Bellarmine Political Review Fall 2016 Vol. 5 Issue 1 by Ankit Mukherjee

FA L L 2 0 1 6 | V O L . 5 I S S U E 1

S TA F F MO DE R AT O R Dr. Deirdre Sullivan

E DI T OR S - IN - C HIE F Ryan Biland ’17 Ankit Mukherjee ’17

M A N A GIN G E DI T O R Arvind Sridhar ’17

DE S IG N E DI T O R Ankit Mukherjee ’17

C O P Y E DI T O R S Ryan Biland ’17 Arvind Sridhar ’17

S TA F F W RI T E R S Aditya Behal ’20 Ryan Biland ’17 Adam Brown ’17 Andre Cristofi ’18 Akshaj Dwivedula ’20 Josh Fluegemann ’17 Matt Lowe ’17 Shobhan Mangla ’20 Ankit Mukherjee ’17 Arvind Sridhar ’17 Anish Sundar ’20 Alec Vandenberg ’16 Samuel Yi ’18 The opinions expressed in this issue are those of the writers, and are not the viewpoints of Bellarmine College Preparatory. All images cited are published under a Creative Commons License or protected under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976 as “fair use.”

O N T HE C O V E R We face a nation increasingly polarized, disunified, and plagued by political vitriol. ILLUSTRATION BY ANKIT MUKHERJEE.

CON T EN T S DOME S T IC P OL I T IC S T HE DI V IDE D S TAT E S OF A ME RIC A CL IN T ON : ON T W HE IS S UE S T RUMP : ON T HE IS S UE S T HE C A S E F OR CL IN T ON T HE C A S E F OR T RUMP P UL L ING S T RING S IN RE T R O S P E C T T- B ONE D A L L A B OU T T HE M ONE Y T RIG GE R F INGE R E L E VAT E D RIS K B L A CK A ND BL UE T HE B ONE Z ONE T HE DI V IDE MO V ING F OR WA RD RE S P E C T IN P OL I T IC S

The Angry Tumbleweed

Arvind Sridhar

Matt Lowe

Akshaj Dwivedula

Adam Brown

Aditya Behal

Alec Vandenberg

Ryan Biland

Anish Sundar & Josh Fluegemann

Andre Cristofi

Arvind Sridhar

Shoban Mangla

Ryan Biland

Adam Brown

Ryan Biland

Adam Brown

IN T ERN AT ION A L P OL I T IC S B RE A K ING OU T C A UGH T IN T HE F R AY S E E K ING RE F UGE OP E C C U T S INF E C T ION CHOP P Y S E A S

Matt Lowe

Arvind Sridhar

Andre Cristofi

Samuel Yi

Arvind Sridhar

Samuel Yi

S CIENCE & T E CHNOL OG Y RO T T E N A P P L E S C ON TA INING T HE BL A S T

Josh Fluegemann

Arvind Sridhar

PHOTOGRAPH BY TRENT YARNELL, UNSPLASH

THE DIVIDED STATES OF AMERICA

UNDERS TA NDING T HE CH A NGING FA CE OF OUR N AT ION by T H E A N G R Y T U M B L E W E E D

“Bye-bye, white guy.” America’s population is undergoing revolutionary demographic change. ILLUSTRATION BY ANKIT MUKHERJEE

W ORK S CI T E D Bump, Phillip. “What America Will Look like in 2050, in 4 Charts.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 3 Apr. 2015. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. By Jie Zong and Jeanne Batalova. “Frequently Requested Statistics on Immigrants and Immigration in the United States.” Migrationpolicy.org. Migration Policy Institute, 14 Apr. 2016. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. Chavez, Linda. “Linda Chavez - Identity Politics Are Bad for Everyone.” TownHall. TownHall, 20 May 2016. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. Hamilton, B.E. “GE3 Fertility Rates.” Data Bank (2016): 1-11. Child Trends Data Bank. Child Trends Data Bank, Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. “Legal Immigration to the United States, 1820-Present.” Migrationpolicy.org. Migration Policy Institute, 24 May 2016. Web. 21 Oct. 2016. Olen, John. “Illegal Immigration and NAFTA | Economy In Crisis.” Economy In Crisis RSS. Economy In Crisis, 5 Feb. 2011. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

0 4 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

O D AY, I F Y O U L O O K T O Y O U R L E F T, T H E N

look to your right, there’s a 63% chance on average you’re going to see a white person. You might even be one of these white people. If you are, I have news for you. You are a dying breed. Your numbers are waning. Slowly but surely, you are being outbred, outvoted, and becoming obsolete. At least, that’s what will happen if things continue as they are. Let’s get controversial, and talk about race, immigration and politics of the mid-21st century, and talk about why political divisions and rhetoric like the statements mentioned above are going to become a mainstream political strategy for the foreseeable future. Demographic change will mean that the America of the future will be radically different from what it is today. So without further ado, let’s dive right in. First a bit of historical context. For over 200 years, the United States was a more than 80% white country. That had massive influence on our culture, values, and heritage. Other than immigration overhaul in the 60s that replaced the quota system and increased the immigration limit, two things happened to slowly start a fundamental demographic change. First was Amnesty from Reagan. Amnesty allowed illegal immigrants that were in the United States to stay here. No questions asked. However, it was only until the presidency of Bill Clinton that real changes began. In 1992, Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement into law. NAFTA destroyed the livelihoods of many poor Mexican farmers because of unfair trade practices. With their income and previous life destroyed, many people felt their only choice was to hop the fence, legally and illegally, into the United States. Additionally, immigration restrictions were further relaxed, allowing for almost 1 million people to come into the United States each year. Bye-bye, white guy. The ’65 reform, Amnesty, and NAFTA fallout has created a system that will fundamentally change American demographics if the nation stays its current course. Right now, whites are at 63% of the population (down one percent per year). In 2055, they will be the minority. Remember in 2012 when Romney wrote off 47% of the country? White people will be that 47%. This will happen for a few reasons.

First, whites are being out immigrated. The foreign-born population in the United States has gone from 9 million in 1970, or 4.7% of the population, to 41.3 million in 2010, or 13.1% of the population—a fourfold increase. There are more foreign born people in the US than there are blacks. The vast majority of immigration, legal and illegal, is from Latin America and Asia. 19 million people in the United States right now claim to have Latin heritage, which is about 46% of legal immigrants. Whites are also being outbred. It seems easy to point to the cause of demographic change as immigration, but that may no longer be the case. In fact, most of this change is now coming from the Hispanic community in the US. In 2055, they’re projected to be 25% of the population. Of the Hispanics and Latinos in the US, only 35% of them are actually foreign born. The vast majority are born stateside. In terms of Latinos under the age of 18, 85% were born here. This means that America’s demographic change is largely being changed from the inside. You can build all the walls you want. Even if Mexico pays for ‘em all, it’s not going to matter. If you look at birthrates, (which is measured in births per thousand) the Hispanic birth rate is 72.1. For non-Hispanic whites, it’s 59.5. That means that white people are being outbred at a ratio of 1.2 to 1. All birthrates in the United States have been falling, but whites have consistently underbred Hispanics. African Americans and Asian Americans will continue at their respective demographic percentages for the most part, but will increase in overall population. All this stacks up to a 2055 demographic breakdown of 47% White, 25% Hispanic, 13% black, and 15% other (Asians, Indians, Natives and Alaskans). We live in the proto-form of the Divided States of America. The fact that we will become a plurality (no one dominant ethnic group) is going to make this far, far worse, because modern politicians claim to care for specific ethnic groups. That threatens to do irreparable harm to the country. The damage done comes in the form of our collective American identity. For a long time, up until about the 1970s, Americans had a cohesive national identity as Americans, because immigrants would assimilate to our culture, and fall in to the world-renowned American melting pot. Sure, they’d add their own flavor

to Americana, and these additions have been welcome and good for the most part, but overall they would be through and through Americans. With the advent of identity politics, this has changed. Politicians now pit ethnic and racial groups against each other (read: white people) and promise that they empathize with the plight of their group. Pandering to minorities has now become something of a political Olympic sport. It’s a great strategy though, because people vote in their interests, and who can blame them? When someone shows up and claims to represent your group’s interests, why wouldn’t you vote for them? This form of politics has had some serious side effects though. By dividing the nation against itself, through singling out racial groups and claiming to represent their specific interests, the identity of being an American is obliterated. We will no longer be a melting pot. Instead, we will be a discordant stew of ice cream, pizza, and hamburger cheese, each pitted against each other. No longer will it be feasible to say “I’m an American.” Something else must be attached to that. You’re either an African, Latino, Asian, Indian, or some other kind of American. With a plurality in the country, politics of division will only be easier. With a massive Latino voting bloc, and other bigger voting blocs, splitting America by demographic group will be far easier. This is largely because America will lack a definitive culture. With rapid demographic change comes rapid cultural change as well. Culture is what holds a nation together. From the way we talk, to the sports we care about, to the movies we watch and the way we treat our neighbor, our culture defines who we are. Demographic change in the United States isn’t definitively good or bad, but we don’t have to give in to divisive politics and pit demographics against each other. Unless we as a nation unite, 2055 will mark the signing of the Constitution of the Divided States of America.

ON THE ISSUES:

HILLARY CLINTON A BRE A K DOW N OF CL IN T ON ’ S V ISION F OR A ME RIC A A ND T HE W ORL D IF EL EC T E D P RE SIDE N T by A R V I N D S R I D H A R

LINTON’S ECONOMIC VISION BEGINS

with reforming the tax system: she seeks to eliminate loopholes to make sure that the wealthiest Americans and the largest corporations pay their fair share in taxes. Consequently, she aims to bolster the middle class with tax relief and, through other initiatives like raising the federal minimum wage and fostering collective worker progress initiatives, push more Americans into the middle class. For her, the middle class serves as the foundation of a strong economy, as they are the ones who then spend in order to provide happy lives for their families. Clinton also aims to cut taxes on small businesses to foster their growth, an initiative likely influenced by her father—a small business owner. Using the new taxes generated from the wealthiest Americans and corporations, Clinton aims to finance job increases, debt-free college, and other measures to reduce inequality, without adding to the current federal debt. Clinton is also strongly supportive of prolonging Medicare and Social Security, which she aims to finance using the new tax money that the upper class will be forced to pay.

0 6 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

N T H E R E A L M O F F O R E I G N P O L I C Y, C L I N T O N ’ S

experience as Secretary of State will come in handy. While Clinton, like President Obama, is reluctant to commit ground troops in the fight against ISIS, she has pushed for intensifying coalition airstrikes against ISIS targets. She is also supportive of further training of Arab and Kurdish ground forces to fight ISIS and protect civilians. She also recognizes the need to disrupt the global technological network that has enabled ISIS to thrive: she aims to work with allies and tech companies to fight jihadist propaganda online, intercept ISIS communication, and intervene when someone has been radicalized by such propaganda. As for the issues of immigration and refugees, Clinton is for vetting all those who choose to come into the U.S., especially refugees from Syria. She does not want to give up on the U.S.’s humanitarian duties in accepting these refugees, but understands the risk posed. As she accentuated in the debate, she also seeks to galvanize the Muslim-American community to serve as another set of eyes and ears against radical terrorism. Clinton is also supportive of giving illegal immigrants who came in from Latin America and other destinations a pathway to citizenship. Her philosophy is to support those immigrants who work hard and have proven themselves capable of partaking in the American way of life, with amnesty. Lastly, Clinton seeks to reform the systems that are working unfairly for Veterans.

L I N T O N I S A P R O P O N E N T O F E A R LY

childhood education and bolstering our K-12 public school system, to ensure that all children are given a chance to express their potential. She also aims to make college debt-free for Americans who currently struggle with student loans for higher education. She supports charter schools and Common Core. In the realm of health care, Clinton has maintained that Obamacare should be improved upon but not replaced: she aims to tackle rising premiums and other detrimental aspects of the system for the benefit of working-class Americans who rely on the new service. Clinton is also a strong supporter of comprehensive background checks of those looking to buy guns, to curb the national pandemic of gun violence. She seeks to implement an assault weapons ban but affirms she respects the Second Amendment. Additionally, Clinton seeks to work to bridge the dichotomy between African Americans and law enforcement, is pro-choice when it comes to abortion, and is pro-LGBT rights.

W ORK S CI T ED Clinton, Hillary. “Learn more about Hillary’s vision for America.” Zezima, Katie and Matthew Callahan. “Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton on the issues.” September 23, 2016.

ON THE ISSUES:

DONALD TRUMP

A BRE A K DO W N OF T RUMP ’ S V ISION F OR A ME RIC A A ND T HE W ORL D IF E L EC T E D P RE SIDE N T

by M A T T L O W E

R A D E I S I M P O R TA N T T O T R U M P. T H U S , H E

continually attacks Clinton on NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), an agreement that was put into effect under Bill Clinton’s administration and that she supported. Trump wants to renegotiate NAFTA to make it a fairer deal for both the US and our NAFTA partners. Aside from radically positively transforming NAFTA, Trump wants to completely withdraw from the TPP (TransPacific Partnership) describing the possible signing of the deal as a “…death blow for American manufacturing.”1 Trump’s foreign trade policy is one of economic nationalism, where he believes in ensuring fair terms for all countries involved. Domestically, his tax plan is to reduce the business tax 35% to 15% while completing eliminating the corporate alternative minimum tax. Under this plan, all businesses, ranging from mom-and-popshops to massive corporations, will be allowed to keep more of their profits for reinvestment. Other tax breaks include repealing the 3.8% Affordable Care Act tax, abolishing the death tax, lowing income tax for low-income Americans through reducing the number of tax brackets to three, and finally allowing deductions for childcare and eldercare for a dependent. As a whole, both individual and corporate taxes will be lowered to keep more money flowing in our economy.

RUMP HAS TWO MAIN FOCUSES OF HIS

foreign policy plan: eradicating ISIS and building a glorious wall. In order to defeat ISIS, Trump supports working with Arab allies on the ground in the Middle East and taking part in joint operations. Trump will work with Congress to revamp our military, as there is waste and fraud right now. Part of rebuilding the budget is expanding the number of units to the recommended and wanted amount by head of staffs for each branch. This includes increasing the Army to 540,000 active duty soldiers, growing the Marines to 36 battalions, maintaining a fleet of 350 Navy ships and having 1,200 combat-ready Air Force aircraft. In terms of immigration, part of Trump’s immigration plan is to temporarily ban immigration from countries that currently have volatile conflict and warfare until better screening procedures can be developed. Trump wants to construct a massive physical barrier to stem the flow of illegal aliens from Mexico and the rest of Central and South America. Trump also wants to develop current immigration laws to further ensure applicants support American values, institutions and have the ability to be self-sufficient financially.

S TA U N C H

SUPPORTER

THE

Constitution, Trump looks to defend Americans’ Constitutional Rights while choosing a Supreme Court Justice that holds similar values to Justice Antonin Scalia. In full support of the Second Amendment, Trump wants to repeal unconstitutional restrictions, while also reforming the background check procedure to ensure that constitutional rights are protected while dangerous criminals stay unarmed. In a show of commitment to education, Trump seeks to invest $20 billion towards school choice for every school-aged child. He also proposes that attending a 2 or 4 year college or attending a trade school should be made significantly cheaper. Finally, Trump wants to take care of our veterans, and will work to make the wait time for physical and mental treatments much shorter, while increasing access.

W ORK S CI T ED Trump, Donald J.. “Policies.” Ballotpedia. “2016 Presidential Candidates on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal.” Ballotpedia.org. 13 Apr. 2016.

Clinton is lauded by some as the most qualified presidential candidate yet. PHOTO BY JEFF ROBERSON, AP

THE CASE FOR

HILLARY CLINTON W H Y T HE DEMOCR AT IC C A NDIDAT E SHOUL D W IN T HE 2 0 16 P RE SIDEN T I A L EL EC T ION by A K S H A J D W I V E D U L A

0 8 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W Â· N O V. 2 0 1 6

HE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION THIS YEAR

has been a farce for the Republican side. A businessman who has no idea about politics is actually able to win the Republican nomination to run for President. Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, highly qualified and clear frontrunner Hillary Clinton won the Democratic nomination. Even without looking at the facts, which just emphasizes the point, it is safe to say that Hillary Clinton is the obvious choice to be President: not only because of her ideas and abilities, but also the incompetence of her opponent. First off, we should vote for Hillary Clinton because of her experience. Mrs. Clinton is arguably the most experienced candidate this country has ever seen. She has been married to former president Bill Clinton for two decades, as well as serving as New York State Senator from 2001 to 2009 and Secretary of State from 2009 to 2012. In this time, Secretary Clinton helped to clean up the mess the Bush administration left, including a toxic Middle East. Secretary Clinton has conversed with some of the world’s most powerful people, and she is no stranger to looking after our country’s affairs. In 2012, Secretary Clinton negotiated a cease-fire between Israel and Palenstine that would have otherwise caused a major conflict in the Middle East. After looking at the zero political experience that her opponent Donald Trump professes, it is evident how Secretary Clinton’s experience would help our country in times of crisis. After the obvious reason why we should vote for Secretary Clinton, her overall plan for the future of our government is much more comprehensive than anything Donald Trump has proposed or written. In a CBS news article written on August 12, 2016, Hillary Clinton’s tax plans would bring in $1.1 trillion to America over the course of 10 years, while Mr. Trump’s tax plan would actually lose $9 trillion dollars in revenue for the government. Mr. Trump says that he has a solution to offset this major loss, but this plan is murky and

wishful. Both Secretary Clinton and Donald Trump try to give tax benefits to child care, but Mr. Trump’s benefits would not help 45% of the people it is meant for. Meanwhile Secretary Clinton’s plan to give tax credit for little children would actually help low income and middle class families. On the issue of climate change and energy, Mr. Trump wants to undo all of President Obama’s progress, overhauling 8 years of executive action in the White House. He wants to cut all the regulations for emissions and factories, allowing them to pollute the air and make America into the next China. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton would actually build off of what President Obama has created, allowing our country to move forward rather than backwards. Finally, on trade: both candidates have the same idea for what to do, but Secretary Clinton actually has solutions that can work. Donald Trump is willing to jeopardize the trade agreements that our country has just to get some that are “more advantageous.” He says this even though NAFTA has been working out well for all the parties involved. The epitome of Mr. Trump’s incompetence will come when he places a 45% tariff on all businesses that leave the U.S. but won’t answer if this will cause a trade war and increased prices. Meanwhile, Secretary Clinton actually has plans, such as one to reward companies for staying in the U.S. and paying for a program that would allow the companies to start American jobs. Secretary Clinton is also not going to break apart any trade agreements the U.S. has that actually benefit this country.

about his heinous acts, such as in the released 2005 Access Hollywood tape. Trump is facing trial for these allegations and more. Donald Trump is also a racist. In New York City, he was sued for not allowing African Americans to rent his apartments; he made up random rules and told them that the apartments were filled. Donald Trump was also sued for mistreating illegal Polish workers by allowing them to work and then not paying them, threatening them with deportation. Donald Trump has more allegations of illegal acts against him than I have fingers to count, and these acts are arguably worse than anything Secretary Clinton has done in her life. No matter the issue, Hillary Clinton has a more concrete and Presidential plan than Donald Trump, and Secretary Clinton is the most experienced person we could have leading our country. She will lead us through the trying times our country will face, and she is the best person for the job.

But perhaps the most pressing reason why we must vote for Hillary Clinton this November lies in the scandals, shortcomings, and failures of Donald J. Trump. Donald Trump has perpetrated more heinous scandals than Secretary Clinton. There are dozens of court cases in which Mr. Trump has been sued for sexual harassment or assault. Mr. Trump, in various videos, has confessed and bragged

W ORK S CI T E D Bump, Phillip. “Is Hillary Clinton the Most Experienced Presidential Candidate in History?” Washington Post. The Washington Post. 14 June 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. Case, Steve. “Why I’m Voting for Hillary Clinton.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 28 Sept. 2016. Web. 11 Oct. 2016. Graham, David A. “The Many Scandals of Donald Trump.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 13 Oct. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. Miller, Jake. “Comparison Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.” CBS.com. CBS, 12 Aug. 2016. Web. 21 Oct. 2016.

Despite the seemingly invincible establishment opposition, Trump has surged forward and closed the gap. PHOTO BY YAHOO

THE CASE FOR

DONALD TRUMP

W H Y T HE REP UBL IC A N C A NDIDAT E SHOUL D W IN T HE 2 0 16 P RE SIDEN T I A L EL EC T ION by A D A M B R O W N

1 0 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W Â· N O V. 2 0 1 6

N THE END, YOU’RE MEASURED NOT BY HOW

much you undertake but by what you finally accomplish.” – Donald J. Trump. For millions of individuals all across this nation, failed Democratic policies (many underneath President Obama) have crippled our labor market and sown globalist seeds in treacherous soil. This election is far more than just choosing a Commander-inChief for the next four years; it is also the selection of at least one, possibly even three Supreme Court Justices to uphold the crucial rule of law. The impact of this election will be felt economically, educationally, and most critically at our borders; we need a candidate who will not bow to the pressure of the pocket book and one who can enact change at the local, state, and federal levels. That candidate is none other than Donald J. Trump, an economic and social liberator come to save the United States from the “false song of globalism.” Although this election varies from any in previous history through a variety of factors, the largest issue for the general voting population remains the American economy. On this front, the Democratic platform lead by President Obama has been a resolute failure. A record 94,708,000 working-age Americans are not participating in the employment market due to the President’s reckless job policy. Hillary Clinton pledges to continue her predecessor’s failed economic policies and make Americans worse off. Additionally, Clinton intends to punish hard-working, successful Americans by imposing a ruinous tax code predicted to force middle-class Americans to play $176 more annually on average. Trump intends to lower taxes across the board, resulting in a median tax savings of $1,818 per person. Moreover, Trump intends to assist both small and large businesses by removing the crushing corporate tax rate from 35% to 15%, resulting in an immediate job growth of approximately 2 million jobs. By making it less expensive to participate in

local and national economies, independent watchdog organizations including The Tax Foundation estimate that Trump’s policies will provide the United States with 25 million jobs over the next ten years. Such essential reform in both the tax and economic spheres provided by Donald Trump are essential improvements to revitalize and enhance America’s economy. While the economy may be the central matter in this election, America’s children are on the national docket as well. Trump has advocated for school choice since the very first day of the campaign: a method for families to withdraw from failing institutions in favor of prosperous schools with bright futures. Secretary Clinton refuses to participate in school choice, instead opting to support villainous teacher’s unions which put salaries ahead of student success. Trump’s bold new plan to reprioritize student choice instead of opting for dated, archaic education systems will breathe new life and overhaul our failed public education system which have put American students at the bottom of the pack. Donald J. Trump will expedite scholastic success through school choice, ensuring that every pupil in the United States receives a lifelong education tailored for our changing world. While this election discusses needed reforms with the economy and education, perhaps where current policy is being trampled most is at our southern border. Many fabricated truths have been circulated by the Clinton campaign, but Donald Trump is not a racist bigot. He is an American liberator, putting Americans and their jobs first. Unlike Clinton, who will encourage the policy of illegal amnesty, Trump will enforce the rule of law, especially President Reagan’s 1986 Immigration and Control Act prohibiting American employers from hiring illegal immigrants. In sharp contrast to Secretary Clinton, Trump will end the abhorrent policy of non-enforcement regarding sanctuary

cities, which resulted in the murder of an innocent San Franciscan in July 2015. With the endorsement of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Trump will work to bring control back to our own local law enforcement, instead of bowing to foreign pressures. But most critically, Trump will build a necessary and vital border wall with Mexico which he assures Mexico will fund. By curtailing illegal wire transfers, enforcing trade tariffs, imposing visa fees, and canceling visas if necessary, President Trump will assist the Mexican government in repaying the money stolen from the United States. Donald Trump will revolutionize our immigration policy, while Clinton will fall to globalist gibberish. Without exception, our nation must be free from leaders who have committed crimes against this nation and its citizens. The left has perpetually protested the “derogatory,” “spiteful,” and “misogynistic” rhetoric of Donald Trump; in reality, Mr. Trump is a celebrated American champion who has brave but fundamental policy vision to redefine this nation for the better. He is not a racist; he recognizes that poisonous Democratic policies have crippled many African American and Hispanic communities, leaving them in fatal cycles of degradation. He is not a misogynist nor a sexist; his company was a pioneer for providing women and men equivalent pay for equal work. Hillary Clinton is a criminal who has made a mockery of America abroad with Benghazi, as well as made America more insecure with her atrocious email scandal. Although he may be rough around the edges, Donald J. Trump provides exceptional domestic and foreign policy to repair Democratic policy mistakes and reinvigorate the American market. This election, vote Trump to Make America Great Again!

W ORK S CI T E D

Jones, Susan. “Record 94,708,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Drops in May.” CNS News. N.p., 03 June 2016. Web. 19 Oct. 2016. Nyce, Caroline M., and Chris Bodenner. “Looking Back at Amnesty Under Reagan.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 23 May 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. O’Donnell, Katy. “Ivanka Trump Pitches Father as Champion of Women.” POLITICO. N.p., 21 July 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. Sanchez, Ray. “Kate Steinle’s Family Files Federal Lawsuit.” CNN. Cable News Network, 28 May 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. The Tax Foundation. “Details and Analysis of the Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan, September 2016.” Tax Foundation. N.p., 19 Sept. 2016. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. Trump, Donald J. “Education.” Donald J. Trump For President, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. Trump, Donald J. “Immigration.” Donald J. Trump For President, n.d. Web. 20 Oct. 2016. Trump, Donald J. “Tax Plan.” Donald J. Trump For President, n.d. Web. 19 Oct. 2016. Trump, Donald J. Twitter. Twitter, 31 Dec. 2014. Web. 19 Oct. 2016. <https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/550318647215144960>.

PULLING STRINGS T HE DNC L E A K S A ND W H AT T HE Y T E L L US A BOU T T HE CL IN T ON C A MPA IGN

by A D I T Y A B E H A L

With Clinton pulling DNC strings, it seems to some that democracy was denied. PHOTO BY MATT ROURKE, AP

AT I N G B A C K T O T H E C O L D WA R , I T WA S

common practice for superpowers like the U.S. and Russia to try to hack and steal intelligence information from one another. The Pentagon in 1996 discovered that Russia regularly attempted to break into government servers. Whenever they could, they stole copies of critical U.S. intelligence. However, Russia never tried to use the stolen information to directly influence political elections in the United States—until now. In July 2016, hackers were able to hack

1 2 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

into the DNC email server, getting access to the chairwoman’s account. Prior to the Democratic convention, those emails were published by WikiLeaks. The damage was tremendous, as it confirmed to Bernie Sanders’ supporters that the DNC wanted Clinton to win the primary and were actively helping her. This lead the DNC chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, to resign. The hackers in August of 2016 commented about the election: “As you see, the U.S. presidential elections are becoming a farce.”

The hackers had been plotting for months, but their work had gone unnoticed. In the fall of 2015, the FBI indirectly told the DNC to inspect their security. Then, in May of 2016, the DNC hired the cybersecurity company CrowdStrike. The company discovered that two groups of hackers under aliases of Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear had been stealing the DNC’s documents starting as early as the summer of 2015. CrowdStrike determined Russia to be behind the hacks but was surprised because the two hacker groups seemed unaware of each other. It thought

that Cozy Bear was being supported by the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency, and Fancy Bear by the FSB, which is in charge of domestic Russian affairs. Then, a website belonging to Guccifer 2.0 was created. Guccifer 2.0 claimed that the hacks were orchestrated solely by himself or herself and instructed people to disregard CrowdStrike’s findings. The hacker tried to prove this by publishing DNC documents and said that the majority of the hacked documents were given to WikiLeaks. The result was that over 2,000 confidential DNC documents were released to the public. On October 7th, the Obama administration formally accused Russia for orchestrating the DNC hacks. The director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper, and the Department of Homeland Security jointly issued a statement saying the leaked emails “are intended to interfere with the U.S. election process.” The accusation saying that a Russian company was at fault didn’t mention that the Russian President Vladimir Putin or the government was supporting that company. Russia clearly wants to influence the election in Donald Trump’s favor, and the Clinton campaign has stated this many times. Another issue to note regards to Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. While she was secretary of state, she maintained a private

email server that posed a high security risk. When investigated by the FBI and Congress, she claimed she was unaware of this security risk. Furthermore, she deleted 33,000 emails which she deemed as personal and unrelated to the investigation, but the FBI managed to recover several thousands of the deleted emails. With regards to this email scandal, Donald Trump’s controversial remark flared the possibility that he and the Russian government were collaborating together: “They probably have her 33,000 emails, too. I hope they do,” he said, adding later: “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press.” However, Trump has denied that he knew anything about or had any connection with the Russian government. For all he knows, it could have been anyone behind all of this: “It could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people,” he said during the first presidential debate. “It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.” The accusation against Russia is not unfounded. Two major pieces of evidence point to Russian intervention. Firstly, Feliks Dzerzhinsky was the user name of a person who modified early leaked DNC documents using language settings. Dzerzhinsky

founded the Cheka, the Soviet secret police. Secondly, the computer that was controlling the hacking software for the DNC leaks was also used in 2015 to hack into the German Parliament. The German intelligence reported that the Russian GRU was behind this breach. The GRU directly connects to Fancy Bear, one of the two groups involved in the breach of DNC documents. Among the 100 plus DNC accounts that were hacked, Clinton and her closest campaign leaders’ accounts were targeted. John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, discovered that his account was hacked. The hackers sent an email to him in March of 2016 that appeared to have come from Google, and he clicked on it, “giving hackers access to his account.” On October 9th, WikiLeaks published hacked emails from his account. Hacked documents continue to be published, closer and closer to election day. Unfortunately, for Clinton, those documents are embarrassing and give away political strategies, which could benefit Trump during the final stretch. As of now, however, it won’t be enough to change the course of the election.

FROM WIKILEAKS.ORG/DNC-EMAILS/

W ORK S CI T E D Rid, Thomas. “How Russia Pulled Off the Biggest Election Hack in U.S. History.” Esquire. Esquire, 20 Oct. 2016. Sanger, David E., and Charlie Savage. “U.S. Says Russia Directed Hacks to Influence Elections.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 07 Oct. 2016. Blake, Aaron. “The Many Problems with Donald Trump’s Call for Russia to Spy on Hillary Clinton.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 27 July 2016. Kopan, Tal. “Is Trump Right? Could a 400-pound Couch Potato Have Hacked the DNC?” CNN. Cable News Network, 27 Sept. 2016. . Franceschi-Bicchierai, Lorenzo. “How Hackers Broke Into John Podesta and Colin Powell’s Gmail Accounts.” Motherboard. Vice Media LLC, 20 Oct. 2016.

REROSPECT 7 Y E A RS IN 7 PA R A GR A P HS

by A L E C VA N D E N B E R G

E WA S T H E P R O G R E S S I V E ’ S D R E A M -

young, idealistic, and charismatic. He was supposed to symbolize a turning point in American race relations. To many, he represented new hope. Yet, for many, he didn’t live up to expectations. After seven years of victories and defeats, change and disappointment, crisis and tragedy, the legacy of our 44th president remains in the balance. On the heels of arguably the worst economic decline since the Great Depression, Obama walked into office with a full plate in front of him. But fast-forward seven years, and the economy continues to gain thousands of jobs every month and for the most part, stability and prosperity have returned to American shores. While Obama doesn’t deserve total credit, his decisions and policies, such as bailing out the automobile industry, have been instrumental in achieving this economic turnaround. Yet Obama propelled the U.S. seven trillion more dollars into the debt, as his ambitious pet project that brought health care to millions of previously uninsured people came at the tune of billions of dollars. But Obamacare might cause premiums to rise, as higher costs for medical care prompt insurance providers to search for more funds, which could eventually hurt the very same people Obama attempted to help. As Miguel Fiandeiro ’16 summarizes, “By passing Obamacare, Obama made sure that healthcare reform would be a large part of his legacy by both significantly changing the way the health care system worked and also passing one of the most controversial laws in recent history.” Yet Obama’s military record deserves some scrutiny. While he removed US troops from Iraq as promised, ISIS arose from the Middle Eastern power vacuum and the diminished Iraqi army now devoid of US troops and

1 4 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

support could not stop the tidal wave of violence that ensued. In response, Obama authorized airstrikes, which have killed 15,000 ISIS supporters, although in that time span ISIS has gained between 20,000 to 31,500 fighters, proving that ISIS is and will remain a threat to security in the Middle East. But as Russia now enters the fray in Syria, it remains to be seen whether its interests will be in a collision course with those of the U.S. Obama’s track record with Russia remains spotty, as in Ukraine Obama failed to combat Russian aggression, causing many to question the respect he garners in the international community. It’s helpful to remember that, despite the success or failure of any of these policies, America was treated to arguably its most uncooperative Congress in history, with Ted Cruz reading Dr. Suess highlighting partisan shenanigans. As Jake Glass ’16 writes, “[Obama] has certainly failed to live up to his campaign slogan, ‘Change,’ although that’s through little fault of his own.”

access to nuclear weapons, and may end up preventing a war. The Iran Deal isn’t the perfect solution, but it’s the best one we have. And on the Pacific front, Obama presses for the Trans Pacific Partnership, a partnership among eleven other Pacific Rim nations that promotes free trade, stimulates economic growth (according to proponents), and outsources jobs (according to opponents). Maybe Obama was just too idealistic. Or maybe we were the idealistic ones who allowed our naiveté to lead us to believe one man could change America. Although the jury’s still out on our 44th president, I think we can safely say that as his campaign slogan promised, he did bring us a little “Hope.”

W ORK S CI T ED Dooley, Erin. “Looking Back at the ‘Too Many Times’ Obama Has Addressed a Mass Shooting.” ABC News. ABC News Network, 2 Oct. 2015. Web. <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/back-times-president-obama-responded-mass-shooting/story?id=31868547>. Epatko, Larisa. “Deal to Keep Iran from Making a Nuclear Bomb in 10 Points.” PBS. PBS, 14 July 2015. Web. <http://www.pbs.org/

Despite the mixed reaction to his policies, Obama may be remembered more for what he didn’t do. Over the course of seven years, dozens of mass shootings have rocked Obama’s presidency, and fifteen times Obama has lamented these tragedies and has urged for gun legislation. Regardless of partisan bickering, nothing changed, leaving this debate about the Second Amendment to the 2016 presidential candidates. Furthermore, racially motivated crimes and police brutality constantly fill the head-lines, proving that we deluded ourselves by thinking that the election of a black man could fix race relations.

newshour/rundown/deal-keep-iran-making-nuclear-bomb-10points/>. “Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data.” Global Emissions. N.p., n.d. Granville, Kevin. “The Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Explained.” New York Times. N.p., 11 May 2015. Web. <http://www. nytimes.com/2015/05/12/business/unpacking-the-trans-pacific-partnership-trade- deal.html>. Schwartz, Daniel. “One Year On, Drone Attacks against ISIS Increasing.” CBCnews. CBC/Radio Canada, 08 Aug. 2015. Web. Oct. ]. <http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/one-year-on-drone-attacksagainst-isis-increasing-1.3182002>. White, Ben. “An Obama Boom?” Politico. 9 Jan. 2015. <http://www. politico.com/story/2015/01/does-obama-deserve-credit-foreconomy-114107>. Whitman, Elizabeth. “Rising Cost Of Health Care: Obamacare Insurance Premiums To Increase As State Exchanges Face Losses.” International Business Times. <http://www.ibtimes.com/ rising-cost-health-care-obamacare-insurance-premiums-incre-

But with one year left in office, Obama isn’t done. For all of his blunders in the Middle East, the Iran Deal, which remains to be passed through Congress, aims to limit Iran’s

ase-state-exchanges-face-2027758>.

As one of the most vitriolic elections in history rages on, many are bracing for a postObama void. PHOTO BY SUSAN WALSH, AP

American industry used to be the envy of the world. Now it’s a husk of its former self. PHOTO BY STREETS DEPT

T-BONED W H AT

YOUR

PHONE,

A ME RIC A N T R A DE IN T HE T W E N T Y- F IRS T CE N T UR Y by R Y A N B I L A N D

WAT C H ,

computer, and tablet have in common? If you’re incredibly edgy and a hipster, they’re probably all made by Apple. Also, they’ll probably say “Made in China.” China is now the center of global manufacturing, but it certainly wasn’t this way historically. America has lost its edge on trade, and it’s time we get it back. From the mid to late 20th century, the United States was the foremost manufacturing power in the world. Manufacturing jobs remained relatively stable from 1970 until 2000, providing between 17-18 million jobs. All that changed with China’s entry to the World Trade Organization in 2001. Following this momentous event, the United States exponentially increased trade with China. This resulted in the loss of 7 million domestic manufacturing jobs, cutting America’s manufacturing employment almost by half. The main reason fueling this phenomenon is that it is drastically cheaper to manufacture goods in China and import them to the US., due to lax labor laws, fewer regulations, and more pro-business incentives. This creates what is called a trade deficit between the U.S. and China.

1 6 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more than it exports. In America’s case, we import a lot more manufactured goods from China than we export to them. In fact, our total manufacturing trade deficit is a halftrillion dollars, and has climbed steadily every year since 2009. Trade deficits pose a major problem, dampening the effects of consumer spending at home. For example, if I put $10 into the economy buying something made in China, most of that money will go overseas. Chinese currency manipulation is among the underlying causes to this deficit and our job woes. As China has exported more and more, the value of the Yuan should have increased, reflecting their stronger economy. Yet, it didn’t. In fact, the Yuan has remained far weaker than the dollar. This has given China a massive advantage: by keeping their currency low, the cost of everything in China is much cheaper than the cost of the same products in the U.S., meaning that workers don’t have to be paid as much to make a living wage. Infrastructure and raw materials are also cheaper in China for this reason. For example, if I have a currency called Noots and it takes 100 Noots to make one dollar, my

currency is weaker. It only takes 50 Noots to buy a loaf of bread, but it costs $3 in the United States. This means that workers in my country can be paid 6 times less in terms of value than in the United States. Sure, they can’t afford to import goods because they’re poor relatively speaking, but my economy runs faster because I can produce goods at rates six times cheaper than American companies. The next president must stop Chinese currency manipulation and fight for trade fairness. American companies might get a cheap and massive labor market out of free trade agreements like a Bilateral Investment Treaty or the TPP, but at the end of the day the loser is the American worker. America’s workers need to win in trade if our edge in trade is ever going to come back again.

W ORK S CI T ED Robert E. Scott. "Manufacturing Job Loss: Trade, Not Productivity, Is the Culprit." Economic Policy Institute. EPI, 23 Mar. 2010. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

Scott, Robert. "Unfair China Trade Costs Local Jobs." Economic Policy Institute. EPI, 11 Aug. 2015. Web. 25 Oct. 2016.

ALL ABOUT THE MONEY TA K ING A L OOK AT A MODE RN A ME RIC A N EC ONOM Y

by J O S H F L U E G E M A N N & A N I S H S U N D A R

C O N O M I S T S A N D A N A LY S T S S P E N D M A N Y

hours finding ways to measure economic movement. Strong economic signals include expansion of wealth, consumerism, and productivity, as well as lower price levels and low inflation. Which leaves the question: how is the US economy doing today? While it is difficult, if not impossible, to know for certain, we can look at a few of the key economic indicators as reference. First, let’s have a look at our GDP. GDP, also known as the Gross Domestic Product, is the monetary value of all the goods and products produced within a country during a period of time. In the past 100 years or so, price level has consistently increased, so the GDP needs to accommodate for inflation. Basic GDP is called “Nominal GDP.” However, the GDP which accounts for inflation and is reported using true value is known as real GDP. Currently, the United States has the highest GDP in the world, at 17.914 trillion USD1. The Commerce Department reported that in Q3 of the 2016 financial year, America’s GDP grew at a 2.9% annual rate4, the fastest pace in two years. In Q2 FY2016, America’s GDP only grew at 1.4%. Consumer spending slowed down from Q2’s 4.3% to Q4’s 2.1%. Corporate spending rose slightly; non-residential structure spending grew 5.4%, where it had fallen 2.1% in Q25. R&D spending, as well as intellectual property spending, also slowly moved up. While state and local governments pulled back on infrastructure spending, the federal government spent more to offset

the changes in growth. The big movement in Q3 came from a 10% annual rate boost in exports. Residential fixed investments fell for the second straight quarter at 6.2%, from an already declining 7.7% drop in Q2. For the most part, a 2.9% annual rate GDP growth is great; however, we will have to wait for the full verdict of the Commerce Department in their annual report. One of the most anticipated reports for any investor is the monthly nonfarm payroll. The nonfarm payroll is released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and gives information about job growth, unemployment rates, and the report differentiates between different sectors of the economy6. This allows investors to find out which stocks are overvalue or overrated, as well as sectors with great potential. The nonfarm payroll of September 2016 turned out to be nothing special. 156,000 nonfarm jobs were added, which was much less than the expected 170,0003. The unemployment rate stayed at 5%. The labor-force participation rate rose by .1% to 62.9%. Average hourly earnings rose by 6 cents to $25.79. The manufacturing sector took a hit, due to the strong US dollar, losing 13,000 jobs after losing 16,000 in August.

may seem perfect, keeping rate low for too long destroy savings and can create economic bubbles, where people pay for more they can afford. Recently, the Fed has dealt with internal dispute, as the Regional Governors would like to raise interest rates, while the leaders, including Fed Chairman Janet Yellen, remain unconvinced that such a move would be viable. The Fed has been bluffing for the last year, claiming interest rates will rise, but every time they have announced rate hikes, they don’t deliver. They raised the rates for the first time in 10 years by 0.25% in December of 2015, and then immediately cut them back down to the original level. The Fed has kept inflation within their 2% goal, but every time the Fed senses any weakness in the economy, it finds a way to evade raising rates. In fact, the inflation calculated by CPI only rose by 0.3% in Q3 and has been consistently low for the past year. The internal debate will continue into the future. So now, the burning question we all must ask is, “How much will the economy grow in 2017?”

This economic information is studied carefully by members of the United State Federal Reserve, who are responsible for monetary policy. By keeping interest rates down, the Fed hopes businesses and consumers will spend and invest more. When interest rates are high, people naturally save because credit becomes expensive. While low interest rates

W ORK S CI T E D “A m e r i c a n G D P ” F i n a n c i a l S e n s e , n . d . L a h a r t , Ju s t i n . “ G o o d Q u a r t e r S i g n a l s B e t t e r G r o w t h N e x t Ye a r.” Wa l l S t re e t J o u r n a l , 2 8 O c t . 2 016 . L e u b s d o r f , B e n . “ T h i r d - Q u a r t e r U. S . G D P A t A G l a n c e .” Wa l l S t re e t J o u r n a l , 2 8 O c t . 2 016 . R o o t . “ N o n f a r m P a y r o l l .” In v e s t o p e d i a . 2 8 Ja n . 2 016 . “ T h e Wo r l d ’s To p 10 E c o n o m i e s ” In v e s t o p e d i a , n . d .

TRIGGER FINGER T HE SECOND AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED

States Constitution reads: “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Per Rasmussen Reports, “Twoout-of-three Americans recognize that their constitutional right to own a gun was intended to ensure their freedom.” The government’s policy prescriptions towards gun rights need to address the historical significance of bearing arms, the inverse effects of gun regulations, and the relationship between gun ownership and crime rates.

History is replete with democracies becoming tyrannical. The primary victims of which have been citizens, not leaders. Disarming the population has accrued some of history’s most dictatorial regimes including Hitler’s Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, and Mao’s Communist China. Recently, California has been hit by a wave of gun reforms passed by Governor Jerry Brown. The vast firearm community in California

E X A MINING GUN P OL IC Y by A N D R E C R I S T O F I

was angered with two bills in particular, Senate Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 which, “ban the sale of semi-automatic, centerfire rifles or semi-automatic pistols that do not have a fixed magazine.” These new laws would go into effect at the beginning of 2017. When comparing gun laws state by state, and even country by country, regions with the strictest gun laws experience disproportionately higher crime and murder rates. When we examine European countries, “The immediate effect [of gun legislation] was about a 50 percent increase in homicide rates.”, though there was a downward trend in homicide after a large increase in police officers starting from 2003. Detroit has the country’s highest violent crime rate with a “population of 713,239, and a violent crime rate of 2,137 per 100,000 residents.”

but, “homicide accounts for 11,961.” At this point, “Chicago has reached 500 homicides so far this year.” Furthermore, assault rifles only account for “248 murders”. Such fatalities account for only a small portion of gun crime when also examining small arm casualties which cause upwards of “5,562 murders” in an average year. There has been immense success with “universal” gun ownership in places like Switzerland or Kennesaw, GA. In Kennesaw, for instance, all citizens are required to own at least one firearm and keep ammunition. Thus, Kennesaw is reported to have the lowest crime rate of any city its size in America.” Although it may seem counterintuitive, having more civilian guns of any kind may make America a safer nation as a whole.

The total number of guns in America, both illicit and legal, stands at about “270,000,000 to 310,000,000 units” 6. The total number of gun related deaths when taking into account homicide and suicide is approximately 33,599,

America will have to soon decide its priorities in the battle between rights and supposed utility. PHOTO BY MICHAEL HOLZWORTH

W ORK S CI T E D W h i t e , J e r e m y B . “ W h a t C a l i fo r n i a’s N e w G u n L a w s M e a n fo r Hu n t e r s , T a r g e t S h o o t e r s .” S a c b e e . 0 8 Ju l y 2 016 . C r i m e P r e ve n t i o n R e s e a r c h C e n t e r. “ Mu r d e r a n d H o m i c i d e R a t e s b e fo r e a n d a f t e r G u n B a n s ” C r i m e P re v e n t i o n R e s e a rc h C e n t e r, 0 5 Ju n e 2 016 . “ T h e 10 M o s t D a n g e r o u s U. S . C i t i e s .” Fo r b e s , n . d . “ F B I | U S Mu r d e r s b y We a p o n T y p e .” F B I, n . d C a m p , G r e g . “ H o w D o We S o l ve C h i c a g o ’s P r o b l e m w i t h G u n V i o l e n c e? ” G u n s c o m , 0 9 S e p t . 2 016 . C u r t i s , S t e ve . “ G u n C o n t r o l F a c t s : D e t r o i t C r i m e R a t e I s t h e R e s u l t O f G u n C o n t r o l .” M i c , 2 5 O c t . 2 01 5 .

1 8 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

A peace vigil for the victims of the San Bernardino attack. PHOTO BY CSUF NEWS CENTER

ELEVATED RISK D E C E M B E R 2 , 2 0 1 5 . T W O H E AV I LY- A R M E D

individuals storm the Inland Regional Center in San Bernardino, California. Their names are Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, and they show no mercy: killing 14 and injuring 22. December 3, 2015. Farook and Malik are killed in a police shootout in a San Bernardino neighborhood. The FBI opens a counterterrorism investigation on the couple.

December 6, 2015. President Obama addresses the nation, deeming this an act of terrorism most likely influenced by the radical Islamic organization known as ISIS. The terrorist attacks in San Bernardino marked a pivotal point in America’s course for the future. Just the previous month, horrific attacks rocked the city of Paris, France, as 130 people succumbed to coordinated and

T HE S TAT US QUO OF T E RROR by A R V I N D S R I D H A R

synchronously-executed terrorist plots. But for many Americans, San Bernardino brought the enemy too close for comfort. This sole event fueled Donald Trump’s rise to the top of the GOP Primary and reaffirmed many Americans’ belief that President Obama’s policies were failing, that he was asleep at the wheel while ISIS ran free. Then, just when things looked like they couldn’t get any worse, Orlando happened. June 12, 2016. Omar Mateen walks into an LGBT nightclub in Orlando, Florida, armed with a semiautomatic rifle. By the time the night is over, 49 people have been killed and 53 wounded. Mateen had sworn allegiance to ISIS and claimed that it inspired him to execute the attack, the deadliest incident of violence against the LGBT community and the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11.

The world today is unpredictable. For many, Hillary Clinton’s vision of accepting thousands of refugees from Syria is ludicrous. Who might be lurking amidst those refugees, and what kind of views might he or she profess? Could he or she, after gaining entrance into the U.S., start plotting and organizing acts of terrorism, being inspired by radical organizations like ISIS? The attacks on San Bernardino, Orlando, and the recent homegrown terrorist plot in New York City have put all Americans on edge. The next President will have to confront this gaping foreign policy issue and work to eliminate the sentiments that give rise to such radical viewpoints.

W ORK S CI T E D C N N L i b r a r y. “ 2 01 5 P a r i s Te r r o r A t t a c k s F a s t F a c t s .” C N N . A p r i l 1 3 , 2 016 . E l l i s , R a l p h . “ O r l a n d o s h o o t i n g : 4 9 k i l l e d , s h o o t e r p l e d g e d I S I S a l l e g i a n c e .” Ju n e 1 3 , 2 016 . L o s A n g e l e s T i m e s S t a f f . “ E ve r y t h i n g we k n o w a b o u t t h e S a n B e r n a r d i n o t e r r o r a t t a c k i n ve s t i g a t i o n s o f a r.” L A T i m e s . D e c e m b e r 14 , 2 01 5 .

BLACK & BLUE

T HE BRUISED S TAT E OF R A CE RE L AT IONS IN A ME RIC A

by S H O B H A N M A N G L A

W O Y E A R S A G O , O U R N AT I O N WA S

stunned by the shooting of 18-year old African-American man Michael Brown. His shooter was a white police officer. Ferguson, Missouri, a predominantly black city, erupted into riots and protests. Racial relations in the U.S. seemed to be at a low point. However, at the time, President Obama had high hopes to strengthen neighborhoods and build trust between citizens and the police. Yet here we are, two years later, not having made any progress. Alton Sterling, a 37-year-old black man, was killed on July 5th by two white police officers in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. The officers were responding to a 911 call of a man being threatened. The man who made the 911 call confirmed that Sterling was not the man troubling him. That night, there were peaceful protests in Baton Rouge; protesters shouted “no justice, no peace”. Two days later, Micah Johnson, a black man, opened fire at a peaceful Black Lives Matter protest in Dallas and killed five innocent police officers. Johnson made it very clear what his motive was: he was upset about the police shootings, he was upset at white people, and he wanted to kill white people, especially white police officers. The events of these days sparked debate all across the nation, especially on social media. While we may not ever know for sure if racism was involved in the shootings of Michael Brown and Alton Sterling, it’s become very apparent that our nation is divided. A poll conducted by the New York Times found that

69% of Americans acknowledge that race relations are bad, one of the highest levels since the riots that happened during the 1992 Rodney King case. That same poll found that relations have become so bad that over 50% of African Americans were not surprised by the Dallas attack. What’s concerning is that we’ve reached a point in the status quo in which racial hate crimes have become unsurprising. There are clear causes for the separation of races in the U.S. The first is racism. Quite frankly, racism is still a big part of America and causes separation in our country. The second reason is geographic segregation. “Residential Segregation and Neighborhood Conditions in U.S. Metropolitan Areas,” a book by Douglas Massey, finds that more than 70% of urban blacks are highly segregated by neighborhoods and city areas. If a black man or woman has never actually had a discussion with a white man or woman, they are bound to believe that the shootings they hear about are caused by white men expressing racism towards black men. The separation of groups causes neither group to have feelings of compassion towards the other. The only way that we can move forward from this perpetual cycle is interracial compassion. The racial divide between two people doesn’t prevent them from regarding each others’ feelings. We can follow the example of Ken Nwadike Jr. of the Free Hugs Project. He was at a riot in Charlotte on September 21, advocating peace and giving police officers hugs. He was met

with a lot of hate by other protestors: they asked him how he could hug white police officers when they’ve shot black men. His response is one that we must keep in mind as we move forward: “none of these people (the cops) shot someone!” and “his uniform does not make him a robot, just like the color of your skin does not make you a criminal.” This is the only way we can move forward, because while geographic segregation exists, the biggest thing that can be done to bridge the racial gap in our country is a change in attitude. We have seen racism being expressed with acts of violence, but we must respond with acts of kindness.

W ORK S CI T E D Vu l t a g g i o , M a r i a . “ O b a m a Vo w s To ‘ M a ke T h i n g s B e t t e r ’ B e t we e n C o p s , C o m m u n i t i e s .” In t e r n a t i o n a l B u s i n e s s T i m e s . N . p . , 01 D e c . 2 014 . H o u s l o h n e r, A b i g a i l . “A l t o n S t e r l i n g ’s R e l a t i ve s We a t h e r S c r u t i n y, C a l l fo r Ju s t i c e .” Wa s h i n g t o n P o s t . T h e Wa s h i n g t o n P o s t , n . d . B r e n n a n , C h r i s t o p h e r, N i c o l e H e n s l e y, a n d D e n i s S l a t t e r y. “ L a . C o p s S t u n , S h o o t a n d K i l l A l t o n S t e r l i n g .” N Y D a i l y N e w s . N . p . , 0 6 Ju l y 2 016 . “ D a l l a s P o l i c e S h e d L i g h t o n G u n m a n ’s P o s s i b l e M o t i ve s .” A B C N e w s . A B C N e w s N e t wo r k , n . d . R u s s o n e l l o , G i o v a n n i . “ R a c e R e l a t i o n s A r e a t L o we s t P o i n t i n O b a m a P r e s i d e n c y, P o l l F i n d s .” T h e N e w Yo r k T i m e s . T h e N e w Yo r k T i m e s , 1 3 Ju l y 2 016 . S m e l s e r, N e i l J . , W i l l i a m J . W i l s o n , a n d F a i t h M i t c h e l l . “A m e r i c a B e c o m i n g : R a c i a l T r e n d s a n d T h e i r C o n s e q u e n c e s ”. Wa s h i n g t o n , D. C . : N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y, 2 0 01 . P r i n t . @ f r e e h u g s p r o j e c t . “ F r e e Hu g s C a m p a i g n G r e a t e s t H i t s .” F re e H u g s P r o j e c t . N . p . , n . d . We b . 2 1 O c t . 2 016 .

2 0 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

A Ferguson activist during a protest in 2015. PHOTO BY SCOTT OLSON, GETTY IMAGES

NAVIGATING

THE BONE ZONE T HE S TAT E OF A ME RIC A’ S E NE RG Y

by R Y A N B I L A N D

U S T T W O Y E A R S A G O , I T WA S P O S S I B L E T O

blame a single boogeyman for all of America’s energy problem. We could all look at high gas prices and think “ooh, that foreign oil.” Now we cannot. America has signed her declaration of energy independence (for the most part) because of domestic energy production, but how we will proceed in the future is still up in the air. The next government must create a framework for how the American future of energy is going to be for the foreseeable future, and it must align with and further our geopolitical goals. Welcome to the Bone Zone. Why on earth are gas prices so low? We are at war. Take a picture, because I will never put this in writing again: Obama is a genius. Allow me to explain. It’s no secret that despite a reset button, the US and Russia still have Siberia-cold relations. Russia is vying for influence in its half of the world, and the US doesn’t want that to happen, for obvious reasons. Instead of using troops and direct military action to contain Russia (it’s called balancing), the US has tried full-scale economic warfare. Russia’s economy is hugely dependent on oil. It’s about 16% of their GDP, 50% of government revenue, and 70% of their exports. When oil prices are high, Russia is happy. When they aren’t Russia is understandably sad. Obama encouraged fracking and oil-shale production here in the US, and that has driven down the price of oil, cutting it in half. This has destroyed Russia’s economy. Over the past year, Russia’s GDP has collapsed by 3.7%, incomes have fallen by 4.3%, and they are experiencing double-digit inflation

2 2 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

of 12.3%. All of this is due to the price of oil collapsing from over $110 per barrel to just $55 per barrel. The reason Russia hasn’t slashed production to drive prices up again is because they hope to drive oil shale businesses in the US broke. What Russia fails to realize is that the American petroleum industry is a hydra. For each company that falls, more can spring up in its place at some later date. Even if Russia accomplishes its goals and puts every company drilling domestically in the US out of business, when prices rise again, we can simply start to exploit our natural bounty again. The next president must effectively manage domestic oil production strategy to benefit the US, while simultaneously balancing the emerging renewable energy market. Eventually, our last reserves will be dried up, and then we’ll have to move on to something else. Clinton or Trump must work to create a regulatory framework that helps make this alternative energy commercially viable. If the United States can become an exporter of alternative energy technology, we will change the way that energy works forever. We are now the world’s largest producer of petroleum. That will not last forever. It’s important that the US be strategic about its reserves in the present, but also that we look to the future as well.

WORK S CI T ED “ U. S . E n e r g y I n fo r m a t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n - I n d e p e n d e n t S t a t i s t i c s a n d A n a l y s i s .” U S F G , 2 01 5 . S u r o y a n , S i r a n u s h . “ ’ N e w R e a l i t y ’: w h a t G e r m a n G r e f s a i d S b e r b a n k s h a r e h o l d e r s ” R B C , 2 7 M a y 2 016 .

The US-Mexico border. PHOTO BY MARK RALSTON, GETTY IMAGES

THE DIVIDE

A ME RIC A’ S IMMIGR AT ION P OL IC Y MO V ING F ORWA RD by A D A M B R O W N

N JUNE 16, 2015, DONALD J. TRUMP

started his campaign for the highest office in the land with a bang by declaring, “I would build a great wall, and nobody builds walls better than me, believe me, and I’ll build them very inexpensively, I will build a great, great wall on our southern border. And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” With just two grammatically dubious sentences, the Republican nominee for President instigated a firestorm of debate revolving around the complex yet cyclic issue of immigration. As long as our nation has had borders, we have tried to try define what America truly stands for, both literally and symbolically. The societal dialogue regarding both legal and illegal immigration from Mexico is nothing new to this particular election cycle. Throughout the Reagan Administration, the debate regarding how to approach the flood of illegal immigration from the southern border was a vigorous one. But this election is different. Due to Trump’s robust defiance of traditional political language starting from the very first day of his campaign, the topic of immigration has transformed from a matter of national security to one of culture clash. Calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” is an excellent way of guaranteeing mainstream media coverage. But it is not a very Presidential method of handling diplomacy between the U.S. and one of our largest trading partners. Equally un-Presidential is Hillary Clinton’s lack of defense regarding her failed policies in the Middle East (especially Iraq) and her handling of Benghazi during her term as Secretary of State.

American employers from knowingly hiring illegal aliens. Trump also supports ensuring that deported individuals return to their home countries and never return to the U.S. illegally again. Hillary Clinton’s policies revolve around providing pathways to citizenship, preventing family separation, and withholding prosecution for illegal immigrants already in the nation. Additionally, Clinton campaigned on the ability of those who entered America illegally to have the right to “buy in” to the Affordable Care Plan marketplace, as well as other privileges including immunity from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Enough vitriol has been spouted within the news media for months. Therefore, it is refreshing to examine the similarities in the candidates rather than their stark differences. However surprising it may seem, both candidates support “comprehensive immigration reform,” the deportation of dangerous individuals, the removal of the visa backlog and advancing technology at our land border crossings, ports, and airports. In addition, each candidate wants to make immigration for legal immigrants both swifter and simpler. Regardless of which candidate you support, take comfort in the fact that we can agree on at least something this election season: modernizing, and simplifying, our immigration system.

W ORK S CI T ED D o n a l d J . T r u m p fo r P r e s i d e n t . “ I m m i g r a t i o n .” D o n a l d jtrump.com. N.p., n.d.

Trump’s Latin American immigration policy can be summed up as follows: build a Mexico-funded wall, detain and deport illegal aliens that cross the border, and terminate sanctuary city policies. In addition, Trump supports enforcing Federal law already on the books such as the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, which prohibits

H i l l a r y fo r A m e r i c a . “ H i l l a r y C l i n t o n o n I m m i g r a t i o n R e fo r m .”H i l l a r y fo r A m e r i c a , 2 016 . P e a r s o n , M i c h a e l . “ W h a t ’s a ‘ S a n c t u a r y C i t y,’ a n d W h y S h o u l d Yo u C a r e? ” C a b l e N e w s N e t w o r k , 8 Ju l y 2 01 5 . “ T h e r e Yo u G o A g a i n .” T h e Wa s h i n g t o n P o s t , 2 4 Ja n . 2008. T r u m p , D o n a l d J . “ T r a n s c r i p t o f D o n a l d T r u m p ’s I m m i g r a t i o n S p e e c h .” T h e N e w Yo r k T i m e s , 1 S e p t . 2 016 .

With Iraq still a foreign policy nightmare, the question becomes: What do we do now? PHOTO BY MAYA ALLERUZZO, AP

MOVING FORWARD W H Y I S F O R E I G N P O L I C Y I M P O R TA N T ?

The impact of foreign policy on America’s youth is tremendous. Our prices, jobs, economy, supplies, and our military are all impacted by how we interact with the rest of the world. Foreign policy is a necessary solution that allows us to work with our allies and joining hands against tyranny and hatred. There are many foreign policy priorities that the United States will look towards in the future. Let’s look at the top priorities for United States regarding foreign policy. According to the University of Chicago, the largest foreign challenges are terrorism, ISIS, and the refugee crisis. Most Americans, almost

52% of them, believe that terrorism is the most crucial and important issue that we will face. The remainder believe that immigration and international relations will be larger challenges facing the next president. Regarding foreign policy, most of the general public is not eager to see the United States take an active role in solving world dilemmas. American bilateral cooperation with other countries around the word is conceivably the most important part of foreign policy. The United States has several bilateral cooperation with countries including China, India, Russia and the United Kingdom. Perhaps one of the most crucial regions for foreign policy implementation is in the Middle East. American economic interests including

F U T URE F OREIGN P OL IC Y by A N I S H S U N D A R

access to oil in the Middle East, encouraged various presidents to intervene in the region despite the prospect of perpetual war and political unrest. In the Middle East, the U.S. has made itself a key player by using its diplomatic, economic, and military presence to support its national interests. Considerably, one of the motivations for the United States’ intervention in the Middle East is the fossil fuel of oil, ensuring a hefty amount for a reasonable cost. Since 1936, Saudi Arabia was found to have massive oil deposits. Ensuring access to this has been on the U.S.’s agenda for an extended period of time. To this day, guaranteeing access to the supply for oil in the Middle East factors in the development of the U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East

W ORK S CI T E D “ Fo r e i g n R e l a t i o n s o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .” W i k i p e d i a . W i k i m e d i a Fo u n d a t i o n , n . d . N u m b e r s , B y T h e . “ Fo r e i g n P o l i c y | t h e G l o b a l M a g a z i n e o f N e w s a n d I d e a s .” Fo r e i g n P o l i c y. N . p . , n . d . B y K e i t h P o r t e r U S Fo r e i g n P o l i c y E x p e r t . “ W h y D o e s U S Fo r e i g n P o l i c y M a t t e r? A S h o r t B r e a k d o w n o f t h e I m p o r t a n c e .” A b o u t . c o m N e w s & I s s u e s . N . p . , 2 016 .

2 4 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

RESPECT IN POLITICS HOW P OL A RI Z AT ION H A S DE S T RO Y E D P OL I T IC S by A D A M B R O W N

H AT D O J O E B I D E N , M A R C O R U B I O ,

Ivanka Trump, and Bill Clinton all have in common? Each of them have described the complicated waltz of policy and personality we know as politics as a “blood sport.” This statement could not be a more apt description of the current predicament in this 2016 Presidential Election. Due in large part to the candidates conflicting temperaments and mannerisms, this election cycle has been one for both the history books and the blooper reels. This electoral run-up has truly modified the American understanding of what a modern political race is; 59% of Americans “are worn out by so much election coverage” according to Pew Research. Although the sheer lack of actual political deliberation has been at worst exasperating, the absolute absence of political respect on both sides of the aisle has been nothing short of repulsive. While previous elections are often remembered with catchy oneliners such as President Reagan’s “There

you go again.” or George H.W. Bush’s selfinjuring declaration of “Read my lips. No new taxes.”, this election can be categorized as one of the most repugnant in American history. Each candidate has done their fair share of smearing, with Trump’s frequent jabs at Clinton’s honesty being parried with Clinton’s unwavering attempt to pit Trump as a misogynistic racist. Both candidates involuntarily react to these accusations by demonizing the other, and claiming that their opponent’s misconduct exceeds their own personal transgressions. The result of this perpetual cycle of hatred played out for all to see within seconds of the Second Presidential Debate. After appearing from their respective wings in the debate hall, they refused to partake in the traditional symbol of recognition: a handshake. This election is different for a multitude of complex reasons, but one of the more obvious realities of this election is the lack of respect between the candidates. Both Trump and Clinton thoroughly loathe each other. While political opponents can detest

decisions and stances on a variety of issues, it is almost always inappropriate to personally attack any candidate. This election cycle is not the very first time behavior unbecoming of government officials has taken place, but the absolute hatred the candidates retain against each other has never been so outwardly visible in recent American history. Regardless of who sits in the Oval Office late in January, half of the country will remain bitter, spiteful, and despise the next President. The constant bickering between candidates, parties, and media outlets have discouraged average Americans in the political process like never before. Disheartened individuals from all across this nation are tired of the incessant quarrels and no longer believe that any politician is trustworthy or reputable. President Carted said, “It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”6 This election is already over. We don’t know who the candidates are, but we know Americans have lost.

W ORK S CI T E D G o t t f r i e d , J e f f r e y. “ M o s t A m e r i c a n s A l r e a d y Fe e l E l e c t i o n C o ve r a g e F a t i g u e .” Pe w R e s e a rc h C e n t e r. N . p . , 14 Ju l y 2 016 . Va m b u r k a r, M e e n a l . “ T V D e b a t e M o m e n t s : J i m m y C a r t e r v R o n a l d R e a g a n | O c t o b e r 1 9 8 0 .” N e w S t a t e s m a n . N . p . , n . d . B a r b e r, E l i z a b e t h . “ G e o r g e H .W. B u s h H o n o r e d fo r C o u r a g e w i t h 1 9 9 0 T a x H i ke s .” R e u t e r s . T h o m s o n R e u t e r s , 0 4 M a y 2 014 . E n g e l , P a m e l a . “ H i l l a r y C l i n t o n a n d D o n a l d T r u m p D i d n ’t S h a ke H a n d s a t t h e S t a r t o f t h e S e c o n d P r e s i d e n t i a l D e b a t e .” B u s i n e s s In s i d e r. B u s i n e s s I n s i d e r, I n c , 0 9 O c t . 2 016 . R o l l e r, E m m a . “ W h y T h i s E l e c t i o n Fe e l s N e ve r- E n d i n g .” T h e N e w Yo r k T i m e s . T h e N e w Yo r k T i m e s , 0 5 S e p t . 2 016 . S h a p i r o , F r e d . “ Q u o t e s U n c o ve r e d : T h e Un i ve r s e a n d S t u p i d i t y - F r e a ko n o m i c s .” F re a k o n o m i c s . N . p . , 14 M a y 2 0 0 9.

After the exceptionally close victory for Leave side, Britain will be leaving the European Union in search of being a more prosperous and successful nation. PHOTO BY CHRISTOPHER FURLONG

2 6 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W Â· N O V. 2 0 1 6

BREAKING OUT O N JUNE 23, 2016, THE BRITISH PEOPLE

decided their 43-year-old membership in the European Union had gone on for a bit too long; it was time for a change. The option of leaving the EU was made explicitly clear back in 2007 when the Treaty of Lisbon was signed by all member nations. Within the treaty, Article 50 is the specific line that allows for nations to secede if they so choose. However, it’s not as simple to leave as one may think. For starters, the British government must officially notify the EU that they have invoked Article 50, which has already caused some issues between Britain’s various political parties. In fact, at the time of writing Britain has still not officially notified the EU despite the referendum being almost four months ago. Once Brussels is notified of Britain’s intentions, a period of approximately two years will begin where the terms of Britain’s exit are negotiated amongst all 27 EU member nations. During this period, Britain will be unable to participate in any decisions the EU is voting on as they wait to come to terms. While a victory is a victory and Britain will be leaving the EU regardless of how long it takes, the 52% (17,410,742 votes) - 48% (16,141,241 votes) EU secession vote was a close one, with the lead switching back and forth throughout the night. For both the Remain and Leave side, Brexit breaks down to mainly four issues: immigration, trade, jobs, and sovereignty. Those in the Leave camp believe that Britain will continually struggle to control immigration if they stay a part of the EU due to the freedom of movement policies in place. In contrast, the Remain sides argues that leaving the EU will only make the situation worse because migrants would be trying to directly immigrate to the UK instead of going to an EU country first. As with most Western nations, issues surrounding the economy are viewed with top importance; for the Leave side, they view their partnership with the EU as holding them back from making more international trade deals that could potentially bring in hundreds of millions of pounds with countries such as China and India. In opposition, Remain argues that, while it would be beneficial to have these trade

BE F ORE A ND A F T E R BRE X I T by M A T T L O W E

deals, 44% of all British exports are to other EU nations, making these deals significantly more difficult if Britain decided to leave. In continuation with issues regarding the economy, jobs are a large talking point for the Remain camp, as they argue that nearly three million jobs are due to Britain’s membership within the EU: jobs which would be lost as businesses based outside of Europe are less likely to invest in the country. To the Leave portion, they view the Remain claims of job loss as fear mongering, as Britain would still remain prosperous after gaining the power to lower their corporation taxes, a policy that several Scandinavian countries have used. Finally, both sides address the topic of sovereignty, which essentially boils down to true independence vs. globalism. While Leave argues that the British Parliament can no longer function as a governing body for the British people; Remain encourages the viewpoint that staying apart of the EU helps work against threats such as ISIS. Despite these views and the lengthy wait until Britain is officially out of the EU, there has already been several changes within Britain. In a display of respect for the British people’s desires, David Cameron stepped down as Prime Minister, resulting in Theresa May of the Conservative Party being elected as the new PM. In terms of the economy, the pound was worth $1.50 on the day of the referendum, but has since dropped to $1.22, which is the lowest it has ever been since the 1980s. Amongst the various fluctuations in the economy as Britain begins to cement itself as an independent nation, a myriad of other issues such as immigration and unemployment will be closely monitored in the upcoming years to see what effect the Brexit vote will have on them. This is not the end of critique on these issues, however, as both liberals, centrists, and conservatives in Britain will continue to try and fight for their policies, whether it was a Remain position or a Leave position.

W ORK S CI T ED The Guardian. "A Timeline of Britain's EU Membership in Guardian Reporting." The Guardian, 25 June 2016. SkyNews. "Brexit: Has Britain Left the EU Yet?" Sky News. Sky UK, 23 June 2016. Erlanger, Steven. "Britain Votes to Leave E.U.; Cameron Plans to Step Down." The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 23 June 2016. Riley-Smith, Ben. "Leave or Remain in the EU? The Arguments for and against Brexit." The Telegraph. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 20 June 2016. Belam, Martin. "One Month On, What Has Been the Impact of the Brexit Vote so Far?" The Guardian. Guardian News and Media Limited, 22 July 2016.

72.2% TURNOUT

FROM UK ELECTORAL COMMISSION

CAUGHT IN THE FRAY A N O V ERV IE W OF T HE CH A OS C ONSUMING S Y RI A by A R V I N D S R I D H A R

E S T R U C T I O N A N D D E AT H . B A R R E L B O M B S .

Deserted streets. Ruthless airstrikes, and threatening powerplay. Over the past two years, the civil war in Syria has morphed into one of the most pressing global conflicts and humanitarian disasters of our time. From images of four-year-old boys bloodied due to mortar shelling wounds to miles of refugees fleeing what they know will be certain death, the conflict has been nothing short of horrifying. At the heart of it all lies an intricate, complex power struggle of global proportions, pitting Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian dictatorship and its Russian allies, the U.S. and its coalition, radical organizations, and Syrian rebels against each other. Syria, like Vietnam in the 1960s, has become a proxy battleground. The origins of the civil war date back to 2011, when political unrest began to rattle the nation. At the time, many viewed the unrest simply as a consequence of the Arab Spring movement which had inspired revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. In fact, believing that the Syrian people were looking to overthrow Assad and his despotic dictatorship, western nations encouraged rebels to fight on and depose the pro-Russian regime. All that changed, however, with the rise of ISIS. For months, Al Qaeda had been using the Syrian Civil War as a training ground for its soldiers and as a tool to expand its influence, mingling amidst the numerous rebel groups attacking Assad’s forces. Then came Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi: taking the reigns of Al Qaeda’s Syrian operations, he announced independence from the group and founded the organization we know today as ISIS. As he began to launch offensives against the Syrian cities of Aleppo and Homs, the international community was quick to respond. The United States rallied a league of Arab and western nations to conduct airstrikes and military interventions against ISIS strongholds and supply the Free Syrian Army, a rebel group fighting against Assad and ISIS in the Syrian war. Soon after, Russia’s Vladmir Putin

2 8 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

stepped in to Assad’s aid, to empower him to keep the terrorists and rebels at bay and maintain his dictatorship. From there, Syria degenerated into chaos. Both U.S.-backed coalition airstrikes and Russian-backed air offensives have devastated cities like Aleppo, where entire neighborhoods have been leveled and hundreds of thousands killed. Aleppo has been a location of constant fighting over the past two years between the rebel-held eastern half and Assad’s western half. To see before-and-after pictures of Aleppo’s cityscape can be haunting: a combination of airstrikes, mortars, and barrel bombs have all but crippled Aleppo’s infrastructure, economy, and way of life, leaving only a pile of rubble, carcasses, and mourning. Women and children have not been spared by the violence: on October 18, 2016, no less than nine children were killed by Russian-initiated airstrikes, prompting Russia to temporarily stop its offensive. Efforts at a ceasefire have lasted a few days at best, not enough time to deploy and distribute much-needed humanitarian aid on the ground. Aleppo is currently under siege, making it harder for those trapped inside to escape the violence. It is estimated that over 1 million people are stuck inside the city, literally held prisoner by an unending and deadly war. Hospitals and schools in the city have unfortunately been targeted by the violence as well; to overcome this, some organizations have turned cellars deep underground into makeshift classrooms, where students can learn and play in as safe an environment as possible under the current circumstances.

refugees currently live in refugee camps and other makeshift arrangements in Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt; they suffer from the poorest living conditions and extremely high rates of poverty and disease. Germany has offered resettlement to 39,000 refugees, which represents 54% of the entire EU’s contribution. The U.S. currently accepts just over 10,000 refugees, while Hillary Clinton wants to increase that number closer to 650,000 if she is elected into office this coming November. The Syrian War doesn’t look like it’s going to end anytime soon, but one thing is for certain: if the current state of violence continues, the amount of acres won will soon become insignificant to the number of lives lost and destroyed in the process.

W ORK S CI T ED h t t p : // w w w. b b c . c o m /n e w s/ wo r l d - m i d d l e - e a s t-2 6 1 16 8 6 8 h t t p : // we b . s t a n fo r d . e d u /g r o u p/m a p p i n g m i l i t a n t s /c g i b i n /g r o u p s / v i e w/ 1 h t t p : // w w w.w s j . c o m /a r t i c l e s / v l a d i m i r- p u t i n - s a y s - r u s s i a - c o u l d - r e d e p l o y - t o - s y r i a - i n - h o u r s - 14 5 8 2 1 5 6 2 0 h t t p : // w w w. c n n . c o m / 2 016/ 10/ 17/m i d d l e e a s t /a l e p p o - a i r s t r i ke s / h t t p : // w w w. a l j a z e e r a . c o m /n e w s / 2 016/ 10/a i r- s t r i ke s f i g h t i n g - m a r k- a l e p p o - c e a s e f i r e - 16 102 2 2 0 3 8 0 9 6 4 8 . h t m l h t t p : // w w w. a l j a z e e r a . c o m /n e w s / 2 016/0 9/ a l e p p o - s y r i a n - c h i l d r e n - a t t e n d - u n d e rg r o u n d - s c h o o l - 16 0 9 2 9 14 5 4 0 7 8 9 9. h t m l h t t p : // w w w. u n o c h a . o r g /s y r i a h t t p s : // w w w. a m n e s t y. o r g /e n / l a t e s t /n e w s / 2 016/02 /s y ria s-ref u gee - cr isis-i n-nu mbers/ h t t p : // w w w. p o l i t i f a c t . c o m / t r u t h - o - m e t e r/s t a t e -

The fighting in Syria has also led to one of the most pressing refugee crises in recent history, as millions have fled the violence for better lives. The UN estimates that 13.5 million Syrians currently require immediate humanitarian assistance, of which 6 million are internally displaced within Syria and 4.8 million are refugees outside of Syria. 4.5 million of these

m e n t s / 2 016/s e p/ 2 7/d o n a l d - t r u m p/ t r u m p - s a y s - c l i n t o n wo u l d - b r i n g - 6 2 0 0 0 0 - r e f u g e e s - h e r/

SEEKING REFUGE T HE CONFLICT IN SYRIA HAS BEEN NOTHING

short of catastrophic. According to the UN, “250,000 people have been killed and 13.5 million people are in urgent need of humanitarian assistance inside Syria. More than 50% of Syria’s population is currently displaced.”

The mass influx of refugees has raised concern for many Americans and Europeans: many fear threats of terrorism and increased economic burdens on their countries. Many Europeans believe that the EU is doing a bad job at handling the crisis. German Chancellor Angela Merkel confronted this issue and admits head on, “Sueddeutsche Zeitung…Germany made major mistakes in its handling of the Syrian refugee crisis.” But she refuted the relationship between terrorism and the refugee crisis when she said, “It’s simply incorrect to say that terrorism came only with the refugees. It was already here in myriad forms and with the various potential attackers that we have been watching.” According to PEW Research, “61% of Germans believe refugees will increase the likelihood of domestic terrorism, and a median of 59% across 10 EU countries voice concern about the prospect of increased terrorism.” Three countries have taken steps to accept vast number of immigrants from Syria: Turkey has taken in an estimated 2.2 million, Lebanon 1.1 million, and Jordan six hundred and thirty thousand5. A report from the Paris-based Organization for Economic CoOperation and Development exemplifies the surprising growth in these countries’ economies as measured by their GDP: “The Turkish economy will expand by 3 percent this year and by 4 percent next year. Lebanon’s

T HE RE F UGE E CRISIS by A N D R E C R I S T O F I

economy is also growing, at a rate of about two per cent this year, which will expand to more than three per cent next year.” However, the cost of mass flows of migration has placed a burden on European taxpayers and their economy, best exemplified by the German Finance Ministry which, “Expects to spend €77.6 billion ($86.2 billion) over the next four years feeding, housing and training refugees as well as helping their home countries to stem the flow.”

The Syrian refugee crisis is one of the worst humanitarian crises of our time. There are financial costs associated with accepting more refugees, but when we look to the examples of countries like Turkey, refugees might actually help the economy. However, discretion must be exercised given the effect that refugees have on welfare spending and crime.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is currently accepting about 95,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to the over 500,000 legal and illegal immigrants coming to the U.S. from elsewhere. The same report also revealed that the government spends $19,844 for every new refugee, who will come into the country immediately in need of food stamps, welfare, medical care, and housing. Refugees in Germany represent 2.5% of the German population but are disproportionately overrepresented in crime. Without considering migrants, the crime rate in Germany was fairly stagnant since 2014; however, “the country recorded an extra 402,741 crimes committed by migrants.” Continually, the amount of robberies and thefts committed in Germany by nonGermans can be seen in a German crime statistic report: “Non-Germans accounted for 38 per cent of all robberies, 38 per cent of thefts, and 43 per cent of thefts that involved a level of aggravation such as assault or force.” These statistics show the disproportionate effect of non-German refugees, albeit only a small proportion of Germany’s population, on crime.

W ORK S CI T E D “ S y r i a’s R e f u g e e C r i s i s i n N u m b e r s .” A m n e s t y In t e r n a t i o n a l , 3 Fe b . 2 016 . D a t o c , C h r i s t i a n . “A n g e l a M e r ke l O n R e f u g e e C r i s i s : G e r m a n y S c r e we d U p — B i g T i m e .” T h e D a i l y C a l l e r. T h e D a i l y C a l l e r, 3 0 A u g . 2 016 . P o u s h t e r, Ja c o b . “ E u r o p e a n O p i n i o n s o f t h e R e f u g e e C r i s i s i n 5 C h a r t s .” Pe w R e s e a rc h C e n t e r. N . p . , 16 S e p t . 2 016 . C a s s i d y, J o h n . “ T h e E c o n o m i c s o f S y r i a n R e f u g e e s .” T h e N e w Yo r k e r. N . p . , 18 N o v. 2 01 5 . O E C D ( 2 016 ), “ T u r ke y ”, i n O E C D E c o n o m i c O u t l o o k , Vo l u m e 2 016 I s s u e 1 ” O E C D P u b l i s h i n g. T h o m a s , A n d r e a . “ G e r m a n y P u t s M i g r a t i o n - R e l a t e d C o s t s a t O ve r $ 8 6 B i l l i o n O ve r N e x t Fo u r Ye a r s .” W S J. W S J . c o m , 01 Ju l y 2 016 . E d w i n S . “ T H E I M PAC T O F R E F U G E E S O N T H E S I Z E A N D S E C U R I T Y O F T H E U. S . P O P U L AT I O N .” N P G Fo r u m P a p e r ( 2 016 ) : 1+. N e g a t i v e P o p u l a t i o n G r o w t h , In c . “ P o l i c e C r i m e S t a t i s t i c s a n d C a s e N u m b e r s P o l i t i c a l l y M o t i v a t e d C r i m e P r e s e n t e d i n 2 01 5 .” B u n d e s m i n i s t e r i u m D e s In n e r n . Fe d e r a l I n t e r i o r M i n i s t r y, 5 Ja n . 2 016 .

OPEC CUTS F ROM SEPTEMBER 10 TO 14 OF 1960,

Baghdad hosted a conference where the nations of Iraq, Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela were represented, all countries abundant in one of Earth’s most critical resources: oil.

The organization founded, OPEC (The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries), sought to “co-ordinate and unify petroleum policies among Member Countries, in order to secure fair and stable prices for petroleum producers; an efficient, economic and regular supply of petroleum to consuming nations; and a fair return on capital to those investing in the industry.” This 56-year old coalition has developed immensely throughout many decades, facing market criticism, competition, and a responsibility to fairly regulate the natural gas and oil that they own. One of the organization’s responsibilities lies recently in a decision to cut production “to secure a continued improvement in oil prices.” This decision was brought up due to an economic deficit, because the price per barrel of oil has decreased to more than half of its original value since 2014. As of October 10th, 2016, Brent crude oil was only trading at approximately $52 a gallon. Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait have offered to discuss terms with Russia to cut production in order to help steadily raise oil prices once more. Russia itself has been suffering from economic pressure, but its oil production reaches up to 11.2 million barrels of oil a day, beating a post-Soviet record. Therefore, Russia has offered a production freeze rather than cuts in oil production in order to bolster financial abilities. “Russia is ready to join in joint measures to limit output and calls on

P ROP O SE D GL OB A L OP EC CU T S W I T H RUS SI A by S A M U E L Y I

other oil exporters to do the same,” Putin said at the 2016 World Energy Congress in Istanbul. “In the current situation, we think that a freeze or even a cut in oil production is probably the only proper decision to preserve stability in the global energy market.” Russia’s notion to freeze oil production would be especially beneficial to them, due to the sheer amount of oil production that they exhibit—surpassing all other petroleum harvesting nations. Russia is the United States’ 2nd largest oil supplier, second to Canada, and leads production worldwide. However, due to the dire economic situation faced by many oil-producing nations that feel exploited by their production and lack of revenue, the offer introduced by Russia may perhaps be feasible. Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at ThinkMarkets U.K., stated that “Traders have welcomed the news from Russia that it is ready to join other members to adopt sensible strategy to curb the supply and stabilize the price.” Saudi Arabia and Russia have been working closely together to discuss the issue of oil, most aptly due to their influential role as largescale oil producers. Saudi Prime Minister Khalid Al-Falih assured at the Oil and Money Conference in London on October 19th, 2016 that the solution of either freezing or cutting production is equitable to all nations, and many will join the collective international decision. New talks occur on November 30, where OPEC meets together again to discuss “details on how the burden of cuts will be shared, or whether producers outside the group will cooperate.”

W ORK S CI T E D “Brief History.” Brief History. OPEC, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. Mazneva, Elena. “Putin Says Russia Ready to Join OPEC Effort to Limit Oil Supply.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. News, BBC. “Oil Price Lifted by Russia Backing Opec Production Freeze.” BBC News. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. Oswaldo, Tapia, ed. MOMR September 2016. Rep. OPEC, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. Smith, Grant. “Saudi Arabia Says Many Nations Will Join OPEC Output Cuts.” Bloomberg.com. Bloomberg, n.d. Web. 22 Oct. 2016.

3 0 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

An oil drilling rig in Russia’s Arctic is one of the many production sites that Russia has and extracts petroleum from. These types of rigs contribute to their 11.2 million gallons of oil excavation a day. PHOTO BY ONGC VIDESH LDT.

The Zika Virus spreads primarily through mosquito transmission. The mosquito implicated in this transmission is the same as that which spreads diseases like Dengue Fever. PHOTO BY NELSON ALMEDIA, GETTY IMAGES.

W ORK S CI T E D h t t p : // w w w n c . c d c . g o v/e i d /a r t i c l e / 2 1 / 10/ 1 5 - 0 8 47_ a r t i c l e h t t p : // w w w. m e d i c a l d a i l y. c o m /z i k a - v i r u s - o u t b r e a k- h i s t o r y -3 8 1 1 3 2 h t t p : // w w w. a l j a z e e r a . c o m /n e w s / 2 016/01 /z i k a - v i r u s - 16 01 2 8 1 5 17 3 7 5 6 1 . h t m l>. h t t p s : // w w w. c d c . g o v/z i k a /a b o u t /o ve r v i e w. h t m l h t t p : // w w w.w h o . i n t / b u l l e t i n /o n l i n e _ f i r s t / 16 - 17 10 8 2 /e n / h t t p : // w w w. n p r. o r g /s e c t i o n s /g o a t s a n d s o d a / 2 016/01 / 2 9/4 6 4 8 1 10 5 2 /d o c t o r s - s e e - p r o fo u n d - a b n o r m a l i t i e s - i n - z i k a - l i n ke d - m i c r o c e p h a l y - c a s e s h t t p : // w w w. fox n e w s . c o m / h e a l t h / 2 016/0 5/ 1 2 / b r a z i l - s a y s - z i k a - l i n ke d - m i c r o c e p h a l y - c a s e s - f a l l - t o - 47 5 9. h t m l h t t p s : // w w w. c d c . g o v/z i k a /p r e g n a n c y/ h t t p s : // w w w. c d c . g o v/z i k a /g e o/a c t i ve - c o u n t r i e s . h t m l h t t p : //a b c n e w s . g o . c o m / H e a l t h /z i k a - v i r u s - u p d a t e -3 1 - p e o p l e - u s - i n fe c t e d - h o u s t o n /s t o r y? i d =3 6 5 9 70 02 h t t p : // w w w. c d c . g o v/z i k a /g e o/u n i t e d - s t a t e s . h t m l h t t p : // w w w. n b c n e w s . c o m /s t o r y l i n e /z i k a - v i r u s - o u t b r e a k /c d c - s - n e w - m i a m i - z i k a - r e d - z o n e - m e a n s - s t a y - o u t- n 6 6 9 4 01 h t t p : // w w w. c n n . c o m / 2 016/0 8/0 5/ h e a l t h /fd a - a p p r o ve - g m o - m o s q u i t o - z i k a - f l o r i d a /

3 2 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W Â· N O V. 2 0 1 6

INFECTED T HE SP RE A D OF T HE Z IK A V IRUS by A R V I N D S R I D H A R

UMANS ARE NO STRANGERS TO DISEASE.

Throughout history, plagues and pandemics have repeatedly afflicted us, regardless of the progress we have made or the immunity we have acquired. From the Bubonic Plague of the middle ages to the Spanish Flu pandemic following World War 1, these diseases have come with massive mortality rates, taking advantage of man-made infrastructure to spread more effectively. Many Americans remember the fear and uncertainty that came with the Swine Flu epidemic in 2009, or the Ebola epidemic in 2014. Today, a new disease, native to the tropics of South America and Africa, has reached pandemic proportions. As it spreads, the Zika Virus is sparking fear and uncertainty across 5 continents. In May 2015, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed an outbreak of Zika Virus in the cities of Camacari and Salvador, Brazil. First discovered in 1947 in Uganda, the Zika Virus for decades caused only mild infections across Africa and Asia. This new outbreak, however, reveals the power of viral evolution. Scientists have demonstrated that the Zika Virus spreads through mosquito bites, as a mosquito transmits blood and virus from an infected host to a healthy one. The same species of mosquitos have also been attributed to the spread of dengue fever. Currently, the Zika Virus is not airborne and can only spread through blood-blood contact. Once infected, patients experience fevers, rashes, muscle/joint pain, and other symptoms that resemble those of dengue, yellow fever, and other diseases which Zika is evolutionarily close to. Currently, there are no vaccines or treatments available for the disease, though the symptoms can be alleviated via rest and frequent hydration. However, the current outbreak of Zika holds a particularly malevolent twist for pregnant mothers. In the Brazilian Outbreak, mothers who contracted the disease gave birth to babies with significantly higher rates

of microcephaly, a birth disorder where babies are born with smaller heads and brain damage. In 2015, a total of 739 cases of microcephaly were reported in Brazil alone, a six-fold increase from 2014. And this number has skyrocketed since: in the early months of 2016, microcephaly cases spiked up to 5200. These horrific trends have been attributed to Zika by Brazilian health officials. Dr. Joao Ricardo de Almeida, who investigates these cases, exclaims that the scans of babies with microcephaly are “very scary to look at.” Indeed, brains that resemble “smooth rocks” and unusually stiff muscles are the hallmarks of this novel Zika-related microcephaly outbreak. Dr. Ricardo reveals the painful truth: “[These babies] are not going to be functional…They’ll need care for the rest of their lives.” However, microcephaly may just be the tip of the iceberg, as Zika-related brain and eye lesions have also been reported in newborn babies. Distressingly, no cures exist for these conditions.

company Oxitec designed to combat Zikaspreading mosquitoes in infected zones in Miami. This mosquito, a male of the same species that spreads Zika, has been engineered with a lethal gene. When it mates with Zika-transmitting females, this gene would cause all of the offspring to die. The theory is that, over time, the populations of Zika-infected mosquitoes will decrease: some say up to 90% of the population could disappear over six months. Currently, Oxitec is starting to conduct a field trial in Miami that, if successful, could pave the way for this approach to be used globally. The Zika Virus has struck fear in the hearts of many as it spreads like wildfire across the world. However, if new approaches to control its spread are successful, the science behind them could also be utilized to reduce the spread of other devastating mosquito-borne diseases, like dengue fever, yellow fever, and even malaria. Thus is the tale of Zika—the new pandemic.

From Brazil, the Zika Virus has spread to 59 countries around the world as of October 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In the United States, over 4000 cases of Zika have been confirmed and tied to outbreaks in Houston, New York, and other cities. The most horrifying case, however, is that of Miami: while in other cities Zika is only introduced by travelers returning from Zika-affected regions, Miami now faces a Zika epidemic characterized by local mosquito transmission. This has prompted the CDC to establish a “red zone” around Miami’s most infected areas, advising all pregnant women to stay out to avoid contracting the disease and putting their pregnancy in jeopardy. Faced with the imminent threat in Miami, researchers and companies have devised interesting approaches of combatting mosquito-based Zika transmission. In August 2016, the FDA approved a genetically modified mosquito developed by British

China making shows of force on the South China Sea PHOTO BY REUTERS.

CHOPPY SEAS N AT I O N A L I S M , M I G H T, R E S O U R C E S , G L O B A L

acclaim, and territory. Intervention, diplomacy, tension, militarization, and territory. Though all of these factors remain prominent throughout the major conflict brewing in the South China Sea, they are constituents of one, central notion: obtaining territory.

In the infamous South China Sea, the supposed abundance of “oil and natural gas” has incited the Chinese government to take primary initiative, militarizing the zone to the chagrin of its neighbors. The U.S Energy Information Administration estimates up to 11 billion barrels of oil, along with approximately 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, existing in unexplored areas of the lucrative region. The South China Sea is located in a seafaring enclave just east of the Pacific Ocean, bordered by Vietnam, Taiwan, Southern China, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, and many other nations. All of these countries engage in

3 4 B E L L A R M I N E P O L I T I C A L R E V I E W · N O V. 2 0 1 6

C ONF L IC T O V E R T HE S OU T H CHIN A SE A by S A M U E L Y I

trade, and the sea is a “major shipping route and home to fishing grounds that supply the livelihoods of people across the region.” The real problem that arises is China’s zealous assertion regards territory. Unlike the oceanic borders prescribed by the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which issues exclusive economic zones (EEZ) to regulate claims of naval routes by restricting coastal nations’ borders, China takes full claim to most of the Sea itself, stating that there is historical evidence dating back to 1947 that the islands and ocean territory were China’s property. China’s claims not only exceed past their own EEZ, but also interfere into the EEZ claims of the Philippines, Brunei, and Vietnam. Among all the zones in the South China Sea, the Spratly and Paracel Islands remain the most contested asset. The Chinese government has even gone as far to construct

3 military bases on the Spratly Islands. Further, aaccording to Article 121 of the third UN Convention in 1973, islands have the right and ability to generate their own EEZ. However, an aggressor nation simply occupying these islands does not allow it to expand its zone, especially within such a contested area—something China has hoped to do. The real issue is whether to consider these landmasses as rocks and islets or proper islands. According to Article 121 of UNCLOS, rocks “which cannot sustain human habitation or economic life of their own shall have no exclusive economic zone or continental shelf.” This would explain why some neighboring nations view China to be particularly aggressive, since there is no international agreement that the Spratly and Paracel Islands are legally sustainable for human life. Nevertheless, China’s ambitious expansion has led to the intervention of

various countries, ranging from Vietnam and Malaysia to the U.S. Territorial aspirations have not exclusively come from China, however. Taiwan and Vietnam are also seeking slices of the pie, claiming parts of the Spratly Islands, Paracel Islands, and South China Sea.5 The Vietnamese fishing economy greatly depends on its ability to utilize the South China Sea, and Chinese interference has obviously sparked diplomatic tension. Vietnam has allegedly set up mobile rocket launchers near the islands of the South China Sea and deployed military ships and equipment purchased from Japan, which is itself prohibited from engaging militarily with China following World War 2. The Philippines as well have held an opposing viewpoint against the Chinese, until current president Rodrigo Duterte took office on June 30th, 2016. Prior to his inauguration, the Philippines held an anti-Chinese expansion sentiment, buying supplies from Japan and performing joint military operations with the United States. In addition, the International Court of Arbitration at The Hague ruled on July 12th, 2016, that China’s historical claims to the sea were invalid, in Philippines v. China. However, the new President Rodrigo turned

the tides significantly by announcing his “military and economic separation” from the United States. Subsequently, Duterte offered somewhat of an alliance with China, stating that “America has lost now. I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow, …. And maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world: China, Philippines, and Russia. It’s the only way.” Not only this, but Duterte is also seeking to enter a deal with China to jointly explore energy resources in the South China Sea. Depending on individual interpretation, Duterte’s move could potentially pose a major setback or a popular improvement for the Philippines. Duterte has long been a favorite in his country, amidst his insults towards President Obama and his violent drug war in Manila; however, a recent poll of 1200 Filipino adults found that the trust ratings of the U.S were +66 while that of China was of -33. This torn opinion within the Philippines may prove pivotal in its dealings with China and Russia. In addition, America proves to be a major financial, diplomatic, and militaristic ally of the Philippines, and Duterte’s decision may have wavered the thoughts of many

American politicians and citizens. Ultimately, this diplomatic conflict ought to be settled in the most nonviolent fashion possible, with the intervention of the United Nations to regulate the just and peaceful negotiation of territorial disputes. As Russia is currently the head of the UN Security Council, it will be their primary job to ensure the safety of all nations and call the right shots to appeal to both the Philippines and the United States. We can only spectate and await what incident will come next. It will be up to national leaders, the United Nations, and the U.S’s newly elected President to decide the fate of the South China Sea. WORKS CITED ON NEXT PAGE.

W ORK S CI T E D (CHOP P Y SE A S) Borroz, Nicholas. “Washington Should Stop Militarizing the Pacific.” The New York Times. New York Times, n.d. Daiss, Tim. “China, Philippines Reportedly Set To Agree To Joint Oil Exploration In South China Sea.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, n.d. Hunt, Katie. “Philippines: Did Duterte’s China Gamble Pay Off?” CNN. Cable News Network, n.d. News, BBC. “Why Is the South China Sea Contentious?” BBC News. N.p., n.d. “Peacekeeping, Peacebuilding, Conflict Resolution, Prevention.” UN News Center. UN, n.d. “Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea.” Council on Foreign Relations. Council on Foreign Relations, n.d.

ROTTEN APPLES I M A G I N E PAY I N G A F R A C T I O N O F A P E R C E N T

in taxes. On August 30, 2016, American company Apple was targeted by the European Union to pay a hefty settlement of 14.5 billion dollars after their tax haven in Ireland was discovered. Between 1991 and 2007, Ireland charged annual tax rates between 0.005% and 1% on all European profits. At 0.005%, the Irish tax system was 70 times cheaper than the United States corporate tax rate, which sits at a costly 35%. However, the practice of corporate inversions, or the process where US companies move portions of their organization overseas to minimize taxes, is extremely common. For one, the practice of tax inversion is completely legal, even if some think Apple is evading their “fair share.” Secondly, the country charging the extremely low rate still receives massive benefits in taxes. To an ordinary household, 0.005% in taxes would be close to nil, but Apple has a market capitalization of about 628 billion USD, making it the single largest corporation in the world. To put Apple’s colossal size in perspective, in the second quarter of FY2015, Apple’s market capitalization was larger than the second and third largest companies’ market caps combined. By lowering tax rates and accommodating Apple, Ireland managed to

A P P L E ’ S TA X RE L E A SE S by J O S H F L U E G E M A N N

create economic growth, especially in Cork, Ireland, the location of the original factory created by Apple in October of 1980. The European Commission, in an in-depth press release, alleged, “The European Commission has concluded that Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13 billion [$14.5 billion] to Apple. This is illegal under EU state aid rules, because it allowed apple to pay substantially less tax than other businesses. Ireland must now recover the illegal aid.” According to the EU state aid rules, Apple was given an illegal advantage and, therefore, Apple has the obligation of paying back the $14.5 billion with interest. Even though Apple received profits from all the European countries through sales, all the profit was recorded in Ireland. The Commission further calls the $14.5 billion “recovery,” and are simply “restoring equal treatment.” Additionally, the Commission can only recover state aid for a ten-year period, meaning the profits between 1991 and 2002 will not be accounted for—only taxes owed between 2003 and 2014.

Cook contends that Apple owes nothing to the European Union simply because they have complied completely with Irish tax authority and Irish tax law. Tim Cook sees the moves by the European Commission as aggressive and unwarranted. In fact, he goes so far as to criticize the Commission for treading dangerously: “This would strike a devastating blow to the sovereignty of EU member states over their own tax matters, and to the principle of certainty of law in Europe.” Apple has filed for an appeal, which is expected to last for four or five years. Ireland’s Members of Parliament have backed Apple’s appeal with a 93-36 vote. The US Treasury Department also stands behind Apple and considers the EU tax investigation as unfair and an erratic change from the status quo of international tax standards. Should the European Commission successfully punish Apple, Apple’s influence and job empire in Europe may shrink significantly.

On the other hand, Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, responded to the European Commission’s attack on Apple in a customer newsletter.

W ORK S CI T E D “Customer Letter.” Apple (Ireland). Web. 22 Oct. 2016. Drozdiak, Natalia. “Apple Ordered by EU to Repay $14.5 Billion in Irish Tax Breaks.” WSJ. Wsj.com, 30 Aug. 2016. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. In, By Or Used. “AAPL : Summary for Apple Inc. - Yahoo Finance.” Yahoo Finance. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. “State Aid: Ireland Gave Illegal Tax Benefits to Apple worth up to €13 Billion.” European Commission. Web. 22 Oct. 2016. The Irish Government Confirmed Friday It Would Appeal a European Union Order to Collect 13 Billion Euros ($14.5 Billion) in Back Taxes from the Tech Giant. “Ireland Will Appeal against EU Apple Tax Ruling. “CNNMoney. Cable News Network. Web. 22 Oct. 2016

CONTAINING THE BLAST A N O V ERV IE W OF S A MSUNG ’ S F I A S C O by A R V I N D S R I D H A R

The Note 7 fiasco has taken a huge toll on Samsung. PHOTO BY CULT OF MAC

AMSUNG HAS HAD A BAD CASE OF

spontaneous implosion recently. From September to October 2016, the tech giant was forced to recall its new Galaxy Note 7 after reports of the devices spontaneously catching fire began to surface. Stories from customers of how they were awoken in the middle of the night to the sight of their phone engulfed in flames on their nightstand elicited shock, horror, and laughs from the community. The issue at hand, however, is no joke. In September, over 100 cases in the U.S. and abroad claimed that the new Note 7 had a tendency to catch fire[1]. After recalling the defective units, Samsung issued hundreds of thousands of supposed “safe” models to customers. The only problem was, these new models were no safer than the original: the devices still burst into flames. On October 10, 2016, Samsung discontinued its sale of the Note 7 globally and offered customers a full refund for the phone.

The move came as a tremendous blow to Samsung’s corporate coffers and credibility.

has not stopped preventative measures from being taken to ensure people’s safety.

The science behind the exploding phones is simple, and the answer lies in the device’s densely-packed lithium ion battery [1]. These same batteries were also behind the infamous exploding hoverboard recall last December. The tendency of these batteries to explode has mainly to do with the high flammability of the battery’s constituent materials. If the battery short-circuits, an event more probable when the battery is more densely packed into a thinner phone, the electricity within the device will cause the inner battery liquid to catch fire. So far, phone manufacturers have paid extra close attention to adding safety measures that avoid such eventualities. However, once in a while, a slip-up occurs. Statistically speaking, the chance that a single, specific Note 7 will explode is only about 0.008%[2]. However, this slim margin

As of October, all U.S. flights have issued a ban on passengers carrying Note 7s, even if the phones are tucked away in check-in bags, due to the fire risk that the phones pose[3]. Aircraft are especially sensitive to fire danger due to the tremendous pressure difference between the plane and the outside air during the flight. If a fire in the cabin happens to rupture the fuselage, this pressure difference would be so great as to trigger an instant, lethal explosion. Samsung has cooperated with this ban and is urging its customers to return their Note 7s for full refunds. Only time will tell whether Samsung will be able to put out a truly safe model of their Note 7, but rebuilding customer trust will undoubtedly take longer and require more resources on behalf of the tech giant.

W ORK S CI T E D https://www.dolmanlaw.com/samsung-recalls-1-million-galaxy-note-7-phones/ http://bgr.com/2016/10/10/samsung-note-7-recall-explosions-statement/ http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2016/10/14/dot-bans-samsung-galaxy-note-7-flights/92066322/