenditures like needless, ineffectual combat ships and jet planes, we can propel our country forward and help our veterans, instead of remaining in an age of Cold War rationale and military strategy.

Issue IV.iv 15

The First Amendment

Only in America:

Weird Laws Edition

Aulden Foltz 15

A concise list of laws made by the freaks, goofballs, and nutjobs who make us unforgivably American
.

Hide Your Forks or Face Prosecution

In Gainesville, Georgia, it is illegal to eat fried chicken any other way than with your hands. This city takes its fried chicken seriously, which it views as a culinary delicacy sacred to this municipality, this country, this state, the Southland, and this republic. This law was developed in 1961 as a publicity stunt to promote Gainesville as the poultry capital of the world. All current arrests for improper poultry consumption have been set up by friends of the lawbreakers, and have been personally pardoned by the mayor.
Courtesy of Seoful Adventures

High Stakes Heels


In Carmel, California, residents cannot wear heels more than two inches in height and less than one square inch of bearing. This ordinance was enacted to protect the city from liability of people tripping on Carmels un-level cobblestone streets. Even though this regulation is rarely enforced, high heel wearers do not have the right to pursue legal action in the case they trip and fall. However, free high heel permits can be easily obtained at Carmels City Hall, and obtaining one of these permits has become a popular tourist activity for visitors.

Dont Pass the Margarine

Courtesy of Simon Gardiner

When margarine was invented in 1870, many farmers and agricultural societies scrambled to save the seemingly threatened dairy market. By the mid 1960s, Wisconsin was the only state left with a restriction of margarine in the books. This law states that restaurants, prisons, and state institutions must serve butter, as opposed to the vegetable oil substitute. Even though most restaurant owners are aware of the law, it is not heavily enforced in the state. Additionally, it is easier to obey this law than to break it, as restaurants can easily abide by serving both margarine and butter.

16 The First Amendment

IV.iv

Pinball: Polluting Polluting the the Nations Nations Youth Youth Pinball:
From the early 1940s to the mid 1970s, many of Americas biggest cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York, banned pinball, believing it to be not only associated with mafia violence, but also a poor waste of time for young children. In Beacon, New York, this law was kept in the books until nearby tenants complained of the noise generated by resident Fred Bobrows vintage arcade museum. Immediately, CNN grabbed this story and many people were enraged by an outdated law taking a mans small business away. Since then, Bobrow has relocated and obtained a special permit for his arcade business. As for Beacon, the ban is no longer enforced.
Courtesy of Needle

Courtesy of Tony Alten

Another Reason Not to Drink and Drive

Some consider the right to vanity plates to be one of the great American freedoms, but stupid decisions may suspend your right. Here in New Jersey, drinking under the influence will make you ineligible to apply for a personalized vanity plate for ten years. This restriction extends beyond those driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and applies to anyone convicted of reckless driving as well. Additionally, anyone who has their driving privilege revoked or suspended for any reason whatsoever will need to wait two years after their privilege has been restored before applying for a personalized plate.

Issue IV.iv 17

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

THINGS ARE JUST IMPEACHY


Leon Smith III 16

ew Jersey Governor Chris Christie has been nationally acclaimed for his efforts during Hurricane Sandy by politicians and pundits on both sides of the aisle. His popularity amongst the New Jersey people is remarkable for a Republican in a heavily Democratic state. Gov. Christies performance during his first term allowed to him cruise into a second term. According to the Star-Ledger, during Christies re-election last November, he received 60.5 % of the vote with the support of one third of New Jersey Democrats. Citizens thought all was well. They perceived their governor as a tough, no-nonsense politician, but many now are surprised that their same governor is being accused of wrongdoing. The media has claimed that Christie is involved in several scan18 The First Amendment

dals-- no new territory to American or New Jersey politics. Apparently Gov. Chris Christie is yet another politician associated with a word suffixed with gate. This time it is called Bridgegate over the closure

Courtesy of Bob Jagendorf

of lanes on the George Washington Bridge, one of the nations busiest crossings, last September. The lane closures built up gridlock in the town of Fort Lee, whose mayor did not support Gov. Christies re-election campaign and was the supposed target of political retribution. A series of emails have been recovered starting on August 13th between the Governors Deputy Chief of Staff, Bridget Kelly, and David Wildstein the Director of Interstate Capital Projects for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The messages suggest the lane closures were politically motivated, as the series of emails between aides started out rather alarmingly, Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee followed up with a decisive got it. As more information about the exchange surfaces, the evidence against Christie

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

becomes more incriminating. Payback of this magnitude is not and should not be tolerated in a democracy like ours. Certainly, political payback has happened for thousands of years. However, this form of payback involved making life more difficult for thousands of uninvolved citizens. Bridget Kelly has been dismissed, Director Wildstein has resigned, and Christie maintains his innocence to these activities, but Bridgegate has done perhaps irreversible damage to the Christie political juggernaut. The second scandal gaining traction is the alleged misuse of funds meant for Hurricane Sandy relief efforts. The scandal involves the advertising group MWW, whose bid of $4.7 million was selected over the Sigma Groups $2.5 million bid. The motivation for the NJ state government taking a bid nearly double the price of the Sigma Groups bid is rather suspicious, and further allegations of corruption spawned. The Governors spokesman Collin Reed reaffirmed the choice of MWW and maintained that its advertising campaign
Courtesy of Bob Jagendorf

was a major reason for recovery of the state. Recently, Mayor Dawn Zimmer of Hoboken came forward and claimed that Sandy relief funds were being withheld from her city until she supported the Governors redevelopment plan. Gov. Christie pointed out that Hoboken was not denied one grant request for Sandy Relief funds, but again we see permanent damage to who could have

Gov. Christie is certainly heading through choppy waters, but many past government scandals have left politicians relatively unscathed.
been the restart candidate for the Republican party. Gov. Christie is certainly heading through choppy waters, but many past government scandals have left the involved politicians relatively unscathed. Rarely in U.S. politics does a scandal fall a giant. For example, President Ronald Reagan disobeyed Congress by selling arms to Iran, and used that

money to secretly fund militants in Nicaragua. However, he was neither impeached nor forced to resign. The recent case of former South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford again shows how forgiving the American public can be. In 2009, Gov. Sanford abandoned his post for six days; only a few of his staff knew where he actually went. The staff maintained he was hiking the Appalachian Trail, as he had claimed several times before. Sanford was lying. In fact he was in Argentina, visiting his mistress. Sanford was not impeached from his governorship, but merely censored by the State Congress. Furthermore, in 2013 or only four years after the scandal, Sanford was elected Representative of South Carolinas First District. If a politician can openly commit adultery, lie to his constituents, abandon his responsibilities, and then still be elected to Congress, then these alleged scandals should have little to no repercussions for the Gov. Christies political future. As of now, Gov. Christie should not feel many effects from these scandals. According to a recent CBS poll, only 23 % of people state their view of the Governor has worsened. Gov. Christies smooth sailing is contingent on him never being proved a liar. Of course, none of this coverage is about Christie or the state of New Jersey; it is all about the 2016 bid for the White House. The liberal press will continue to attack Christie, who is viewed as the only serious Republican threat to Hillary Clintons White House aspirations. If Christie survives the next several months intact, he will be well vetted for a run at the Presidency.
Issue IV.iv 19

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

THE PRO-LIFE DIARIES


Why the perennial social dillemma is really black and white
It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish. -Mother Teresa
Matt Ramey 14

believe we all have the right to life, a gift for which I am truly thankful. Before any of you criticize me for not knowing what it is like to be a woman, let me share my story: It would have been cheaper and more convenient for my mother to abort me. Yet she did not, despite the fact that the fetal testing showed that I would have a heart problem. The defect was so severe that I spent the first year of my life strapped to a heart monitor. Every time I cried or laughed the doctors worried that I might suffer a cardiac arrest and die. My mother kept me because she knew she wouldnt be able to live with herself if she agreed to end her childs life. Some within the pro-abortion spectrum argue that a mother should not have to bear or raise

a child with congenital disorders. I am one of the countless reasons why they should. Every child that could be born with a problem should be given the same opportunity to exist. I personally rather enjoy life. My mother still gave birth to me, in spite of the medical issues. Consequently, I support the

restriction of abortions. Even if the practice persists as medical intervention, the casual practice of abortion must stop for good. The law must force people and society to truly consider the consequences of their actions. A baby will no longer live, and a societys desire to destroy its young is unpardonable. These new restrictions vary. Some states are attempting to have the mother see the ultrasound of the child, so they understand the consequences of their actions. Montanas abortion restriction law requires minors seeking abortions to gain parental consent. In a curious twist, there seems to be a gray area of when life begins; consequently, many states have implemented time limits as to when an abortion can take place. North Dakota permits no abortions

20 The First Amendment

National
after the fetal heartbeat is detected, i.e. five to six weeks after conception. Some states declare a point of no return when the child starts to develop the ability to feel pain, usually after twenty weeks. Other states (New Hampshire, West Virginia, Colorado, Alaska, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont) allow abortion in the third trimester, when the baby can survive outside the womb with no post-viability restrictions. In other words, even if the baby can survive, it is legal to abort. But, irrespective of

The First Amendment U.S. abortion is at its lowest since

IV.iv
compared to only 108 enacted over the entire previous decade. Last years restrictions alone caused a twelve percent net decrease in the number of surgical abortion clinics. The state of Texas leads the way with the most surgical abortion clinic closures in the nation. I hold out hope that the Supreme Courts 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling will be overturned if these restrictions come under federal review again. Jane Roe, Norma McCorveys pseudonym, has also since changed her mind since she was a young woman seeking an abortion. Jane Roe is now ardently pro-life and has spent the better part of her life attempting to undo the decision that bears her name. In

1973 1.06

million abortions in 2011

fewer abortions in 2011 than 2008

140,000 4

percent decrease in number of abortion providers

From a moral perspective, it is never right to abort, as it is wrong to vote upon anothers right to life.
the more recent Supreme Court case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy originally placed the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, but before the decision was written he changed his mind. I hold out hope that these restrictions will cause Justice Kennedy to once again change his mind, only this time to save lives. The abortion restrictions are controversial from both a legal and moral perspective. From the legal perspective it is an issue of states rights, as the restrictions were made by democratically elected state-level representatives. From a moral perspective, it is never right to abort, as it is wrong to vote upon anothers right to live.

when life begins, every fertile egg has the potential of life, and that should not be lightly tossed aside. Its simply not right. I firmly support the trend of increasing abortion restrictions, to me that means maybe more lives can be saved from termination. Late last year, twenty-two states enacted seventy abortion restriction laws, the second highest number ever enacted in a single year. (2011 had the highest number of new laws regulating abortion.) In an encouraging trend, there have been 205 abortion restrictions created over the past three years,

Courtesy of Fahd A. Paracha Photography

percent of women who obtain an abortion identify as Catholic

28

percent of all pregnancies end in abortion

21

Statistics courtesy of the Guttmacher Institute

Issue IV.iv 21

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

HEAD BANKER IN CHARGE

Courtesy of AgnosticPreachersKid

At the close of the Bernanke era, Yellen takes the reins.


money supply) and bailing out larger industries and institutions have averted the United States from entering

Anuj Krishnamurthy 15 Patrick Yu 15

t the nomination announcement for the new Federal Reserve Chairman to replace Ben Bernanke, President Obama recounted that, for nearly eight years, Ben has led the Fed through some of the most daunting economic challenges of our lifetime. The deficit has been reduced by half, the housing market is re-

month, he leaves the fate of the American economy to his Vice-Chairman, Janet Yellen. Before being selected by President Obama as the 15th Chief of the Fed, Janet Yellen was dismissed by many as lacking gravitas, and many supported the nomination of Larry Summers, who served as an economic adviser to both Bill Clinton and

Before being selected by President Obama as the 15th Chief of the Fed, Janet Yellen was dismissed by many as lacking gravitas, and many supported the nomination of Larry Summers, who served as an economic adviser to both Bill Clinton and President Obama during the recession.
bounding, the auto industry has dramatically revitalized. There are no doubts that Ben Bernankes decisive monetary policies and unconventional rescue measures, which included rounds of quantitative-easing (lowering interest rates to increase the
Courtesy of Federal Reserve OPA

Her Keynesian belief that the economy is inherently flawed and requires government regulation stems from her studies under Jack Tobin at Yale. Yellen has published many articles that stated the imbalances and failures of the economy without proper government involvement.
President Obama during the recession. Instead of actively campaigning for the post, Yellen decided to focus on her job and remained uninvolved. As Summers decided to pull himself out from the nomination, President Obama made his final decision by

a greater economic depression. Bernanke has proved to the country the magnitude and the importance of the Federal Reserve. As Ben Bernanke steps down as the Fed Chair next

22 The First Amendment

National
nominating Yellen, who demonstrated patience and poise throughout the drama. On January 20 the U.S. Senate confirmed Janet Yellen, marking the first time in Federal Reserve history that a woman assumed the Chairman position. Before discussing Yellens philosophy and achievements in the field of economics, it is important to mention that her greatest source of professional inspiration comes from her marriage. Yellen and her husband George Akerlof, who won the Nobel Prize in economics, originally met at the Fed lunch room and have been married since 1978. Yellen has stated on various occasions that George Akerlof (a member of the Lawrenceville Class of 1958) is her biggest supporter and has taken over household duties, which allowed her to pursue greater and more prominent careers. The economics couple has worked together and made groundbreaking discoveries in the field including their theory of the consequences of lowering wages. Before Yellen met her husband, she graduated summa cum laude from Brown University and earned a Ph.D. in economics at Yale University. In 2004, she served on the White House Council of Economic Advisers and became the CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco in 2010 before she was selected as the Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve. Janet Yellen is a much more active and vigorous supporter of big government than Ben Bernanke. She believes in the importance of government intervention in rescuing the economy during recession. Mrs. Yellen also underscores the Feds duty in dealing with the human aspects of the economic depression, as many Americans in 2014 are still unable to find a job. Her Keynesian belief that the

The First Amendment


economy is inherently flawed and requires government regulation stems from her studies under Jack Tobin at Yale. Yellen has published many articles that stated the imbalances and failures of the economy without proper government involvement. Allen Sinai, President of Decision Economics Inc., desrcibed Janet Yellens philosophy as using active government policy to achieve economic objectives. As Janet Yellen embarks upon a position of great power and authority, unemployment continues to hover at 7 percent, while economic growth seemed to experience improvements in the third quarter of 2013. In her recent interview with Time magazine this month, Yellen emphasized her priority to reduce the unemployment rate from 7 percent down to 5.2-5.8 percent. She also stated her optimism in the continuous rise of wages as the unemployment rate continues its downward trend. Furthermore, in her effort to lower unemployment, Yellen plans on lowering the interest rates to increase capital investment which will stimulate the labor market. Although critics argue that lowered interest rates would discourage household savings, Yellen believes that the economic growth outweighs the costs. With the economy growing at a minimal 2 percent in recent years, Yellen has set the goal of growth in 2014 to be 3 percent. The future prosperity and well being of Americas financial system lies with Mrs. Yellen, of whom President Obama said in her nomination doesnt have a crystal ball, but...does have is a keen understanding of markets and how the economy works. Filling the shoes of Ben Bernanke will not be an easy task, but with Janet Yellens extensive knowledge about markets and forward thinking policies the American economy will prosper once again.

IV.iv

In the long run, outsourcing is another form of trade that benefits the U.S. economy by giving us cheaper ways to do things.
- Janet Yellen, 15th Chair of the Federal Reserve System

Issue IV.iv 23

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

The Fight for the Living Wage


Aleks Stajkovic 15

WAGE WAR

ast December, thousands of fast food workers staged rallies and strikes to demand that the minimum wage be raised from $7.25 to $15 an hour. These protesters represent the two million Americans who live on this substandard pay - the current minimum wage, who live $5,000 below the federal poverty line of $19,530, and who, as one protester claims just want to survive. Seven dollars and twenty-five cents isnt a lot of money. It barely covers a trip to Maidenhead, let alone a couple of chocolate croissants at the Jigger. Imagine earning that amount every hour of your working life, using that to pay for food, clothing, and housing for yourself or for your family. For a teenager just trying to get some extra money, this amount may not be that bad. However, for those whose 24 The First Amendment

sole source of income is $7.25 an hour, the minimum wage is hardly a living wage. In reality, most of the Americans who earn the minimum wage are not teenagers trying to make a couple extra bucks; 88 percent of Americans on the minimum wage are over 20, and 33 percent of those are over 40.

Seven dollars and twenty-five cents isnt a lot of money. It barely covers a trip to Maidenhead, let alone a couple of chocolate croissants at the Jigger.
One protester in Chicago, 24 year old single mother Rose Thompson, has been working at McDonalds for over a year, making

$8.28 an hour, three cents above the $8.25 Illinois minimum wage. She is forced to work another job at the Red Lobster, while working overtime at McDonalds, and still needs to go to food banks to support her 15-month-old daughter and herself. Her meager wage prevents her from doing things the average American takes for granted, like shopping for gifts: I actually had to choose between buying my baby a coat and starting her Christmas shopping. She and her daughter, who live in South Chicago, continue to live in poverty, and she barely makes enough money for the both of them to survive-let alone live. Not so surprisingly, a majority of Americans have sympathy for Rose. According to a recent poll released by Gallup, 76 percent of

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

Americans support an increase in the minimum wage, and 21 states have already authorized a minimum wage above the federal one. President Obama, in his State of the Union Address, proposed to boost the wage to $9 an hour, claiming that, This single step would raise the incomes of millions of working families. Recently, the president supported a Senate bill that would

Living wage in NYC according to Poverty in America program at MIT in $

12.75 3.79

Increase in minimum wage since 1953 in $

paid enough to get out of poverty, then the rest of America ends up covering a portion of the bill, in terms of Medicaid and food stamps. In reality, a higher wage increase has many positive effects. Higher wages result in worker productivity, as a higher wage would encourage employees to put more effort into their work. The higher wages would help companies retain

Most people who are born into poverty... do not just magically find better paying jobs that eventually removes them from poverty.
raise the minimum wage of federal workers by nearly three dollars, from $7.25 an hour to $10.10 an hour, indexing it to inflation. Presumably, the majority of Americans supporting the raise in the minimum wage understand the impossibilities of surviving on it currently. However, not everybody supports increasing the minimum wage. The main argument against the increase of the minimum wage is based on an economic standpoint, that it would be a job killer. This argument, however, hasnt a shred of empirical proof. In the context of the fast food market, employers could not outsource workers abroad or substitute them with machines because jobs at that low level of pay are in the Personal Service sector. In this situation, employers could pass on small wage increases to the customers, as a few dollars more to cover bills. Also, if these workers arent getting

Median household income in $

50,895 1

States with a higher minimum wage than the federal one have on average the lowest unemployment levels in America.
workers, who would be in less need of a second job. States with a higher minimum wage than the federal one have on average the lowest unemployment levels in America. What many of us dont understand is that the average American does not have Lawrenceville or a similar opportunity to stratify oneself into high society. Most people who are born into poverty work at the minimum and do not just magically find better paying jobs that eventually removes them from poverty. They stay in poverty, and their low paying job may be the only one they could ever find, or ever have. Thus, increasing the minimum wage would not be increasing unemployment, or giving extra money to teenagers. Increasing the minimum wage would give these millions of hard working Americans the chance to feed their families, to escape poverty in which they are trapped, and to survive.
Issue IV.iv 25

Percent of U.S. Labor on minimum wage

Current federal minimum wage in $

7.25 9

Minimum wage President Obama proposed in 2014 State of the Union in $

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

What the Portuguese precedent will mean for the American experiment
Jimmy ODonnell 15 and Jared Solomon 15

A BLUNT REALITY

At the beginning of this year, the states of Colorado and Washington decriminalized recreational marijuana, echoing similar policies across the pond. But as the United States and Portugal have vastly different markets and cultures, the same practices do not necessarily effect the same results.

n the first dayof this year, the states of Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana, taking a bold new step in United States drug policy. Proponents of the recent legislation argue that legal recreational marijuana will effect the collapse of the illegal marijuana trade in Colorado and Washington as consumers begin to prefer the safety and security that comes from buying from authorized marijuana dealers. Meanwhile, detractors claim

that with legalization more and more people will undoubtedly become users of a dangerous, addictive, and inherently harmful substance. But marijuana has only been legal for a few weeks, however, and whether legalization will prove conducive or harmful to social stability remains unclear. To predict

the possible longterm effects of legalization, some cite Portugal, which decriminalized recreational drugs almost thirteen years ago. Yet Portugal has not and ultimately will not provide a reliable prediction of what is to come in Colorado and Washington. Portugals experiment with decriminalizing recreational drugs provides only tangential evidence for such a policy change in America. Portugal is a small, poor country with very high unemployment. The world

26 The First Amendment

National
financial crisis of 2008 left the nation an economic basket case, destabilized by fifteen years of colonial war followed by four unproductive decades of irresponsible public finances. Though Portugals leaders negotiated a bailout in May 2011 and have since enacted a series of healthy cuts and reforms, stubborn unemployment and inflation rates continue to plague the countrys lagging economy in 2014. In other words, any additional tax revenue is needed, and most Portuguese citizens cannot afford drugs. Portugal does not indicate whether the decriminalization of recreational drugs like marijuana will lead to safer practices in America. Europe and America have unquestionably different markets as a result of wholly different cultures, and Portugals economic problems will affect the drug market far too much to provide a reliable prediction of an American reaction to legal drugs. The only actual American experiment to date is Colorado, where the controversial Amendment 64 now regulates cannabis in a manner effectively similar to alcohol. Furthermore, there is an important distinction between decriminalization and legalization. Portugal decriminalized recreational drugs 13 years ago, and since then drug possession has not considered a major federal offense--it is instead akin to a parking ticket. Decriminalization

The First Amendment


is actually nothing new; many U.S. states like New York and Alaska have decriminalized marijuana possession. Legalization, meanwhile, al-

IV.iv
wealthy, modern economy as we have in America is the increase in addiction. Wide recreational drug availability means more users of all ages. Nobody can know how many will become abusers. Portugal, with a very different user base and economy, would not provide accurate data for America even if it had also fully legalized the drug. America should discount irrelevant Portugal and watch Colorado and Washington very carefully for the next few years. We do not have a reliable precedent to help predict the effects of legalization in these two states; rather, Colorado and Washington themselves will be our precedent for the future. Should the results turn out to be positive, other states might follow suit. Given the advantages over decriminalization, legalization of marijuana and other lowrisk drugs seems promising. With an age limit and purchase limit modelled off of current alcohol regulations, drug safety laws may succeed in controlling abuse rates. Furthermore, large taxes on marijuana will both discourage addicted users from overspending on drugs and provide another source of income for state governments. America and Portugal are undergoing vastly different process, and while some might like the current trajectory, nobody can predict the future yet.

America should discount irrelevant Portugal and watch Colorado and Washington very carefully for the next few years. We do not have a reliable precedent to help predict the effects of legalization in these two states.

lows for actual regulated sale of cannabis, which could slow the illegal drug trade and in turn reduce cartel violence. Decriminalization presents no such possibility because buyers can only turn to unauthorized, illegal dealers in decriminalized locations. The unknown factor for a

Issue IV.iv 27

National

The First Amendment

IV.iv

WHERES
Ashley Kim 15 & Hailey Kruger 15

One year into his term, John Kerry forgoes the spotlight that usually comes with the Secretary of State nametag despite his efforts to remedy perrenial issues in the Middle East and elsewhere. Unapologetic or perhaps rogue, Kerry takes a strong diplomatic stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict independent from White House politics-- will he continue to play his game of Wheres Waldo or will he continue his tenure in the spotlight?
hile the United States continues to wield its foreign policy initiatives, the recent decrease in media and popular attention to the Office of the Secretary of State seems unwarranted. Its been a year since John Kerry assumed his role as Secretary, punctuating the highly public, eminent tenure of 2016 hopeful Hillary Clinton. But Kerry has yet to create a unique doctrine that distinguishes his practices from his predecessor - or at least a publicized one. The strange irony of American politics is that you need to kill an ambassador to get foreign policy news on air. Indeed, Kerry has undertaken substantial projects, namely the perennial Israel-Palestinian issue, that render his largely under-the-ra-

With the broadcasting powers of the Fox News Corproation and a calculated campaign movement in 2009-2010, the Tea Party fad brightened the minds and filled the hearts of Americans (read: white males over the age of 64) with their radical, almost anarchical doctrine.
dar tenure counterintuitive. Over the recent months, Secretary of State John Kerry has been exhaustively pursuing a resolution to the Israeli- Palestinian Conflict. Recently, Israels defense minister, Moshe Yaalon, called Kerry obses-

sive and messianic and declared that Kerry should take his Nobel and leave us alone. Moshe Yaalon further added that that a security plan drawn up as part of Kerrys peace plan is not worth the paper it is written on. Despite the controversy and harsh criticism surrounding John Kerrys initiatives, the United States Secretary of State has been trying to bring together the Palestinian and Israeli governments to reach mutual consent. An ongoing struggle since the mid-twentieth century, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continuously failed to reach an ultimate peace settlement on the issues of mutual recognition, borders, secu-

28 The First Amendment

National
rity, and control of Jerusalem. The violence that has erupted from this unremitting strife has drawn international attention because other nations are concerned about security and human rights violations in the area. Many have doubted Kerrys ability to bring the opposing sides together and placate them. Against all odds, however, Kerry has successfully convinced the Israeli and Palestinians to consider negotiating terms. Since peace talks began six months ago, Kerry has been working to draw up a preliminary peace agreement, shocking diplomats who had previously criticized him for his shortsighted views. A peace compromise could be reached in the next few weeks, with the final terms and conditions finalized afterwards. On his efforts towards reaching a final agreement, Kerry said that what matters is a settlement, not lots of settlements. He has clearly taken a stand to pursue a peace agreement that suits both parties and ensures stability in the region. Some, applauding John Kerry for his attempts to seek peace, have assisted in garnering support. For example, Israels Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman praises Kerrys interest in carrying out with these negotiations by pointing out a stark contrast between Hillary Clinton and John Kerry. Kerry warmly greeted Lieberman and showed willingness to progress negotiations whereas Hillary Clinton gave him the figurative cold shoulder. Lieberman has actively allied himself with Kerry, and with Liebermans support, Kerry has been able to convert 10 opponents of the parliamentary bloc of Yisrael Beiteinu, Liebermans political party, to supporters of Kerry. Lieberman is not Kerrys only ally. Yair Lapid, the finance minister,

The First Amendment


has declared strong support for Kerry. He provided significant assistance for Kerry by rallying up the approval of 19 of the Parliamentarians, which is the second largest party in the Knes-

IV.iv
hold scrupulous intentions in their use of nuclear energy. Even though President Rouhani had previously assured the U.S. and other nations that Iran would not exploit nuclear weapons, John Kerry took drastic measures during his address to the World Economic Forum. He urged Iran to accept Kerrys request that Iran stop producing the materials that could be used to create nuclear weapons. Kerry challenged that Iran has the opportunity to prove these words beyond all doubt to the world. Kerry also detailed several requirements in a nuclear agreement that Iran and six world powers are willing to negotiate. The agreement states that Tehran must accept extensive verification, abandon plans to build a heavy-water reactor that can produce plutonium (a key element in producing nuclear weapons), and resolve longstanding concerns by the International Atomic Energy Agency over past Iranian compliance. Kerrys progress, when juxtaposed to his general anonymity, begs the question: why do the American people act as if he doesnt exist? Secretary John Kerry has taken up pressing international issues and has put in tremendous effort in hopes of creating lasting agreements that concern the world that will hopefully end in peace. Compared to the previous Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, John Kerry has displayed open mindedness and alacrity to properly guide mediation rather than disregard other diplomats and world leaders. Although he has yet to produce any remarkable results for peace, John Kerry has effectively navigated and taken a stand on important and unfavorable issues regarding a war-torn and poverty stricken region. Will John Kerrys continuous efforts actually yield persisting change? Only time will tell.

Above: John Kerrys eyes melt readers soul.

The strange irony of American politics is that perhaps you need to kill an ambassador to get foreign policy news on air.
set, the legislative branch of Israel. In addition, Secretary Kerry and his team have also successfully amassed support from the ultra-Orthodox constituents of Israel. After last years elections, a small majority in the Israeli Knesset had voted against the splitting of Israel and Palestine into two different entities. Now, the Knesset stands 85-35 in favor of the split. The Israel-Palestine conflict is not the only monumental issue Kerry has taken up. He has recently shown much disdain for the Irani president, Hassan Rouhani, and his claim that he and his country only

Issue IV.iv 29

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

THE REVERSE CRUSADES

Why the Arab Spring is now a Christian Winter

Clifford Gilman 15

e have all heard about the Arab Spring and the unfathomable violence occurring in this area of the planet. It has been all over the news. But perhaps the groups that this violence is targeting are less clear to the American population. The Syrian army and the protesters began physical conflict in 2011 and continue to this day. But in the midst of this political struggle, a less notorious religious conflict ensues on a daily basis. Radical Muslims throughout the Middle East have attacked and still attack Christians and Christian communities. As author William Dalrymple put it, The Arab spring is rapidly turning into a Christian winter. Their motive? No one knows for sure. It could be the general periIslamic perception that Christians are anti-Muslim. Perhaps they have no other scapegoat for their political frustrations. Whatever the reason, it proves devastating to Christian communities everywhere in the Middle East, especially Syria. This persecution of Christians is a physical threat for all

Christians in Syria. With hundreds of Christians murdered and thousands more wounded and displaced, they are forced to live in constant fear for their life. The second and perhaps even more devastating outcome of these attacks is that the communities facing these aggressions are some of the oldest Christian communities on the planet. Because many Christians flee their home towns in fear for their lives, these ancient communities are essentially abandoned. Lastly, perhaps the most biting conclusion to these atrocities for many Christians is the not-so-bright future of Christianity in this region of the planet. The youth of Syria flee from their homeland every day to surrounding areas more accepting of their faith. Although this provides a safer environment for these children, the Christian population in Syria is allowing the Radical Islamist groups to taste victory. If no awareness is created of these horrifying acts, how far will the radicals take it before people stand up against them? Just last month, on the 16th

30 The First Amendment

International
of January, a radical Muslim group intercepted and opened fired on a car carrying two Christian men, Firas Nader (29) and Fadi Matanius Mattah (34). The men exited their car at the gunpoint of the five Jihadists. Seeing the cross around his neck, the Muslims beheaded Fadi Matanius Mattah on the spot and shot Firas Nader multiple times before driving away, leaving them both for dead in the street. Although seriously wounded, Nader attained medical aid and survived the incident to tell of the unspeakable acts. Christians are detained regularly on the charge of not embracing Islam. Aslan Mannan, one such detainee, says that the prisoners are fed a loaf of bread and a half liter of wa-

The First Amendment


ter every two days. He also disclosed that during his detainment two of his fellow prisoners were beheaded. Two Orthodox Christian Bishops were abducted over two months ago and have not been heard from since. Dozens of monks, nuns, and priests of Syrian monasteries have been abducted, only some of whom were released. These instances are examples of the persecution that Christians face every day in Syria. This outrageous persecution seems to have only intensified during the last three to four years, since the beginning of the Arab Spring. In June of 2013, a group of Christian villages in Syria called Ghassanieh was totally destroyed. The few survivors were forced to flee. Now, almost a year later, only 10 of the 4,000

IV.iv
original inhabitants remain. This is not uncommon throughout Syria. It is estimated that around 90% of the Christians in the city of Homs have been expelled. Patriarch Gregorios III of Antioch estimates that almost 500,000 have left their homeland out of fear for their lives. More recent reports suggest as many as 600,000 Syrian Christians have fled their country altogether or are displaced internally. This 600,000 is over a third of the Christian faithful in Syria, and the mass exodus is not stopping any time soon. In fact, the situation is worsening, and its implications for the future of Christianity in Syria and the broader Middle East are dire. Syrian Orthodox Priest Yousef Abdulmasih is especially worried about the future of Christianity in Syria. The exodus from the city is in full swing, he said. Everyday individuals and families in our community flee, especially young people, who are our hope and future. He is especially worried that [his] town will become a city of old people. He expresses concern that the ancient Christian communities, such as Qamishli, where Yousef Abdul Masih resides, will lose their thousand year old traditions in Orthodox Christianity. This is where the first Christians were converted, and now Islamists are forcefully taking this holy homeland away from the native Christians who have resided in Syria for almost 2,000 years. Throughout history, especially in the first centuries A.D., Christians have been targets of persecution. Today is no exception, with the Syrian persecution being labeled by the media as the worst persecution endured by Christians in the third millenium. Christians in Syria have little hope as long as the government of Syria is unstable. Perhaps they will regain confidence in the safety of their country once the civil unrest passes.

Courtesy of Yerevanci

Issue IV.iv 31

Sonal Shrivastava 15 and Ashlyn Lackey 14

32 The First Amendment

Issue IV.iv 33

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

MR. PUTIN, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL


George Lankas 15

Courtesy of Nikolai Alekseev

he Olympic Games have long been cherished as a symbol of peace. Every four years, nations forego international disputes for the short two week duration to battle one another on the sports field rather than on the battlefield. Yet, as the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games are underway, the tolerance and fairness that generally characterize the Olympic Games have been compromised by a series of anti-gay laws in Russia. These laws decree that any openly gay person or person suspected of supporting gay marriage is subject to arrest and could be jailed for a maximum of 14 days. In addition, these laws declare that anyone who argued for equality for gays in the presence of children would be considered a pedophile and subject to arrest. These laws not only impact the citizens of Russia, but also the citizens of the United States looking to adopt Russian children. Putins puppet congress, the Duma, passed a law which prohibited Russian-born children from being adopted by gay couples or any couple living in a country where

gay marriage is legal, which includes the United States. These laws have sparked outrage in gay communities throughout the World, yet no nation has taken a stand and withdrawn from the Olympic Games to combat these oppressive laws.

Courtesy of Russian Presidential Press and Info. Office

The United States have made a clear stand that these laws will not prevent openly gay athletes from at-

tending the games. The United States Olympic delegation will include several openly gay athletes on their roster. Leading this delegation will be the openly gay and former womens tennis star Billy Jean King, a strong statement in direct opposition to Putins anti-gay laws. Missing from the United States delegation is President Obama, who declared he would not be attending the Games but will support all athletes from home. In a press release, the White House explained that our delegation represents the diversity that is the United States, a clear insult to anti-gay sentiments in Russia. While the United States and several other nations have criticized Russias anti-gay laws, this cohort of countries is in the minority, as many other nations have also recently implemented laws criminalizing homosexuality. The nation of India, for instance, has some of the harshest anti-gay laws in the world. Homosexuality is considered a crime punishable with up to 10 years in prison. But one cannot attribute Indias stance to

34 The First Amendment

International
antiquated laws. It is merely one of 80 countries, including Mauritania, Iran, and American ally Saudi Arabia, where homosexuality is deemed a crime. It is clear that anti-gay sentiments are rampant throughout the World and that it is the U.S.- not Russia- whose hegemonic view on homosexulity is in the minority. So why is the onus on Russia to conform to a patently American ideology? Because as the U.S. progresses toward total marriage equality, hopefully so will the world. Twi of our most homophobic states, Utah and New Mexico, recently had their bans on same-sex marriages overturned by state courts which deemed these laws unconstitutional. The United States is starting to look like a leader of marriage equality once more. While the rest of the world remains intolerant, America can continue towards acceptance. Although President Obama is not attending the Olympic Games in Sochi, he must take a stronger stand and condemn the many anti-gay laws throughout the world. Only by standing by otherwise empty promises of tolerance and equality will the United States pave the way for the other nations represented at the Olympics. The Russian government has received vast amounts of negative publicity for its anti-gay laws, yet this criticism is counterintuitive-- it is not as though the nations policies contradict the international majority opinion. As most of the world, including the Russian Federation, still clings to anti-gay sentiments, and the United States has a lot of ground to truly distinguish itself from the anti-gay international community and justify its complaints regarding the Sochi Olympics. Do what you preach, America, and recognize same sex marriages on a national level. Only then can you criticize other nations practices.

The First Amendment

IV.iv

JOIN THE DISCUSSION


Do you have a response to any article in this issue? Tell us. Submit all letters to the editor at firstamendmentlville@gmail.com

Courtesy of Says it poster generator.

Issue IV.iv 35

ON THE SPECtRUM:

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

Affirmative action, the practice of promoting equal opportunity regardless of race, sex, or religious belief, is often manifested in quotas or other measures favoring underrepresented minorities. Proponents of affirmative action hail it as a way to ensure diversity and equality of opportunity in colleges and workplaces, as well as a guard against discrimination. Opponents of affirmative action argue that it fosters discrimination and can devalue the merits of the very people who are supposed to benefit from it. In 2003, the United States Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the affirmative action practices used by the University of Michigan Law School in the Grutter v. Bollinger case, but at the same time ruled in the Gatz v. Bollinger case that a strict point system giving 20 extra points to underrepresented minorities was unconstitutional. In 2013, the Supreme Court once again supported the legality of affirmative action in college admissions in Fisher v. University of Texas. While the Supreme Court seems to have decided in favor of affirmative action for now, the debate rages on, voices from all over the political spectrum speaking up on the topic. -Karen Zhang 15

By creating a broadly diverse class, [their] admissions policies help to assure that their graduates are well prepared to succeed in an increasingly complex and multiracial society. The policies also make certain that no racial or ethnic group is excluded from that vital process. - Harvard, Brown, the University of Chicago, Dartmouth, Duke ,the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, and Yale University, Grutter v. Bollinger amici curiae in 2003

I am a product of affirmative action. I am the perfect affirmative action baby . . . my test scores were not comparable to that of my classmates. And thats been shown by statistics, there are reasons for that. There are cultural biases built into testing, and that was one of the motivations for the concept of affirmative action to try to balance out those effects

-Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court

Slaveholders argued that slavery was a positive good that civilized blacks and elevated them in every dimension of lifeA century later, segregationists asserted that segregation was not only benign, but good for black studentsFollowing in these inauspicious footsteps, the University would have us believe that its discrimination is likewise benign. I think the lesson of history is clear enough: Racial discrimination is never benignAlthough cloaked in good intentions, the Universitys racial tinkering to be harms the very people it claims helping.

Supreme Court Justice


36 The First Amendment

- Clarence Thomas,

[Affirmative action is] one of the few policies that can be said to harm virtually every group in a different way. Obviously, Whites and Asians lose out when you have preferential admission for black students or Hispanic students but Blacks and Hispanics lose out because what typically happens is the students who have all the credentials to succeed in college are admitted to colleges where the standards are so much higher that they fail.

- Thomas Sowell, author of Affirmative Action Around the World


I dont think that hiring on the basis of race or admissions on the basis of race alone is constitutionally plausible and I dont think that crude quotas like that are necessary. I do think that there are still circumstances in which on a college admissions or on a hiring decision, taking into account issues of past discrimination, taking into account issues of diversity of a workforce or a student body can still be appropriate.

- President Barack Obama (D)

An abiding truth about much affirmative action is that those who are its ostensible beneficiaries are burdened with the task of overcoming it if, that is, they wish to be treated as individuals, without regard to race. - Terry Eastland, Author of Ending Affirmative Action: The Case for Colorblind Justice
Issue IV.iv 37

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

The campaign against democracy

ALL THAID UP

Joon Choe 15

emocracy failed them-at least according to them. Ironically, a large group of people in Thailand believes that their nation should not allow an elected Prime Minister to serve another day. Thailand is currently in a state of emergency due to severe political unrest caused by thousands of protesters in Bangkok. According to the BBC, At least nine people have died since the wave of protests started last year, and the number is expected to increase as the unrest spreads. The people protesting on the streets are asking for the current Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra of the Pheu Thai Party, to step down. They are pushing for the creation of a Peoples assembly, an unelected temporary governing body representing different occupational groups that would oversee a process of political reform. Pheu Thai currently holds 262 out of 500 seats in the House of Representatives and is led by Shinawatra. The reason that so many people are protesting for a regime change is because the supporters of the Democrat party of Thailand believe that Pheu

Thai is corrupt. Such accusations are warranted because the Pheu Thai party has been trying to ease up criminal charges against their own party members who were either jailed or subjected self-imposed exiles during the Coup of 2006. The military and the people of Thailand orchestrated the Coup of 2006 in order to overthrow the Thai Rak Thai Partys administration. After the coup, the courts charged various

...and I personally commend the supporters of the Democrat Party of Thailand for stating their views against this awful globally practiced way of forming new regimes.
members of that party for corruption, insulting King Bhumibol, and tax evasion. The people charged with these felonies included the former Prime Minister and brother of the current Prime Minister of Thailand, Thaksin Shinawatra. Shinawatra was the principal reason behind the coup. Pheu Thai, which has very similar

agendas and similar members to the dissolved Thai Rak Thai Party, wants men like Thaksin Shinawatra to be free of charge. After several weeks of protests, the current Prime Minister suggested that the nation should have early elections so that the people can decide who should rule. She was given the permission by the election commission to carry out new elections on February 2nd. While many may believe that this democratic solution to the political gridlock of Thailand is fair, the protesters are not satisfied. The main reason for their dissatisfaction is because they know it is impossible to gain more than 50% of the vote due to the Pheu Thai Partys majority in the House. Democracy, ironically, has not been working in the favor of the Democrat Party for the last three years. In fact, they were far more successful during the military junta since they were handed power in the House of Representatives and the Senate. But once the Pheu Thai Party gained some momentum in 2010, the Democrats lost many seats in the House but

38 The First Amendment

International
were able to keep power in the Senate, mostly because the people do not elect the senators of Thailand. Pheu Thai wanted to change the rules of the Senate by supporting a law to allow elections for both houses, but the courts ruled it unconstitutional since the Senate was formed as a check and balance to the laws being passed by the democratically elected House. Since democracy isnt working in their favor, the protesters, led by several Democrat Party leaders, have been demanding a new government to be formed that would consist of non-elected leaders. Their job would be to draft a new constitution and try to get rid of corruption in politics during a 12-18 month transition period. Once a new constitution is written, they would hold elections for a new government. The ideal government that the Democrats are aiming to create is one in which officials elected by all Thai people who arent manipulated by unscrupulous politicians (specifically the urbanized villagers who want more benefits from the government). Whether you are an American Democrat, Republican, or a foreigner not from Thailand, you have surely heard complaints about how our modern politicians are pouring money into their elections or how they are making empty promises to people of all classes in society. These capitalistic democratic elections are sad, sad stories that come by every couple of years for most developed nations, and I therefore personally commend the supporters of the Democrat Party of Thailand for stating their views against this awful globally practiced way of forming new regimes. But at the end of the day we have to accept it as it is; as Winston Churchill once said, Democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.

The First Amendment

IV.iv

Million people live in Thailand

67.5

Year that Thailands first legislature was created

1932 5

Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra

parties make up the governing cabinet

Con

members of the Senate

150 76

King Bhumibol Adulyadej

elected members of the Senate

members of the House of Representatives

500

Former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra

Courtesy of Government of Thailand

Issue IV.iv 39

The Political

1. Edward Snowden- NSA Scandal


In possibly one of the most explosive and influential informational leaks in American history, American citizen Edward Snowden showed to the world that the United States of America, home of the free because of the brave, had been snooping on not only its citizens, but also other world leaders. In releasing highly classified documents, Snowden instantly rose to fame and when he attempted to find a new home country, he and the US reenacted a scene from Caddyshack, when Bill Murray tries to hunt down the gophers. This series of events however, led to the US and Russia opening old wounds and creating further tension, while many Americans demanded the most severe punishment for the leader of the NSA. Petitions on websites such as change.org became immensely popular and the public has continued to demand answers about both Snowden and the NSA.

Most Pivotal Events of 2013


Fernando Guerrero 15

2. Syrias use of Chemical Weapons


Over the past year, the topic of Syria and the Middle East has been a huge discussion point for the global media. At no point has this been the case more so than during the chemical attacks launched by the Assad regime onto its own people. Videos and pictures of the gruesome effects of the gas flooded the internet and social media outlets. Major news networks streamed photos of the events virtually around the clock.. The Obama administration found itself in a very delicate situation because of President Obamas comments establishing a red line. As expected by many, when that set red line was crossed, the President backed away from his previous comments, using many excuses to get around his previous comment. The bottom line is that Obama found a way to slither out of this sticky situation. After all, nobody really expected him to follow through in the first place.

40 The First Amendment

3. Government Shutdown
The government shutdown captivated media attention for nearly two and a half weeks. As everybody had predicted, it was used as a political power play and a contest of who would blink first. Neither side wanted to default on the debt, yet neither side wanted to give up an inch for their cause. The Republicans wanted Obamacare defunded and the Democrats wanted a bigger budget and knew that they could pass the blame off to the Republicans if the Republicans stalled too long and let the government default. There was no clear winner, although the Republicans failed to accompish their goal of defunding ObamaCare. However, the clear loser was the American people as whole.

4. Overthrowing of Mubarak
Although the overthrow of the Muslim brotherhood and Hosni Mubarak did seem to enjoy popular support, recent events have solidified many peoples beliefs that it was simply a military coup. It was in fact the military that swayed the battle in Egypt, imitating what the Syrian military had done in their own nation by attacking their own people. The army seemed to have a different agenda and seemed to enjoy Mubarak being overthrown. The most recent Military coup and the rise to power of General Sisi seems to prove that the public rebellions, while they still had a lot of influence in getting the world on their side, were completely dependent on military cooperation and without that military cooperation, the Arab Spring as we know it might not have happened. Finally, this most recent coup crushed any hope that Egypt, or any other Arab nation for that matter, might actually become a democracy in the near future.

5. The Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal


When the new president of Iran, Hassan Rouhani was elected in 2013, he did not wait long to make an impact. Aside from engaging in talks with the U.S., he also fathered a blockbuster deal that a year earlier, nobody could have imagined possible, yet it has come under scrutiny in the past weeks. The deal allows the United States to effectively keep tabs on the entire Iranian nuclear. Armed with this oversight, the U.S. hopes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons in the future, something America believes is a must. .
Images courtesy of Army Image, Reivax, and The White House

Issue IV.iv 41

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

THE U.N.S IRON FIST


A new pope faces old problems

Many of the alleged scandals suggest that sexual abuse in the Vatican has spanned both decades and continents, thus having far-reaching consequences, especially with clergy high up in the Church.

By L isa Z

hu 1

Courtesy of Doug Wheller

ince the election of Pope Francis I in March, the Vatican had run smoothly with minor hiccups along the way. The Pope won much praise from both Catholics and non-Catholics, especially for showing compassion to the vulnerable and marginalized members of society. The Popes reign wasnt scandal free for long, however, as he and the Vatican recently faced one of the largest scandals of the past few

decades. The Vatican, which has an infamous record of sexual abuse cases against children, has been accused of involvement in the cover-up and protection of pedophile priests. Many of the alleged scandals suggest that sexual abuse in the Vatican has spanned both decades and continents, thus having far-reaching consequences, especially with clergy high up in the Church. These abuses were first publicly brought to light when a United

Nations committee concluded its investigation with the Vaticans compliance with the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on January 16, 2014, forcing the Vatican to try to defend its sexual abuse record in detail. During the convention, the U.N. committee questioned Vatican officials in a fashion that resembled a courtroom cross-examination - except the U.N. could ask any question, the Vatican could not evade ques-

42 The First Amendment

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

tions, and the whole affair was web- tralia. In reply, Monsignor Charles al abuse of children by priests, Pope cast live. The examination was held Scicluna acknowledged that the Vat- Francis has taken some steps during in Geneva, Switzerland and the U.N. ican had had a slow response in re- his leadership of the Vatican. Just afpanel included figures such as Sara de gards to punishing abusive priests, ter being elected Pope, Pope Francis Jess Oviedo Fierro, the United Na- but the Church was now work- guided the Congregation for the Doctions committees vice president and ing hard to improve this situation. trine of the Faith, the enforcement Barbara Blaine, the president of The Though this investigative sector of the Church, to act more Survivors Network of Those Abused committee may seem like it came out definitively on these abuse cases. Afby Priests. The Vatican was represent- of the blue, it was not actually sud- terwards, he updated the Holy Sees ed by Church officials Archbishop den nor unwarranted. The Vatican criminal code in order to criminalSilvano Tomasi, the permanent ob- has had troubles recently with deal- ize sexual violence against children, server of the Holy See to the United ing with priests sexual abuse of chil- since previously the law has been Nations in Geneva and the Vaticans dren, and in an issue of Time mag- generalized as a crime against good representative in Geneva, and Mon- azine, Katherine Gallagher, a senior customs. Finally, at the end of last signor Charles Scicluna, the Vaticans attorney with the U.S.-based advo- year, Pope Francis decided to create former chief sex-crimes prosecutor. cacy group Center for Constitution- a commission on this issue of priests During the hearing, the U.N. al Rights (CCR), pointed out two sexual abuse of children, though it committee heavily questioned the recent developments as examples of would only focus on the emotionVatican repre- Courtesy of the Catholic Church of England and Wales al and spiritual sentatives over support of abuse the punishvictims instead of ments of abusive playing a sort of priests, whether judicial purpose. they are handed This U.N. over to the jucommittee on dicial systems of the sexual abusthe countries in es against chilwhich crimes are dren by priests committed, and was clearly a also on what is landmark in the being done to Vaticans histoprevent bishops ry of this issue, from transferring though no real abusive priests Above: Pope Francis, pictured posing for the media in March 2014, has experi- conclusion was to different par- enced some serious scandal in the early days of his Papacy. made during the ishes in order to investigation in rehide their misdemeanor. In response, the Vaticans trouble with this issue; gards to the Vaticans lack of punishArchbishop Silvano Tomasi said, in November of last year, the Church ment for priests with sexual offenses. Priests are not functionaries of the refused to share the details of its in- Vatican officials, however, were seVatican. Priests are citizens of their vestigations into sexual abuse cases verely questioned on their approach own states, and they fall under the ju- among the clergy with the U.N., to handling priests with known sexurisdiction of their own country. The and in Janolish prosecutors report- al offenses against children, and they U.N., however, provided evidence in ed that the Vatican had refused to had to answer any questions the U.N. Vatican documents revealing that the accept Archbishop Jozef Wesolows- gave them. By far the most importChurch discouraged bishops from re- ki from Warsaw for an investigation ant outcome of this panel was simply porting abuse, as reported in the As- regarding alleged sex abuse, which how public the inquiry was, allowsociated Press. The committee even would make him the highest-rank- ing the entire world became aware proceeded to cite more investigations ing Catholic Church official ever to of how inadequately the Church from the United States, Canada, be investigated on the issue of abuse. had dealt with sexual offenses before Mexico, Britain, Ireland, and Aus- On this problem of the sexu- the U.N. committee took place.
Issue IV.iv 43

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE


Mexican vigilantism
Courtesy of Fronteras Desk

Sabrina Li 15

ince the 1933 prohibition of alcohol in the United States, Mexico has been the primary site for the transaction of drugs, illegal immigrants, and contraband to foreign markets all over the world. In the 1960s, Mexican smugglers began to deal illegal drugs on an astronomical scale. Between 1980 and 1990, Colombias notorious drug lord Pablo Escobar formed a relationship with Mexican traffickers to become middleman and ship his cocaine from Mexico to the United States. This was an easy feat to accomplish due to the large sources of heroin and co-

caine in Mexico and there pre-existing longstanding drug system. The real problem arose when Colombia began to deal Mexican drugs, rather than cash, as payment for drug transactions. Mexican drug dealers were now paid with 35% to 50% of the drugs from each cocaine shipment, creating a whole new kind of disquieting and intimidating dealer. Violence and deaths ensued as some cartels collapsed and others fought to fill the void of power. In 2006, the new president of Mexico, Felipe Calderon, waged a war in order to stop Mexicos drug related violence. However,

the killings have only increased since then, and since 2006 there have been an estimated 90,000-106,000 deaths due to the drug war and an estimated $13.6 to $49.4 billion garnered by the illegal drug sales. There has been much controversy within Mexico as to whether or not the Mexican government has been stopping the violence or spurring it. Consequently, in 2012, Mexican vigilantes arose in villages and towns across Mexico with the goal of putting the safety of their neighbors and themselves into their own hands. The effect of local vigilantes, however, has been questioned. The war on drug cartels began with the Calderon administration, but Mexican government efforts do not seem to be working. Reported deaths under his administration total more than 60,000. The question therefore stands: is the government doing what it is supposed to be doing? The Mexican vigilantes retort is a resounding no. According to Jose Antonio Ortega, the president of the Citizens Council for Public Safety and Criminal Justice, Federal authorities, instead of imposing order, instead of rescuing the cities, they are more like referees. They are watching the civil war in Michoacan. And the Mexican vigilante groups are continuing to spread. Therefore, even with an increased number of government forces, Mexico might have waited too long to step in, for Mexican vigilante groups are steadily increasing. As one Michoacan resident stated, We think that this is going to last for months, because there is not just one person who says, We are going of hand over our weapons to the Army. People are very afraid. We do not know whom

44 The First Amendment

International

The First Amendment

IV.iv

Graphic from Revecca


Courtesy of Revecca

to believe. The self-defense groups tell us one thing, and the military tells us something else. The government has left many Mexican communities abandoned, allowing lack of education and unemployment to rise to the point that many young people find that their only option is to work for these vigilante groups or the drug cartels. Some people, like Sergio Mejia, the head of a business association in Acapulco, believe that a slow and timid government leaves us no choice but to join the fight. The perception of the Mexican vigilante varies greatly. Some Mexicans see them as local heroes. Others view them as villains and have created fiery road blockades in order to stop their arrival. But it is not just the locals who are unsure how to re-

gard the Mexican vigilantes. As one local named Hope stated, even federal officials have been schizophrenic about how they approach the groups, sometimes cracking down on them and other times describing them as allies. Critics have also claimed that these groups sometimes contain criminals from rival gangs who possibly are using the Mexican vigilantes to gain more territory. However, the vigilantes have denied these claims, stating that their only aim is to stop drug cartels and create peace within their neighborhoods. But Alfredo Castillo gave a warning to the Mexican public during an interview with MVS Radio. He noted that the Familia Michoacana cartel, which also helped in the formation of the Knights Templar, began as a vigilante group, defending

their community and kicking out the Zetas, another cartel. As Castillo said during his interview, You can start out with a genuine purpose, but when you start taking control, making decisions and feeling authorityyou run the risk of reaching that point. There is still much uncertainty concerning whether the Mexican vigilante groups are doing more harm than good. If it is causing the government to become more effective in its war against the drug cartels and the violence, then they have been beneficial. However, if the presence of vigilante groups has sparked more violence, and caused more atrocities from drug cartels like the Familia Michoacana, then what they are trying to do must be controlled, rethought, or stopped. Issue IV.iv 45

Political Haiku
by Lisa Zhu 15 and Karen Zhang 15

Chris Christie:

Liberally-sized, Praised for relief for Sandy, Not for Hoboken.

Hillary Clinton:

Female role model, Working it in those pantsuits, But Bill preferred skirts.

Mitt Romney: Barack Obama:

Twenty-twelve platform: Believe in America, Not polygamy.

Needs grammar lessons: Change in which we can believe, Needs tax lessons too.

John Hickenlooper:
Colorado man, Opposes marijuana, Yet pot still lives on.
46 The First Amendment

THE POp PERSpECtIVE


The American fuel industry is possibly the largest and most powerful in the world - and it is currently engaged in a heated internal debate. As the world nears a complete dearth of petroleum oil and we search for any possible solution, fracking (the process of using water to drill into shale and release natural gas inside) seems at first glance to be our much-needed way out. Yet there is more to fracking than meets the eye; environmental concerns involving air and water contamination are growing daily. What does Lawrenceville think?

DO THE ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF FRACKING OUTWEIGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISKS?


Yes. Any form of petroleum we can obtain cheaply is a good thing. No; lets not increase our dependency on a dirty, non - renewable resource and eschew other, more desirable investments. Yes. The fracking industry creates jobs in America rather than overseas. Furthermore, real environmental problems as a result of fracking are very rare. No. Fracking puts toxic chemicals into the ground that seep into the water supply for miles, which is a deathly hazard for humans and animals for many generations. Yes. Any environmental risks of fracking are incredibly dubious. Fracking is a technique that has been used for decades, and nothing significant has happened.

We should invest our time and money in developing alternative and sustainable energy sources rather than injecting chemicals into the earth and subjecting our drinking water to contamination.
Yes, because fracking is the

Yes, such a small percentage of oil wells that use fracking as a technique go wrong that it absolutely outweighs the environmental risks. Absolutely not. You cant put a price on the health & safety of those surrounding a fracking site and those who will live in those areas in future generations. Fracking provides American-based fuel, allowing US soldiers to leave the Middle East as we will no longer be forced to fight for oil. Fracking may cause some small environmental issues, but they are a small price to pay for American lives.

primary method for natural gas extraction. In addition to the economic benefits, natural gas is often described as the cleanest fossil fuel (producing far less carbon dioxide). No. Contaminating whole water systems and disrupting deep underground rock to provide clean water to people that constantly waste it? Time to start conserving!

No. Although we are dependent on oil and natural gas for our consumer lives, fracking causes more harm than gain.

THE FIRSt AMENDMENt


A Student Publication of The Lawrenceville School Founded in the Bicentennial Year, 2010

You might also like