Berkeley Political Review Spring 2012

Inside:

Taxing the rich

Constitutional Crises

Berkeley Political Review

Who is in

charge?

Activating the

Net Generation

When technology and politics collide

Editor’s Note

H

ow many hours a week do you spend on Facebook? Chances are, the answer is more than you (or I) would like to admit. You are not alone. A recent report by the Pew Internet Project reveals that 72 percent of online 18- to 29-year-olds use social networking sites, compared to 39 percent of Internet users age 30 or older. The current crop of college-goers thrives on technology: according to the 2011 College Explorer Survey conducted

by Crux Research, students on U.S. campuses now own an average of six digital devices, and spend a cumulative 11.4 hours per day using technology. We do our research online, shop online, game online, and date online – so it should come as little surprise that we are also becoming more politically engaged online.

The web is increasingly a forum not just for political commentary, but for advocacy and activism as well. Researchers at Pew found that Internet users in general are more than twice as likely to attend a political meeting. Compared with other Internet users, Facebook members who log on multiple times per day are two and a half times more likely to attend a political rally, and 57 percent more likely to persuade someone to vote a certain way.

While too much was likely made of technology’s role in the Arab Spring, social media websites nevertheless played a prominent role in connecting protest organizers to a broad audience and to one another. More recently here in the United States, strong backlash against proposed anti-piracy bills SOPA and PIPA this past January revealed the power of the web as a mobilization tool: according to NetCoalition, which represents top high-tech and Internet companies, Google solicited more than 7 million signatures on a petition opposing the bills, and Craigslist counted 30,000 calls to lawmakers.

As this vast new Webocracy comes into focus, the question will be whether some voices hold more clout than others. Corporations are certainly powerful players. Wil Mumby maps the growing power struggle between the media industry’s old guard and its tech-savvy darlings (p. 6), while Nik Kitchel explores the sway Internet companies hold in national political debates (p. 10). Alex Heyn points out that governments, too, maintain a firm grip on web content the world over (p. 13). Examining the implications of web regulation for political movements and online entertainment respectively, Harkaran Singh (p. 17) and Norman Cahn (p. 21) opine that ultimately, the Internet must complement, not replace, traditional forms of democratic activism.

Though the contours of this growing Webocracy may not yet fully be clear, one thing is certain: our generation will play a critical role in helping further define it.

Yours,

Jeremy Pilaar

Editor-in-Chief Jeremy Pilaar Deputy Editor-In-Chief Andrew Postal Managing Editor Mihir Deo Deputy Managing Editor Daniel Tuchler California Editor Elena Kempf National Editor Luis Flores International Editor Hinh Tran Opinion Editor Alex Kravitz Arts & Entertainment Editor Melanie Boysaw Blog Editor Christopher Haugh Layout Editors Niku Jafarnia Feilisha Kutilike Copy Editor Justin Lin COVER ART Alyssa Nip Staff Jacqueline Alas, Christina Avalos, Kyle Bowen, Norman Cahn, Christopher Chan, Daphne Chen, Josh Cohen, Zac Commins, Tom Hughes, Mandy Honeychurch, Alexandra Heyn, Nicholas Kitchel, Anna Bella Korbatov, Tanay Kothari, Julia Kuchman, Alex Lee, Michael Manset, Amanda McCaffrey, Katie McCray, Samuel Meyers, Wil Mumby, Nicole Nabulsi, Tina Parija, Doug Perez, Brendan Pinder, Brynna Quillin, Kathleen Sheffer, Arjan Sidhu, Harkaran Singh, Charles Smith, Rupa Subramaniam, Matthew Symonds Web Editor Kristin Hunziker Advisers Susan Rasky Ethan Rarick The content of this publication does not reflect the views of the University of California, Berkeley or the ASUC. Advertisements appearing in the Berkeley Political Review reflect the views of the advertisers only. They are not an expression of editorial opinion or views of the staff.

volume XI, no. 3

the cover

Opinion: 20

The Internet is Dead Webocracy won’t work

Silicon Valley vs. Hollywood Two key California industries quarrel over the internet Hablamos Español Hollow multiculturalism at the University of California

State’s Student Debt California students up for sale online Dashing into the Abyss California high-speed rail faces an uncertain future

National

This issue’s cover reflects the growing concern that governments worldwide are trying to diminish Internet freedoms through tighter regulation.

Balancing online concerns, such as protecting intellectual property and catching child pornographers, with fears of government censorship and the violation of privacy rights is key in the minds of a generation that grew up with the Internet, an economy that is increasingly dependent on the Internet, and a world connected by the web.

5 6 7 8

Taxing the Rich Mending California in times of austerity

International

California

International: 16

9 10 12

A Seoul Nation The reality of a united Korea

online Changing Demographics Is-Real in Israel How the rise of the Haredi affects the Jewish state online Rule Britannia!

European military power in the 21st century

17 18

Constitutional Crises Three 21st Century Minds Interpret the 18th Century Preamble to the Constition

online Israeli Apartheid: The Growing Gender Divide in the Promise Land Five trips to Israel prove ultra-Orthodox Israelis treat women as secondclass citizens

The Elephant’s Gambit Political strategies threatened by economic, social conditions Internet Corporations Effective allies or dangerous hoarders of power?

13 14 15

The Empire Strikes First A global look at internet censorship Arab Spring – Iraqi Winter?

Winter is coming in Baghdad

Opinion

of

A&E

table

21 22

Sound of Silence An end to cyber freedom

Conservatism’s Cognitive Dissonance To stick to ideals, or help those reeling from capitalism’s repercussions?

All Jokes Aside Stephen Colbert’s recent political endeavors highlight the blurred line between politics and satire.

online Satire to the Rescue In the era of the SuperPAC, new generation is introduced to the battle over campaign finance

online Occupy vs. Ocupación The movements might share the same name, but can the message transcend language barriers?

I refer to global warming as not climate science but political science.” — Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum

Today, we could certainly use a little more Washington in DC and a little less BS in Washington” –– Sarah Palin in her President’s Day Speech in reference to the pragmatic spirit of George Washington

I’m not sure many people are looking to Newt Gingrich for foreign policy advice. If there’s problem on the lunar colony, he’ll be among the first we call.” –– Former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs

Robert Gibbs

Sarah Palin

While attempting to gain votes in the Michigan Republican Primary, Mitt Romney aired an ad connecting himself to Detroit by highlighting his childhood in Michigan. The ad depicted Romney driving around in a Chrysler, as well as a picture of him with his father, former Michigan Governor, looking out upon Detroit.

However, the Chrysler was manufactured in Canada and the picture is of Romney and his father at the 1964 New York World’s fair. Perhaps Romney should pay attention to these details in the future if he hopes to finally connect with American voters.

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Lindsay Graham (R-SC) have put forward a proposal pledging the United States’ support for the Syrian rebels.

It has largely been seen as an attempt to counter Iran’s backing of Syrian President Bashar alAssad. The move comes after mass protests in Syria against the current Assad regime have increased in intensity and violence, as the Syrian military continues to crack down on protestors.

Russia and China recently used their veto power to stop a United Nations Security Council Resolution condemning Assad’s actions.

Photo sources: softpedia.org, americantimes.org, thinkprogress.org

During a Congressional Oversight Hearing led by Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) on the new requirement by the Obama Administration requiring health care providers to cover birth control, Congressional Republicans listened patiently to testimony from a panel comprised entirely of men. One woman Issa denied from the panel was Sandra Fluke, a student at Georgetown University, as she likely would have testified in favor of the Obama Administration. This is the apex of a month of attention toward women’s reproductive health, which began with the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation’s withdrawal of financial support for breast screenings at Planned Parenthood.

.

California

spring 2012

Mending California in Times of Austerity

By Tom Hughes, Staff Writer

I

s California really “on the mend?”

Governor Jerry Brown certainly seems to think so. In his 2012 State of the State address, delivered on January 18, Brown reviewed a year of mixed successes and prepared Californians for a second dose of the harsh medicine he says is necessary to cure a state long suffering from fiscal ailments.

Last year, the Democratic Legislature and the governor closed a substantial budget deficit of over $20 billion, delivering California its second on-time budget in the past 25 years.

The projected 2011-2012 budget deficit was paid for almost entirely with cuts to state spending, though a few increased fees, the realignment of some state services, and rosy predictions about the economy also played a role.

Because the state still requires twothirds of the Legislature to consent to raising tax rates, and because higher taxes are a non-starter for the obstinate Republican minority, the governor could not even hold a special election to determine if Californians were willing to see some of their taxes go up.

But this year is different. California’s system of direct democracy allows for any citizen, even the governor, to propose a law that can appear on the November ballot, regardless of the Legislature’s judgment. And in his State of the State address, Brown said he is determined to press forward with a tax initiative of his own creation. The governor, however, is not the only would-be tax reformer in the state. It is very likely that a number of tax proposals will appear on the ballot, despite Brown’s call for the other reformers to drop their proposals and line up behind his.

If they do not, voters may be facing a number of competing tax plans. Every group with an interest in higher revenues is concerned that this confusing

5

temporary sales tax increase expired.

But perhaps most importantly, Brown is presenting his proposal as a choice between higher taxes and more cuts, planning to arrange for another round of “trigger” cuts to schools, universities, and public safety if his proposal array of propositions might eliminate does not pass. As little as Californians any support for tax increases. Public like having their taxes raised, Brown is university students, too, must under- gambling on the idea that further cuts stand the range of possibilities as seri- will be even less popular.

There are two other major contendous proposals that could delay or even reverse another year of budget cuts and ers in the November tax battle. One is the “Our Children, Our Future” protuition hikes.

The governor’s proposal would raise posal backed by Molly Munger, a civil an estimated $7 billion a year by tem- rights attorney whose brother, Charles porarily raising the state income tax on Munger, Jr., led the successful initiaindividuals with annual incomes over tive effort that changed California’s re$250,000 by up to 2% and by raising districting process. Munger’s proposal would raise the stateincome taxes wide sales for virtually tax one half every taxpayer of one perin the state for cent. Brown 12 years, with is playing a the greatest inpolitically creases for the smart game highest earnwith his ers. Most of proposal on the $6 billion it a number is estimated to of levels. It be able to gencombines a erate would go tax on highincome individuals, which hits a popu- towards K-12 and early education prolist tone that will likely resonate with grams, and the rest would go towards most Californians, with a less popular reducing the state’s structural deficit. and more regressive sales tax increase. Another proposal – the so-called “MilThe increases would be temporary, last- lionaire’s Tax” – is being sponsored by ing until the end of 2016, and the sales the Courage Campaign and the Calitax rate would be no higher than it was fornia Federation of Teachers. It would at the start of 2011, before a previous permanently raise income taxes, but only on those who make more than $1 million, and the revenues would go directly to K-12, higher education, and local government services. Its proponents argue that it would raise the most money of all the proposals ($10 billion), doesn’t increase taxes for the average family, and is the most popular proposal.

Though all three embody at their core the idea of “taxing the rich,” the existence of competing ballot initiatives proves the difficulty of moving from words to actions. The proposals also highlight something of a division among those in favor of higher taxes into traditional, Credit: millionairestaxca.com See taxes on page 6

Californians face a chOICE between higher taxes

And more cuts

6

California

bpr.berkeley.edu

Two Key California Industries Face an Uncertain Future

By Wil Mumby, Staff Writer

O

n January 18, many popular websites, including a vast number owned by Silicon Valley firms, joined in solidarity against what they termed an affront on free speech.

Google placed a black censor bar over its iconic logo, and Wikipedia, Reddit, and Boing Boing all “blacked out” their sites for the day in protest of the SOPA and PIPA Internet regulation bills. Designed to address the problem of online piracy, these bills triggered an intense debate about their social and economic impacts and issues of free speech on the Internet.

According to opponents of SOPA and PIPA, the bills threaten to plague the Internet with excessive censorship that would bog down web browsing and hinder startups and established businesses alike. Yet, the producers of traditional media, spearheaded by the Hollywood entertainment industry, pitted themselves against Silicon Valley businesses that rose to success using the concept of media sharing. They claim that piracy costs the country 750,000 jobs due to intellectual property theft and $200-$250 billion as a result of IP infringement.

The battle seems to be part of an on-

Taxes: From page 5 Representing the traditional faction is the governor, his Democratic allies in the Legislature, and the politically powerful unions, whose support is often necessary to qualify and campaign for initiatives. The traditional faction would most like to see its ideas for reducing the deficit implemented through the normal legislative process in Sacramento, though Brown last year asked that the people also have a voice on whether or not higher tax rates should be extended. Their major goal is to gain a two-thirds majority in the Legislature so they can vote on taxes without being blocked by the Republicans, but they see the initiative proposal as a temporary solution to balance the budget without full tax reform.

going war between Hollywood, the media producers, and Silicon Valley, those who have opened the ‘Pandora’s Box’ of media accessibility. The traditional media industry is increasingly weakened by successful Web 2.0 firms and demands regulation of media sharing on the Internet to protect its interests.

Hollywood, prominently represented by the Motion Picture Association of America, will keep pushing for legislation that takes action against online piracy, furthering the view that protecting intellectual property and online free speech are not mutually exclusive.

The Hollywood entertainment industry’s concern about profits and jobs fell victim to the more publicly appealing story of endangered freedom in the debate around SOPA and PIPA. It would be surprising if the world’s chief storyteller did not eventually come up with a more compelling narrative to justify further Internet regulation.

However, the root of the issue may not be excessive media sharing, but structural weakness within the traditional media arena. Professor Steve Blank from the Haas School of Business argues that regulating the Internet should be secondary to revamping the industry itself.

Molly Munger represents a California tradition younger than the normal legislative process, but noteworthy nonetheless: that of a lone (and usually fabulously wealthy) reformer who believes he or she has the answer to a major state problem and can fix it with a self-financed initiative effort. Munger has already promised to spend whatever is necessary to qualify and push her initiative forward. She has rebuffed Brown’s efforts to convince her to drop her bid and has criticized his proposal for not increasing per-pupil spending.

Finally, though it is not itself a purely grassroots campaign, the push for the Millionaires Tax is being supported by a grassroots coalition of progressive and Occupy movement groups. Charlie Eaton, one of the organizers of the March 5 occupation of the state capitol

“It is about a lack of innovation, not a piracy problem,” Blank says. “Of course you need to deal with piracy as part of an expanded business model, but if the conversation keeps coming back to ‘What are we going to do about piracy?’ then we’re not even having the same conversation. It’s ‘What are we going to do about innovation?’”

Professor Blank suggests that traditional media industries must revolutionize their boards of directors by cooperating with Silicon Valley firms, replacing those intent on lobbying with innovation-minded businessmen. Silicon Valley is a place where innovation occurs constantly, and by bridging the gap between Hollywood and Silicon Valley the “war” being waged by the former would subside. Perhaps big studios can find a happy ending after all. •

Credit: WikiMedia Commons

and the financial secretary of the labor union that represents graduate students, says that the coordinators of the March 5 action support the proposal because it is the only one that “won’t raise taxes on the 99% by a single penny,” and because it guarantees over $1.5 billion in revenue for higher education. He sees the tax proposal as part of a broader effort to create an education system that is governed from the bottom up, and a first step towards a more equitable society, a guiding principle of the Occupy movement.

Right now, it seems that all three of the remaining proposals could be on the ballot in November. Whether the multitude of related propositions confuses voters or further popularizes the idea of higher taxes on the wealthy remains to be seen. •

California

spring 2012

7

tate’s

California students up for sale?

By Mandy Honeychurch, Staff Writer

C

alifornia has long been a beacon of public higher education. Government efforts like the California Master Plan for Higher Education are meant to ensure that education is accessible to all and that there is a university system in place to achieve this goal. Recently, however, structural obstacles have heavily strained the plan’s objectives. Most prominent is the rising cost of a higher education.

Skyrocketing tuition has led to untenably high levels of student loan debt. As President Obama discussed in this year’s State of the Union address, student loan debt has become an issue of national concern, surpassing credit card debt in size. On average, the class of 2010 at colleges across the U.S. and in California owed $25,250 at graduation, according to The Project on Student Debt survey, completed each year

by The Institute for College and Success. This represents a 5 percent increase from the year before. In California, the study found that students owe an average of $18,113, with 48 percent having to borrow money to pay for their education.

This trend has worsened with time, especially at University of California schools like Berkeley, where tuition is about $13,000 a year for in-state students. This is an 18 percent increase

from last year, and more than three times what it cost to attend a UC one decade ago.

Allison*, a senior at UC Berkeley who participated in Occupy Wheeler in 2010 to fight for her conviction that “Berkeley is a public university and should be truly public,” describes her current situation as “nerve-wracking.”

“I need to make money so that I can eat,” she said. “No one else is going to take care of you.” Even though she worked multiple jobs over the years, she was ultimately unable to avoid loans. “It’s not about wanting to get a good job in the future. It’s about having to get a good job,” she said.

According to Dr. John Douglass of the UC Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education, California suffers some of the worst funding problems in the country due to population growth and a growing demand for higher education. Given that California is more than twice the size of any other state, it has thousands more students to serve, putting a heavy strain on its resources.

As a result, cuts in state funding put the financial burden on the universities to pay for a growing student body.

“The state of California is no longer supporting a progressive tax structure.

The failure at the state level to maintain that means institutions have to raise more money if they’re going to keep their doors open,” he said.

But what exactly can be done to deal with this problem? Dr. Douglass be-

Credit: Elena Kempf, California Editor lieves that the government is going to have to play a crucial role in the solution, by increasing grants and other forms of financial aid. Obama also addressed the need for government involvement in his State of the Union. He suggested expanding the Tuition Tax Credit program, which allows families to use some of the money they would have paid in taxes to cover college expenses. He also encouraged universities to make work-study available to more students by increasing the income level requirements to qualify. Finally, the President proposed offering programs that would help students graduate earlier.

The University of California has already taken a crucial step to mitigate rising costs. The Berkeley Middle Class Access Plan, announced in December, limits a student’s total educational cost to 15 percent of family income for families that make between $80,000 and $140,000. This was the first major measure undertaken by a University of California campus to help middle-class families, though high tuition costs remain a problem for students outside of this income bracket. Expanding this plan, and others like it, is crucial if the working class is to effectively battle student debt. UC Berkeley and the state of California need to do more to make sure that a quality higher education is available to everyone. Expanding financial aid programs is a good start. •

8

California

bpr.berkeley.edu

*

Latinos and the University of California

By Elena Kempf, California Editor

C

oming to U.C. Berkeley from a small city, I expected to encounter a prime example of multiculturalism at the world’s premier public university. Widely publicized statements like “here, differences are celebrated” as expressed through “The Campaign for Berkeley” convey the image of a campus where thousands of students stemming from diverse ethnic and socio-economic backgrounds are given equal educational opportunities.

Along this line, Chancellor Birgeneau issued a statement of how “diversity and excellence go hand in hand in higher education” at a meeting of multicultural student coalitions on February 13.

The idea of U.C. Berkeley as a model of true, inclusive multiculturalism is certainly appealing, but does the university really follow its “distinctive mission to serve [all of] society as a center of higher learning” as expressed in the 1974-78 University of California Academic Plan?

This question is especially timely in light of the significant growth of California’s Latino youth population and its staggering academic under-representation. According to Census 2010 data, more than half of the state’s legal residents under 18 are Latino, yet only eight percent finish higher education.

Moving away from reoccurring debates about cultural, economic, and judicial issues surrounding Latino youth in California, it appears crucial to examine the challenges Latinos face during their University of California application process and education.

As of 2012, U.C. Berkeley has an undergraduate Latino enrollment of 13 percent, only ten points above UCSD, which hovers at a mere three percent.

Latino admission rates have been decreasing over the past several years.

Proposition 209, passed in 1996, prohibits public universities across California from considering race, sex, skin color, ethnicity or national origin in the admissions process. While the initiative was designed to create a race-blind system of equality, the exact opposite occurred, and Latino enrollment at U.C. Berkeley plummeted from 20 percent in 1990 to about 13 percent in 2000.

Ultimately, the California Civil Rights Initiative, as it is also known, prevents campuses from achieving student diversity even roughly representative of the demographics of the state.

Another cause of regressive Latino admissions statistics is the growing number of out-of-state students admitted yearly, reflecting the budget cuts the UC system experiences in light of California’s economic and legislative struggles. These cuts discriminate against California’s high school students in general, but restrain Latinos more than most. Traditionally educated in less favored school districts, they are the clear losers in the competition for increasingly limited spots at UC. Lupe Gallegos-Diaz, Director of Chicana and Latino affairs at UC Berkeley’s Multicultural Center and self-proclaimed “entrepreneur in education”

states that the situation of the Hispanic community “at this moment in time represents a major catastrophe in meeting the needs of future generations.” This holds especially true in terms of an under-representation of Latinos filling senior administrative leadership positions and the university’s shift toward a more business-oriented service model.

The situation of Latino community groups at U.C. Berkeley is closely intertwined with this gradual shift. Operation Excellence, a program initially implemented to “direct every possible dollar to teaching, research, and public service,” is a prime example of the schizophrenic relationship between the campus administration and grassroots community work. Gallegos-Diaz argues that cuts in university spending towards multicultural advocacy groups are a side effect of the initiative, leaving organizations that work to outreach to under-represented students struggling for funding.

While not enough is being done to create an intrinsically inclusive academic environment, the University of California system does carry out some programs to straighten out inequalities.

The Cal Prep program, implemented by the Center for Educational Partnerships, supports a Berkeley public charter school with a Latino population of 43 percent. Efforts are also being made to establish a half-time position for an AB 540 officer who is meant to serve as an academic advisor to undocumented students.

In the end, it is undoubtedly true that the diversity tag helps sell a University of California education worldwide. Whether this claim has sufficient support, however, remains unclear. As state leaders contemplate budget priorities and admissions policies, they need to decide whether California can afford to continue to stigmatize an already disadvantaged and growing Latino student population. •

Credit: aarp.org

national

By matt symmonds, Staff Writer

O

ne of President Obama’s most striking campaign promises was to create a “post-partisan” presidency. That promise has failed.

For three years a split Congressional battles have produced deepening gridlock.

Republicans hope voters will give them a leg up for refusing to cooperate with the president, both refuting Obama’s promise to unite the country and blocking proposals they believe voters judge harshly. Even if few conservative laws pass now, Republicans plan to decisively shape the country’s direction and policies if they take back the White House.

The question Republicans have failed to ask is: what happens if this strategy fails? If the nation reelects Obama, despite his failure to facilitate compromise, the Republicans will have lost more than the presidency. By strategically forfeiting opportunities to negotiate, Republicans risk frustrating a second term Democratic president capable of marginalizing their legislative priorities without worrying about reelection.

This possibility makes November a high stakes fight for the GOP, whose rollercoaster primaries increasingly threaten to bruise the winner and soak up money the Republicans could instead use against Obama.

Republicans might be wise to recognize good as good enough. Winning does not only depend on the candidate. Equally important is the spin Repub-

spring 2012

licans place on factors over which neither party has direct control.

The most influential of these factors is the economy, and Republicans smartly point out the high unemployment rate when criticizing the White House.

Unfortunately for the GOP, the economy has gradually improved; businesses added jobs and consumer confidence rose in January beyond economists’ expectations. As Berkeley professor of sociology Claude Fischer points out, voters will consider the economy’s “first derivative,” or its rate of improvement, more closely than its current location.

Radio host Laura Ingraham even expressed concern to Mitt Romney about his campaign’s focus on the economy: “Obama inherited this recession, and he took a bunch of steps to turn the economy around, and now we’re seeing some more jobs – but vote against him anyway?” Indeed, if Republicans lose the race for the White House, they face the possibility that Democrats will claim stewardship over a further four years of economic improvement, a prob-

9

lematic prospect for the GOP in 2016.

On the other hand, Professor Fischer highlights a trend that could place the Republicans in a better light come election time. He insightfully compares the Occupy protestors today to the Vietnam War protestors in 1968, whose recalcitrance reflected badly on Democrats as confrontations between protestors and police escalated in Chicago during the Democratic National Convention.

Protests, he argues, need not achieve “massive violence or burning buildings” in order to evoke “the impression of disorder, chaos, [and] clashes with authority” that could hurt the image of progressives. While perhaps not as significant a factor as the economy, Occupy may play a role in November: “if it’s a close election, then every little tiny bit turns out to be critical.” Fischer sees the Obama campaign “is picking up on a couple themes” of Occupy, like a focus on income inequality, while maintaining a marked distance as the movement loses popular support.

By contrast, the Republican Party embraced the Tea Party movement, whose entry into Congress in 2012 solidified the enthusiasm of the GOP blockade.

Although November’s outcome is far from certain, a Democratic victory would undermine the “my way, or the highway” politics Tea Party freshman encouraged.

Republicans might face the taste of their own medicine, as the Democrats grow increasingly bold under the sunny auspices of a second Obama term. • Source: nomblog.com

10

national

bpr.berkeley.edu

Effective allies or dangerous ho

By Nicholas Kitchel, Staff Writer

On January 18, 2012, the world turned dark for one day. Wikipedia, Reddit, WordPress, and an estimated 7,000 other websites shut down in protest of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA). The efforts of these websites were vastly effective. Google notably collected seven million signatures against the two pieces of legislation.

The day served as a powerful victory for all activists standing behind them, fighting for free speech and web innovation.

Or did it?

Less than one month earlier, another piece of legislation made its way through Congress, one opponents claimed considerably threatened civil liberties. A number of respected organizations also stood up loudly in protest of this bill. The difference: these groups were nonprofits like the ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights First, and Human Rights Watch. This bill, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012, was signed into law by the President at the end of December.

The underlying implications of this contrast are startling. Corporations hold significant lobbying power, but the ability to mass-educate and mobilize the country overnight is quite new.

In the fight against SOPA and PIPA, many are glad Internet corporations stepped in. That may not always be the case. Future questions of political and

Internet freedoms will depend critically on these corporations’ use of a newfound capacity to change the dynamic of our democratic political system.

A perfect storm “Usually, when there is an Internet regulation threat, expect people to freak out,” says Laura Stoker, professor of political science at UC Berkeley.

SOPA’s opponents, like Harvard Law School Professor Laurence Tribe, argue that it would place new economic restraints on American websites and has the potential to limit free speech online. The bill was written quite broadly and allows the government to shut down an entire website over a trivial issue such as a user posting a violating link. “ O b v i ously there was a belief that there would be a great threat to Internet corporations and they organized as a response,” said Stoker.

Stoker believes that this was a unique incident, the effects of which aren’t likely to extend to other types of legislation. First, the bills deal with regulation, which has been a traditionally libertarian arena. In this regard, many Americans believe less government intervention is better. Next, Stoker says the protest was effective because it reached a young, techsavvy, and politically active audience.

Corporate, nonprofit, and consumer

usually, when there is an internet regulation threat, expect people to freak out”--Laura stoker, professor of political science

interests seemed to line up perfectly.

Corporations sought to defend their income and avoid ruinous litigation. Nonprofits took a civil liberty standpoint and aimed to protect freedom of speech.

Finally, consumers were successfully drawn in because they wanted to maintain the status quo of the open Internet and didn’t mind taking a few seconds to add their names to Google’s petition.

Is this what democracy looks like?

Many remain hesitant to declare a democratic crisis. In a recent Politico report about the January 18 blackout, Alexis Ohanian, the cofounder of Reddit.com, claimed “that Americans actually still can dictate policy and not just lobbyists.”

While paid lobbyists may not have directed this political action, the driving forces stemmed from corporate resources, which are not always readily available to nonprofit groups.

Common Cause, a nonpartisan, grassroots organization that aims to hold elected leaders accountable to the public interest, is convinced that the Internet must become a primary organizing tool for advocacy groups. Mary Boyle, the Vice President of Communications, said they are in support of the Internet blackout and the prospect of using the web to mobilize the public.

“We think it’s terrific. This is a big benefit of technology. People should be able to communicate with their representatives and see where they stand. We know that what the government responds to tends to be a big push by constituents,” said Boyle.

Boyle said that Common Cause works extensively with other coalition partners, including some corporations, to spearhead online campaigns, but takes care to let people know who stands behind their messages.

national

spring 2012

11

oarders of political power?

“People need to know what they’re seeing and where it’s coming from. This can be tricky on the Internet. Certainly we see part of our role as rolling the sheets back and letting people know where things are coming from,” said Boyle.

Forming online coalitions, as did Facebook, Google, Reddit, and many more, thus fits within the parameters of a democracy. This sort of corporate political action differs from lobbying because it is much more clear who is doing the organizing and where the resources come from.

Coming full circle The problem remains, however, that these Internet corporations are fairly autonomous and extremely effective at wielding vast resources. This corporate capital use is especially worrisome when compared with the efficiency of nonprofit groups. Though here in accordance, the goals of corporations and people are often at odds.

With better resources, corporate mobilization can produce outcomes that are against the interests of the whole.

Beyond the potential for adverse corporate mobilization, what is most worrying about the exceptionally effective SOPA protest is that it reveals a potential need for corporate means to stop intrusive legislation.

We have seen what happens when a bill stipulating the depletion of civil liberties, but with little

direct effect on corporate interests, is proposed; the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act reflects the impotence of non-profit protests in our current political system. This impotence, and the necessity to align corporate and public interests for popular action,

is nothing short of a democratic crisis.

The response must be to develop similar non-profit mobilizing resources. In fact, the extent to which activists are able to maintain democratic accountability will depend on an ability to build such assets and break free from a reliance on corporate backing.

Better web integration, as January’s protests showed, is the very first step. •

12

national

bpr.berkeley.edu

To stick to ideals, or help those reeling from capitalism’s repercussions?

By Niku jafarnia, Layout Editor

S

upport of free markets and unregulated capitalism is often a defining characteristic of those who refer to themselves as conservative. However, when faced with the harsh realities of capitalism, especially as our domestic economic conditions struggle to improve, many conservatives don’t necessarily like what they see. Recent rhetoric against Mitt Romney, who arguably exemplifies the “economic man,” reveals a fundamental unease with the practical consequences of capitalist behavior.

The simultaneous adherence to the abstract “freedom” that capitalist behavior is portrayed to embody is now clashing with harsh employment prospects and irresponsible banking practices. A pre-recession report by the Pew Research Center found that “76 percent of poor Republicans believe most people can get ahead with hard work.” In the words of David Brooks in 2005, “the G.O.P. succeeds because it is seen as the party of optimistic individualism.” With optimism destroyed by the great recession, this socially unconscious individualism is leading many conservatives to a state of cognitive dissonance.

Opinions have changed in quantitatively measurable ways. A more recent study by the Pew Research Center shows that about a quarter of Republican

and Republican-leaning registered voters have annual family incomes of less than $30,000. The majority of these voters (57 percent, to be exact) believe that the government doesn’t do enough to help the poor.

This has caused some backlash against Romney, who with sound bites like “corporations are people, my friend” and “I’m not concerned about the very poor” has become the target of this unease. The “bubble primary” reflects this unconscious discomfort with Romney — just about everyone from Bachman, to Cain, to Santorum has bubbled to the top of the polls at one point or another. Astute politicians like Newt Gingrich have capitalized on this unease with the effects of capitalist behavior, calling Mitt Romney a “vulture capitalist” for his work at Bain Capital, which in business terms was highly efficient and profitable.

Ron Paul, too, has been trying to make use of the dissatisfaction of low-income Republican voters by linking the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement. “Some people like to paint Occupy left and the Tea Party people right,” said Paul. “I think it makes my point.

There’s a lot of people unhappy.”

Conservative students on our campus are cautious to reflect unease with the drawbacks of the free market practices, arguing that attempts to sympathize with the Occupy movement are purely political. “It’s hard for us to empathize with the entire movement,” stated Andy Nevis, Executive Director of the Berkeley College Republicans, “I think the Democrats have gotten some gains through empathizing with the Occupy Movement, and I think if the Republican Party points out that some of the things the Occupy Movement stands for are republican ideas, like leaving the economy more free of government, then they’d be able to show that the movement is partisan.”

It is unclear whether it was the great recession or the concerns raised by the Occupy Movement, but prior to these events, no Republican candidate would have ever considered even implying faults in the pursuit of free market tactics.

Conservatism is being torn between sticking to capitalistic and free market ideals under the banner of “freedom,” and the realization of the sheer number of people suffering from the effects these ideals have had on the American economy.

As long as poor Republican constituents continue to adhere to a free market version of freedom and not the alternative of freedom from predatory lending, private debt, and inequality, they will continue to live in a state of cognitive dissonance. •

Source: Wikimedia Commons

international

spring 2012

13

A global look at Internet censorship

By Alex heyn, Staff Writer

W

ith the public backlash against SOPA and PIPA, the issue of net neutrality seems to have finally come to a head. Speculation among analysts and bloggers alike has centered around one question: has the time finally come for “The Man” to stifle the free exchange of ideas that comprises our beloved Internet? In other words, are the Internet’s Wild West days finally over?

These are questions that have sparked increasing fear and outrage among everyone from the lowliest Tumblr-er to Internet giants like webcomic xkcd. But one fact that too often gets overlooked is that Internet censorship is not a potential future, but an insidious present. The battle over control of the Internet is not just beginning. In many countries around the world, a censored Internet is already here.

Western society loves to pick on China for everything from human rights violations to suppression of free speech.

It’s almost too easy to target the People’s Republic. When it comes to Internet censorship, the country’s authoritarian government has suppressed free speech with a frightening degree of precision. China is the second largest country one earth, and has the world’s largest population. At first glance, it may then seem nearly impossible to achieve the level of suppression necessary to control such a large expanse.

And yet, with a vast invisible secret police and over $77 billion poured into resources aimed at suppressing information and potential dissent, China is one of the least free countries on the planet, and has the world’s most censored Internet market, according to researchers at Harvard University and

Herdict.org. With over 50,000 human and cyber censors devoted to blocking and removing “insubordinate” content, and an army of police infamous for their ruthlessness, the country is not a safe place to speak one’s mind. In China, even searches for key terms such as “freedom” are blocked.

After last year’s Arab Spring protests, the Chinese government moved swiftly to crack down even further on the country’s web resources. Activists were arrested at a higher-than-usual rate, and any mention of international or internal revolution was vigorously stamped out.

Chinese officials, like their counterparts in other countries, have found the Internet remarkably harder to control than news channels. While reporters can in theory be forced to read teleprompted lies at gunpoint, the Internet’s anonymity and speed of information makes it extremely dif-

ficult to stop undesirable information from spreading amongst the general population. For the growing number of Chinese wealthy enough to afford Internet access, the Web is a place to push the limits of government censorship and to express otherwiserepressed anger and frustration.

The younger Chinese generation has been especially vocal in political activism, and the extremity of Internet censorship in the country has only sparked ever more creative ways of getting the message out. When one activist posted about the “empty chair at every family’s dinner table [from widespread arrests],” photos of magazine ads and movie screengrabs with an empty chair became a popular meme. Young Chinese writers, like Murong Xuekun, have often defied the

See cencorship on page 16

Source: Intl Herald Tribune

14

international

bpr.berkeley.edu

By charlie smith, Staff Writer One might say that the story of the Arab Spring is the story of nations reclaiming their internal momentum in the wake of foreign domination. Dictators with secret Swiss bank accounts, French diplomats vacationing on the Tunisian dime, and a Libyan dictator with a Soviet past have all reared their heads in the past year as uncomfortable reminders of the unintended consequences of foreign intervention.

Iraq, unfortunately, k n o w s this only too well.

The product of this dysfunction is “a complicated mix of inter-Shiite bickering and escalation of Shia-Sunni fighting” according to Vali Nasr, Iraq expert and Tufts University professor. Prime Minister Maliki’s order to arrest Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi on charges of running a sectarian death squad in particular signals a worrying departure from reconciliation between the two factions.

With the political p r o cess frozen

Despite cautious optimism after the 2005 elections, heralded as the first truly free elections in the country’s history, Iraqi democracy has proven remarkably dysfunctionSource: The Gaurdian al. Iraq has set a new record over, for failing to form a coalition govviolence has ernment after elections. William Warda, a leading Iraqi journalist, described spiked. Hundreds of Iraqis Iraq’s political system as a “building have been killed in attacks standing on a match” ready to fall. since the American withdrawal.

According to analysts at Human Rights Watch, America has left behind a “budding police state” that conducted 34 executions on just one January day.

Many Iraqis had hoped that the American withdrawal would embolden their politicians to cooperate toward true sovereignty. This has not been the case. The question is: why?

Dr. Adrian McIntyre, an expert on the history, culture and politics of the Middle East at Berkeley’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies, ponders whether Iraq has ever had the chance to develop in a state of autonomy. The country has been dominated by the Ottoman Empire since the 14th century has suffered under a British mandate, a

Source: Fox News

See iraqi winter on page 16

international

spring 2012

15

The reality of a united Korea

By Tanay kothari, Staff Writer

W

estern media outlets eagerly labeled North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong-il’s December death as “another day, another doomed despot.” After a year in which revolutions toppled leaders in Libya, Egypt, and Tunisia from power, the world’s most controlled regime finally appeared vulnerable.

In neighboring South Korea, however, political potentates pondered another year whose events have long stood in their minds: 1989, when West and East Germany became unified. South Korea’s deputy unification minister, Kim Chun Sig, ushered in the new year by convening a panel of former German government officials. Although South Korea has long desired a reunified peninsula, which is recognized as a goal in its constitution, North Korea’s massive military has stood in the way.

With the inexperienced Kim Jong-un assuming power in Pyongyang, South Korea is ready to test his mettle.

Even if the threat of military attack does not stand in the way of unification, there are other concerns. In 1960, per capita income in South Korea was a paltry $80. Since, thirty years of growth averaging 8.7 percent have propelled South Korea to the status of an economic powerhouse, and it is now the fifteenth largest economy in the world.

Given that South Korea’s state of non-engagement with its volatile northern neighbor allowed for such pivotal development, South Korea has expressed doubts about the merits of pursuing reunification. Just as West Germany footed almost the entirety of the cost of the reunification process in 1989, South Korea would be required to divest substantial resources to make the move a reality. A Credit Suisse estimate placed the cost at $1.5 trillion.

This figure pales in comparison to that offered by the Atlantic Council’s Pe-

ter Beck, who estimates expenses would rise to close to $5 trillion, five times the size of South Korea’s economy.

On average, North Korean citizens are three inches shorter than their peninsular counterparts and have been subject to continual famines, created as much by food shortages as by government mismanagement.

F u r t h e r m or e, North Korean elites would be averse to reunification, which would land most of the nation’s ruling class in prison, according to Ralph Cossa of the Pacific Forum Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Proponents of reunification contend that its long-term benefits justify meteoric short-term costs. Economist Marcus Noland suggests that a decreased need for military spending in South Korea, coupled with North Korea’s mineral wealth, estimated at over $6 trillion, could make a unified Korea stronger. North Korea’s largely untapped labor force could also swing the deal in favor of reunification.

In all, it seems as though North Korea’s prerequisite for reunification

Source: Scientific American

poses the biggest roadblock to the process: officials desire a unified Korea without a liberalized economy or a democratic political system. The final decision will be no easier for South Korea – the economic toll will far outpace that of German reunification, which to this day has not ensured total parity between the West and the East. It is unclear whether the realization of the South Korean dream will finally bring stability to the peninsula, but to find out, the government will have to assume tremendous risk in pursuit of a previously unthinkable goal. •

16

international

bpr.berkeley.edu

Censorship: From page 13 strict censorship in China’s publishing business by uploading the censored texts in their full form on the web.

Although the Chinese government is throwing its full weight at the legion of bloggers, writers, and activists working online, the medium is much more of a crumbling dam than Beijing cares to admit.

Somewhat closer to home, a surprising contender for the title of Big Bad Censor is, of all places, France. Dubbed the “Big Brother of Europe,” the country has faced protest against its own Internet censorship bills. President Nicolas Sarkozy introduced LOPPSI2 last winter - a bill that reads like a laundry list straight from Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

LOPPSI includes such diverse proposals as legal phone-tapping, beefed-up video surveillance, draconian penalties for cyber-piracy, and, most disturbingly, unprecedented government control over the filtering and blocking any and

all websites deemed “unsuitable” for the public. LOPPSI’s sister bill, HADOPI, authorizes not only state-sanctioned computer Trojan viruses to disconnect users attempting to download copyrighted content, but also the creation of a vast database of information on such individuals, called “Pericles.”

Sarkozy has maintained that LOPPSI is only intended to combat child pornography, but the political opposition believes that the extended reach offered by this bill sets a potentially dangerous precedent for more undemocratic censorship. A representative for political watchdog group Reporters Without Borders has pointed out, “Nobody wants to be seen as fighting an attempt to cut down on kiddie porn [...] But it’s a very slippery slope to more censorship.”

HADOPI was implemented in 2009, and 13 of LOPSI2’s 142 mandates have so far been passed by the French parliament. In the likely event

that this trend continues, there is a very real possibility that France – the birthplace of “Liberty, Equality, and Brotherhood” – could become the most censored country in Europe.

These two countries are only microcosms of the battle against Internet censorship that is currently raging in global cyberspace. Russia uses slippery tactics like requiring real names and addresses for website registrations.

Iran is following in Cuba, Myanmar, and North Korea’s footsteps by working on a “dual Internet” – one for government officials and business, and a far more limited version for the general public.

For millions of people around the world, a bound-and-gagged Internet is not a dystopian nightmare, but a truth as harsh as the morning light. It will be up to vigilant users to guard and fight for Internet freedom in the coming years. •

about one sixth of that number today).

The rule of the Ba’ath Party prior to the first Gulf War was repressive, disastrous in its foreign policy, and far from a model of good governance; nonetheless, it displays a positive correlation between autonomy and strong native institutions. All of this progress “evaporated over 8 years of bloody conflict with Iran” McIntyre explains.

As a result, religious sects provide many basic social services in Iraq.

These groups have established a pervasive influence in national government. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, a foreign-sponsored Sunni strongman, seems to provide the prevailing political model for the newly empowered Shia majority and the ever more authoritarian Mr. Maliki.

McIntyre explains that although

these groups are important, “None of this is new and none of this is a source of conflict. [What is new] is a contemporary power struggle among different groups in the absence of a strong central authority for the first time in people’s memories.”

Iran is suspected of funding Shia militias, including the Mahdi Army, and is known to employ the use of its special Qud forces, while Saudi Arabia is a large source of private donations for Sunni insurgents. In one case, $25 million dollars was transported from a zaqat, a charitable religious tax fund, to a Sunni cleric in Iraq in order to buy munitions. Secular Turkey provides a more benign influence and potential ally for Iraq in the region, but relations are currently mired over cross-border raids into semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan.

America’s withdrawal served as a chance for Iraq to exert its autonomy and build up its own civic institutions.

But the power vacuum was quickly filled by regional powers that have little regard for Iraq’s national interest. Further sanctions on Iran and arm-twisting Saudis would do much to allow for true Iraqi autonomy and political development. Only then can the country begin to govern itself. •

Iraqi winter: From page 14 foreign-sponsored dictator, an American occupation, and now a whole host of interests looking for sway in the young democracy.

This trend was, however, reversed after the 1958 overthrow of the British supported Hashemite monarchy and the 1968 ascension of the Ba’ath Party. The following decades saw the height of Iraqi autonomy, as well as Iraq’s most robust civic institutions in recent years.

Dr. McIntyre points out that the prosperity of the era can largely be attributed to oil, but that the Ba’ath Party did use the influx of money into the treasury for social development projects. The ruling Ba’ath Party oversaw a golden age in Iraqi education, with literacy rates over 90 percent and education spending consuming 20 percent of the government’s budget. This, among similar investments, allowed GDP per capita in Iraq to reach its all time peak of over $6000 (it stands at

America’s withdrawal served as a chance for iraq to exert its autonomy and build up its own civic institutions

Opinion

spring 2012

Credit: F. Hartmann

Friedrich Nietzche, 1875

By Harkaran Singh, Staff Writer

T

he Internet is unquestionably a haven for the dissemination of information. But as the mythical God of free speech against tyrannical governments – some shrouded under provisions of Democracy – the Internet is dead.

And perhaps it should be. The age of Internet innocence spurred and continues to spur the ideas and inventions of such intellectuals as those who recently appeared at TEDx Berkeley on February 4th. Many of the TEDx presenters characterized the Internet as an almost flawless concept, highlighting the trust even the most intellectually inclined place in the web as a perfect medium to exchange ideas.

On the eve of Y2K, Internet philosopher Gordon Graham wrote: “The World Wide Web is power to the people with a vengeance… [it] presents ordinary citizens with the possibility of exercising an unprecedented influence on the social and political events that determine their circumstances and prospects.” The Internet was the frontier, the future – a new secular God. The young millennium has thus far seen some of this potential flourish, but the Internet doesn’t just aid ordinary citizens vying for political empowerment. More corrupt powers have also seen the Internet as a tool to exercise their control.

First example: Egypt 2011, during the revolution against Mubarak’s regime. Mubarak succeeded in completely detaching Egyptians from Internet access for 5 days. In a first, the government proved capable of

Webocracy Won’t Work

completely silencing the public to the online world. Only through active pressure from both inner and outer forces were citizens able to penetrate the deadlock, proving on the one hand the power of traditional “take-it-tothe-streets” activism, and on the other that the Internet remains vulnerable to censorship.

Second example: the fight against SOPA/PIPA, led by many big-name online websites and communities.

Reddit, Google, Wikipedia, WordPress, and many others were forced to take active measures (e.g. Google and Wikipedia including links to your Congresspersons’ offices if you entered your zip code) to halt legislation that would have empowered the government to censor sites at will. Despite these wonderful and very successful displays of protest, many members of Congress still showed interest in pursuing further legislation that could grant them enough power to regulate online content. The success in this protest came only from those who called or petitioned their representatives; in other words, change occurred through good old-fashioned letter writing and phoning, which major websites encouraged and facilitated.

Can we rely on Internet communities to protect our rights to a largely unregulated, uncensored worldwide web? At what point does passive acceptance of the Internet’s almost God-like powers devolve to faulty reasoning and groupthink?

In Denmark, legislation was established to filter underage pornographic sites. Power initially proscribed to filter only those abusing children soon grew to include musicsharing websites like AllOfMP3, and

17

gambling sites. Denmark then blocked citizens from accessing The Pirate Bay, resulting in an outcry from proInternet neutrality citizens worldwide.

The US Government has also taken matters into its own hands when confronted with Internet technology that – as Graham puts it – “presents ordinary citizens with the possibility of exercising an unprecedented influence on…social and political events” and state decisions. The Obama Administration coerced major credit cards and payment service providers to drop support for Wikileaks, maiming the site and helping send founder Julian Assange underground.

This issue of the Berkeley Political Review asks the question: “Webocracy: Who is In Charge?” The world is

We must stop bowing to the internet.

multipolar, but many young people describe the Internet as if it is their party rag, sure to always promote the values with which they agree. We must stop bowing to the Internet.

Germany faced censorship similar to Denmark’s. But, instead of remaining passive, the public elected 15 representatives from The Pirate Party to the Berlin regional parliament, ensuring censorship proponents on the federal level would have a small but vocal opposition in the heart of the capital.

The lesson here is that only through direct displays of electoral power can we truly impact legislation in the long run.

The internet is not a deity. To remain passive is to take no course, and empty discourse without democracy is as dangerous as a dictatorship, only harder to overthrow. •

18

opinion

bpr.berkeley.edu

Three 21st Century Minds Interpret the 18th Century Preamble to the U.S. Constitution By aLEX kRAVITZ, Opinion Editor Nicole Nabulsi, Staff Writer Brendan Pinder, Staff Writer

T

he three of us agree that interpreting 18th Century words in our 21st Century reality poses an inherent difficulty that few politicians address when they commandeer the Constitution for their political agendas. To create a framework for discussion, we adopt a John Rawlsian “veil of ignorance” and imagine the three of us are tasked with dissecting the first draft of a constitution, not knowing what role we will have in the new society. What do we think the writers of this constitution tell us? We begin from the assumption that the Preamble is a cover sheet, an argument for why this constitution is necessary in the first place: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This Constitution is necessary -- its writers argue -- in order to: 1. Form a more perfect Union; 2.

Establish Justice; 3. Ensure domestic Tranquility; 4. Provide for the common defense; 5. Promote the general Welfare; and 6. Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

If we are asked to review a draft of a new country’s constitution and are handed a cover sheet containing only the text of the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, what do we expect to see in the following pages?

1. “Form a more perfect Union” ALEX: A pragmatic utopia: a system of centralized government that both enables localities and foreigners to trade and communicate and directs localities toward certain policy goals that ensure common countrywide character, but allow for localized responses to difficulties.

NICOLE: I find this phrase to be contradictory. How can something be more perfect? Merriam-Webster defines perfection as “excellent or complete beyond practical improvement.” Through the illusion of hope for “a more perfect Union”, politicians will manipulate this contradiction.

BRENDAN: As opposed to a collection of bickering, individualistic states that refuse to cooperate, I expect to see a proposal for a system through which individual states can voice their interests, while making it easier to unite the entire nation in a common goal. ‘Union’ implies that the individual elements within the country will still retain distinctive powers, and that only united do they give legitimacy to the central power.

2. “Establish Justice” ALEX: The U.S. legal system clearly has a huge effect on how I interpret ‘Justice’. I expect to read detailed safeguards, specifically: non-military court system; trial by jury of citizens; rights of non-citizens to the same courts; and burden of proof on the prosecution, with the assumption of

not guilty until proven guilty.

NICOLE: Michel Foucault argues that a certain mindset is already established with ‘justice’.

In Governmentality, he defines the state of justice as “involving a whole reciprocal play of obligation and litigation”. Plainly put, ‘Justice’ -- intentionally capitalized and worshipped -- is the power-giving thing that the country uses to justify its sovereignty. I expect systemic reciprocal “obligation and litigation” that produces different outputs on an individual level, but ultimately functions to maintain the perception of fairness. Citizens must feel they at least have a fair shot at getting their personal ‘Justice’ through the established system in order to prevent rebellion.

BRENDAN: I would expect this point to explain the existence of the court system (stratified by geography and type of crime or tort) and the introduction of penalties more proportional to the particular offense.

Being tried by a jury of one’s peers and the possibility of multiple appeals are reasonable attempts at making the execution of ‘Justice’ fairer and more scientific.

3. “Insure domestic Tranquility” ALEX: This section of the constitution must outline police forces, fire departments and food/ environmental safety administrations, plus forms of entertainment, social events, holidays, prizes of merit, and – most importantly – the rights and responsibilities citizens have regarding participation in the conflict resolution process the established ‘Justice’ entails. But what comes to my mind is an Orwellian nightmare where every disturbing violation of human rights

See Constitution on page 19

Opinion Constitution: From page 18 is sugar coated so that the public feels tranquil (i.e., a world in which ‘torture’ is called something like “enhanced interrogation”, as far-fetched as it might sound).

NICOLE: With the exit of the church from state, the government takes on the responsibility of legitimately claiming a moral high ground.

Domestic tranquility, therefore, means the creation and enforcement of a civil code that doubles as a code of morality. Democracy, meritocracy, equal rights in the previously established ‘Justice’ system, and the various civil rights we take for granted are all included in ‘Tranquility’.

BRENDAN: Hand-in-hand with the “establish Justice” directive, to “insure domestic Tranquility” encompasses the timely and orderly settling of disputes, and also the creation of a police force. I would expect a division of jurisdictional powers.

spring 2012 to read in this section, but I’m sure it’s going to make me uncomfortable.

BRENDAN: This section mandates the government to defend the nation from exterior and interior threats to its safety. Diplomacy and acts of war both fall under this umbrella. The problem remains, however, in determining whether “protecting our interests” is the same as “protecting citizens’ lives.”

When does it become irresponsible for our government to send troops abroad merely to secure material interests, even if no lives are at stake? And does it truly provide a “common defence” if we allow a monopolization of power in the hands of a few elite citizens?

5. “Promote the general Welfare” ALEX: I just want to see what you two have to say about this one. I have my own hopes, of course...

ALEX: An outline of how a disciplined, effective, doesn’t-scareour-citizens military would function in accordance with the other values we’re discussing. I also consider ‘defence’ to be treaties, trade agreements and international peacekeeping bodies, and I expect an explanation of procedure for such body/treaty creation, ratification and enforcement.

NICOLE: Certain ideas function to uphold class systems; promoting the general welfare sounds great.

But according to the USDA, over 16 million children lived in food insecure households in 2010. Would these children feel their general welfare is being “promoted?” It is depressing, but realistically, there’s no way this constitution can outline a government that both allows civil rights and promotes all persons’ well-being.

Leaders will be able to ‘promote’ topdown policies targeted at ‘general welfare’ rather than needing to ‘insure’ anything as important as ‘domestic Tranquility’, i.e. stability.

NICOLE: Initially, ‘the common defence’ means defending against pirates that are threatening citizens and their merchant enterprises: the facts are fairly simple. On 9/11, ‘terrorists’ crash a plane into the World Trade Center: the facts are not simple.

What is a terrorist? How should the state defend against ‘Terror’? Media is empowered to ‘answer’ these questions for the public and thus define what exactly comprises ‘the common defence’. I have no clue what I’m going

BRENDAN: How many countless programs, departments and bureaucracies have arisen, justified in the name of “the general welfare?”

I understand the need for ambiguity here, it allows for this constitution to be a living document, changeable with the times. Yet, just how far should we take this phrase? To me, it should mean only public safety, sanitation, food safety laws, and the construction and maintaining of basic infrastructure.

4. “Provide for the common defence”

19

6. “Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” ALEX: I anticipate stringent restrictions on overstepping certain boundaries, which should be termed ‘inalienable rights’, rights that naturally exist with humanity, regardless of citizenship. In order to ‘secure’ these ‘Blessings of Liberty’ for ‘our Posterity’, we must make sure the next generation will protect and defend our ideals; the best way to do this is to value the ideal of critical thinking, because to do so preempts attempts to subvert ideals through critical thinking (clever, eh?). An education system is implied. Everyone being educated that everyone deserves respect will automatically create an egalitarian culture, one that will be upheld by that minority of students who learn that ‘knowing’ how great things ‘are’ is useless if you don’t go out to make things better.

NICOLE: Focusing on the ‘our’ and ‘ourselves’ creates an implicit ‘other’, which can be used for political ends. This discourse implies that non-citizens are not worthy of the same rights as citizens. Thus, this constitution will delineate ‘the Blessings of Liberty’ to which citizens are entitled and that the government is sworn to protect, but gladly exploit non-citizen ‘others’ for the benefit of citizens.

BRENDAN: The point of this section is to create a system of government that can adapt to the times, but will never lose its fundamental emphasis on personal liberty. This necessitates an amendment process that allows change while maintaining the primacy of the constitution and its message.

To ‘secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity’, we must maintain a peaceful and transparent system of constant deliberation (e.g.

Congress) so that these potential changes can be made publicly and democratically. •

20

bpr.berkeley.edu

Editorial Cartoon Kathleen Sheffer, staff writer

Thank You to our sponsor This content was made possible in part due to generous donations

by Kaplan Test Prep, Inc.

opinion

Interested in writing for Berkeley’s only non-partisan political quarterly?

We’re always looking for new writers, layout designers, editors, cartoonists, and photographers.

Go to bpr.berkeley.edu for information on how to join!

arts & entertainment

spring 2012

The Credit: WikiMedia Commons

By Norman Cahn, Staff Writer

ound

of Silence An End to Cyber Freedom

S

OPA. PIPA. To many these acronyms belong in George Orwell’s 1984. The bills, designed to counter online trading of copyrighted intellectual property and counterfeit goods, would prohibit ad agencies from conducting business with said websites, bar search engines from providing links to these sites, and encourage court orders to Internet service providers to ban access to the infringing material.

Perhaps most terrifying to Internet voices is the second section of the bill, in which penalties are expanded to unlicensed streaming of copyrighted material. Contributors to user-content generated websites such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter would face prosecution for uploading illegal material. While this may seem to be a beacon of hope for “lolcat”-haters nationwide, it would be lethal to something as innocent as a parent filming their child singing the latest (copyrighted) Justin Bieber song.

CalTV Executive Director Kevin Cohen expressed concern over the potential for this media war. Cohen claims, “YouTube is created by its users and it is nearly impossible to control all of the content uploaded to the site…

[They] would be hard pressed to keep out all illegally procured content.

Without the ability to gate-keep, YouTube would probably be outlawed.”

While Cohen’s vision may be a worst-case scenario, it is actually not all that far from reality. The legislation, which would compel user-content sites to monitor their own material, would impose massive liability costs to numerous Internet

21

companies. Jason Schultz, Director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the UC Berkeley School of Law, fears, “if the government or private copyright owners can threaten to remove you from the DNS (Domain Name System) directory or cut off your payment systems at any moment merely by positing that you encourage copyright infringement, then few VC’s (Venture Capitalists) and other investors will want to risk their money on new internet ventures.”

With virtually every website that provides outbound links and user-content at risk of being shut down, Internet startups would suffer considerably, unable to obtain the necessary funds to get off the ground. In an ad posted in the New York Times, Internet giants such as Google, Facebook, and eBay voiced this message to Congress and the public, claiming they were “concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job creation.”

Many compare the bills’ stipulations to Internet restriction methods practiced in China and Iran. Currently, the State Department helps fund organizations that make software that maneuvers around foreign censorship to provide democratic activism a boost. Ironically enough, since many such sites provide downloadable copyrighted material, they too would be threatened by the legislation. Tor, a program used to mask users’ IP addresses that was influential during the Egypt protests, is one such example, as copyright holders would target it. The highly oiled gears of Internet protest may themselves be threatened, as opinionated individuals become unable to voice their opinions using Tor, YouTube, or other such interfaces.

The Internet has expanded the bounds of political and entertainment media in ways that its creators could hardly have foreseen. While the threat of SOPA and PIPA has subsided for the time being, web users must keep a vigilant eye out for future restrictions that bear a resemblance to the bills. As the nation’s close brush with internet censorship revealed, poorly designed controls would irreparably damage online entertainment as we know it. •

22

Arts & Entertainment

bpr.berkeley.edu

Stephen Colbert’s recent political endeavors highlight the blurred line between politics and satire.

Credit: Richard Ellis, Getty Images

By Daphne Chen, Staff Writer

O

n January 12, 2012, Stephen Colbert made a declaration on The Colbert Report, the likes of which the world had never before seen. “I am forming an exploratory committee,” he announced, “to lay the groundwork for my possible candidacy for the president of the United States of South Carolina.”

Over the past few years, political comedian and host Stephen Colbert has managed to take his unique brand of sarcasm and turn it into a living, breathing political campaign. He began by forming his own super PAC, “Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow,” which has released numerous political ads during the 2012 primary season.

Upon announcing his candidacy, Colbert was forced to transfer ownership of his super PAC to fellow comedian Jon Stewart, who subsequently renamed it, “The Definitely Not Coordinating With Stephen Colbert SuperPAC.” Colbert has made it clear that his aspirations to win any existent or nonexistent positions are anything but serious. However, despite the “cornographic” commercials and attempts to link Mitt Romney to a serial killer, Stephen Colbert’s super PAC has

managed to raise over a million dollars, suggesting some serious implications regarding exactly where the line between entertainment and politics is drawn.

In a press release, Colbert said, “We raised (the million) on my show and used it to materially influence the elections – in full accordance with the law. It’s the way our founding fathers would have wanted it, if they had founded corporations instead of just a country.”

Colbert’s super PAC has enabled him to contribute to and against many presidential campaigns, particularly in the ongoing GOP primaries. When Colbert threw his support behind Herman Cain during Cain’s suspended campaign, Cain gained a surprising 1 percent of the South Carolina primary vote – not enough to win the nomination, but more than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

By using his influence as a wellknown political comedian with a successful show, Colbert has the ability to reach out to a wide number of viewers on a nightly basis – so much so that it reinforces the idea of the media as the “fourth branch of government.”

“There (have) always been people making fun of politics,” Cal Democrat Communications Director Mia Hodge said. “This is a way of adapting that tradition to modern mainstream media

Money... always finds a way to get in.

with cable television.”

Throughout United States history, the media has taken the role of exposing issues many Americans may not otherwise be aware of. In the process, the media can “prime” viewers to pay attention to certain events more than others – and Colbert is no exception. “(Colbert) is pointing out the complexities of the legal system of campaign finance and how various laws are intertwined,” said Berkeley College Republican Executive Director Andy Nevis. Through his comedy and satirical stunts, both Colbert and his show bring to light the evolution of politics today.

“I once had a professor that said money in politics is like water and no matter how many times you try to reform the system or create new regulation, it always finds a way to get in,” said Hodge.

Beyond the satire of The Colbert Report, Colbert demonstrates the very blurry line between media and politics. Humor may lend a greater, more engaging insight into the complicated world of politics, but painting politics with a sarcastic brush can also create more cynicism towards the system.

Of course, behind all good satire lies at least a sliver of truth. Perhaps by understanding the reasoning behind the humor, Americans may gain more political awareness.

“Satirical programs can help point out the absurdity of virtually anything,” Nevis said. “Once you dig down into the satirical message, you find the point. [Humor] is a way of getting people engaged [and] it’s going to continue to get people engaged.” •

advertisement

spring 2012

23