Issue 6 - Energy by The Horace Mann Review

Review the horace mann

Issue

E N E R G Y Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology

From The Editor

Review The Horace Mann

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, and Social Issues

Rebecca Segall Editor-in-Chief

Andre Manuel Mathieu Rolfo

Creative Executive Editor

Seth Arar Andrew Stier

Senior Production Supervisor

Alexander Daniel Emily Feldstein

Editorial Executive Editor

Harrison Manin

Senior Editor - Domestic

Zoe Rubin

ecology09

Fueling the Future

ou are what you eat, as they say. The way we power the operations that define our daily lives speaks volumes about our values, as individuals and as a nation. The movement towards green energy raises many questions about our sense of priorities which Review writers examine this week. The balance between efficiency and conscientiousness of the world around us is nearly impossible to strike, as our own reaction to the Gulf Coast oil spill catastrophe of two years ago demonstrates. The safety of those who procure our means of existence, whether they be coal miners or nuclear plant workers, is also paramount. In a nuclear age, the question of developing energy technology that could be used as a weapon pushes us to weigh pragmatism and international security. And is an economic crisis the time to invest government dollars in alternative energy? While energy policy may not play the largest role in our upcoming Presidential election, our relationship with Middle Eastern oil, development of new energy industries, and

Senior Editor - International

Dorin Azerad

Senior Editor - Features

Jordan Berman

Senior Editor - Economics

Katherine Wyatt

Senior Editor - Science & Technology

treatment of our environment will define our values as a nation in the coming years. Review writers also examine other critical issues that are shaping our world. Conflict is brewing in all corners of the globe, from the Middle East to east Africa to Latin America. Disparity of wealth and our relationship with technology are also perennial questions that require us to look thoughtfully at the facts and examine our reactions to them. We hope you find our opinions on these and other current events to be thought-provoking and awareness-raising. The Review is always open to writers who wish to explore current events, and invites the community to tune in to current events both politically and personally relevant to us. Sincerely,

Aramael Pena-Alcantara Jessica Bernheim Production Consultant

Senior Contributor

Adam Egelman Webmaster

Spencer Cohen Benjamin Davidoff Treshauxn Dennis-Brown Daniel Elkind Maurice Farber Jacob Gladysz-Morawski Nicholas McCombe Stephen Paduano Alexander Posner Nathan Raab Elizabeth Rosenblatt Charles Scherr Junior Editor

Philip Perl Ryan Thier David Zask

Junior Contributor

Max Bernstein Tianhao Chen Vivianna Lin Samantha Rahmin Associate Editor

Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor

Rebecca Segall Editor-in-Chief Volume XXI

The Horace Mann Review is a member of the Columbia Scholastic Press Association, the American Scholastic Press Association, and the National Scholastic Press Association. Opinions expressed in articles or illustrations are not necessarily those of the Editorial Board or of the Horace Mann School. Please contact The Review for information at thereview@horacemann.org.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

visor

eim

ia ic ss ard eg.

table of contents

Domestic The Battle Over Contraception

Isaiah Newman

The Race to the Top

Brett Silverstein

GOP Identity Crisis

Lauren Futter

Bold Moves Needed for the Department of Education

Sahej Suri

Social Issues Incite Revolution

Jay Rappaport

9 10

An America Built to Last?

Mitchell Troyanovsky

A Crime Against Criminals

Adam Resheff

Linsanity

Robert Hefter

China’s New Leader, America’s New Friend

Matthew Harpe

Iran’s Explosive Aspirations

Samantha Rahmin

Is the Yuan Really the Reason

Ryota Ikeda

The Spirit of the Syrian Revolution

Ikaasa Suri

The Trouble with Somalia

Ben Davidoff

Fueling the Future

Jonah Wexler

Obama’s Green Budget

Jennifer Heon

A Closer Look at the Environment

Wendy Jo

Blown Away

Jenna Barancik

The Nuclear Problem

Mihika Kapoor

Moving Past Solyndra

Samuel Henick

Gone with the Wind

Nathaniel Tillinghast-Raby

Corn Subsidies

James Megibow

The Good Samaritan

Vivianna Lin

Ready and Willing

Caroline Kuritzkes

The Tax Problem

Jessica Bernheim

The Education Gap

Charles Cotton

Acting on ACTA

Kelvin Rhee

An Affordable Proposition?

Lenn Uchima

Our Generation’s Addiction Prescription Drug Shortage

Jane Thier Philip Perl

55 58

International

Features

Economics

Science and Technology

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Domestic

isaiah newman

n March 23, 2010, President Barack Obama signed into law what has perhaps been the single most definitive piece of legislation of his entire presidency: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. A massive attempt to overhaul the American healthcare system, the bill contains many provisions whose implementation and enforcement remain uncertain. One provision of the law in particular has become quite a source of controversy: the requirement that health insurers cover â&#x20AC;&#x153;preventative health services.â&#x20AC;? Under the definition put forth by the Obama Administration, this measure includes coverage of all FDA-approved methods of contraception. This would necessarily require employers to offer this coverage as part of health insurance plans.

Washington Independant

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

The Battle Over Contraceptives The 1st Amendment and Religious Freedom However, Obama’s intent to enforce this provision of the act has drawn significant opposition from Christian religious groups and conservative Republicans across America, many of whom see this as a violation of their constitutionally protected religious freedom. They argue that the use of contraception directly violates several passages in the bible about “spilling one’s seed” (Genesis 38:8-10) as well as several teachings of the Catholic Church on artificial contraception. As such, they believe that religious institutions should not be forced to provide coverage to their employees. As a result, in early February, President Obama proposed a compromise: rather than requiring religious institutions to provide contraceptive coverage, his administration would only require insurance companies to do so in their health plans. However, this was not enough to fully appease all critics of the measure, with the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops stating that Obama’s proposed compromise is “unacceptable and must be corrected.” American Bishops still believe the measure to be an infringement upon religious liberty as well as Christian conscience and morality. They continue to have the full support of Republican political leaders such as John Boehner, as well as of the Republican presidential candidates. It appears, however, that the Obama Administration does have the backing of the American people, even American Catholics. A recent poll by the Public Religion Research Institute even found that a majority of Catholics polled (52%) supported requiring religious institutions such as colleges and hospitals to cover contraceptives in insurance plans.

Information like this causes one to question the wisdom of waging such a public war against contraception. Not only does it appear to be fairly unpopular with the people whose religious liberty Obama’s opponents claim to be supporting, but it also appears, as similar polls and studies have exposed, to be based on very shaky logical foundations. It is certainly true that, as per the First Amendment, it is unconstitutional and unacceptable for Congress

Civil Rights Act of 1964 would have had absolutely no effect, and neither would most controversial laws passed in American history. Commonly held American principles of equality and liberty would be in ruins, and equal rights for all Americans would simply be a far-off dream, rather than an ever-approaching reality. It is unacceptable that this viewpoint has gained any credence with the American people and their political leaders. Not only is it inherently

“Not only does [the public war against contraception] appear to be fairly unpopular with the people whose religious liberty Obama’s opponents claim to be supporting, but it also appears... to be based on very shaky logical foundations.” to pass laws discriminating directly against or favoring any religion. However, requiring contraceptive coverage in insurance plans does neither. It merely requires insurance companies across the board to provide easier access to a health service unavailable to less fortunate American women, with absolutely no infringement upon an American citizen’s free exercise of their beliefs. In the words of political comedian Jon Stewart, American religious institutions are “confusing religious persecution with not getting [their] way.” The argument that one can be exempt from the enforcement of a federal law simply because it violates their moral opinions is absolutely baseless, and it ignores the form that social progress has taken throughout American history. If this idea were paid any significant heed, then America would still be a slaveholding nation without any political rights for minorities. The

blind to the history and structure of this country’s government, but also it denies access of much needed and desired service to millions of Americans. Women deserve access to contraceptives to help prevent pregnancies that they simply cannot afford and would have a negative impact on their lives and communities. If the opposition to President Obama’s efforts is allowed to let stand as a legitimate political movement, then not only will a dangerous precedent have been set in American politics, but also a basic right will have been denied to Americans who may desperately need it. HMR

pendant

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Domestic

The Race to the Top The Republican Primaries and the Uphill Battle for the GOP Nomination

brett silverstein

o state is worth more than the amount of delegates it allots. The Michigan and Arizona Primaries have passed and Romney won the popular vote in both states but split the delegate count in Michigan. Since Romney did win the popular vote in both states as was expected the polling of the candidates has largely not changed. As the primaries pass by frontrunners come and go, but at least for now, Mitt Romney is the front-runner and Rick Santorum is the conservative alternative. However, what effect would a Santorum win have had on the other candidates and in particular on Mitt Romney? Would the current state of the candidates have significantly changed if Santorum won Michigan outright? While Santorum did not win the Michigan Primary this analysis will try to determine what would have been the effect on the Republican Field if Santorum had won. Looking at the long-term, Rick Santorum’s loss in the Michigan Primary probably does not mean all that much. Rick Santorum did not rise to his position as the conservative alternative to Mitt Romney solely by winning the Iowa Caucus. Rather, a string of wins in February including the Missouri Primary, Colorado Caucus, and Minnesota Caucus has helped to cement Santorum’s status. Yet there is no guarantee of staying atop the polls even after winning a primary as we have seen earlier in the primary season. Newt Gingrich’s strong debate performances in South Carolina knocked aside Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire Primary win. Romney’s supporters echoed with a barrage of attack-ads in Florida; Romney’s Super-PAC ran 13,000 ads while the Gingrich Super-PAC only ran 200. Ultimately, Mitt Romney was successful in trouncing Newt Gingrich in Florida. While winning a primary might not correlate with long-term gains, being atop the polls is still very important for fundraising. Bloomberg. com reported that in January the Santorum campaign raised $4.5 million dollars compared to $2.2 million dollars during the previous year. Bloomberg.com also stated that the Gingrich campaign raised $5.6 million dollars during January in large part due to his South Carolina win. Having a large amount of money is critical to running a national campaign. When Tim Pawlenty dropped out after the Iowa Straw Poll in August, he dropped out in large part because after spending $1 million

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic dollars on advertising leading up to the Iowa Straw Poll, he felt that he did not have the financial wherewithal to continue a national campaign. Moreover, now that debate season has ended, advertising will play a significant role in reaching the national audience. The negative advertising unleashed by the Romney Campaign and its Super PAC, Restore Our Future, led to Romney’s decisive 46 to 32 defeat over Gingrich on January 21. This occurred just a mere 10 days after Gingrich’s 40 to 22 defeat of Romney in South Carolina. Up until Super Tuesday, the candidates had been able to campaign in each state individually. Rick Santorum largely skipped campaigning in Florida, and instead concentrated his efforts in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri, where he won all three primaries and the caucus on February 7th. In the weeks leading up to Super-Tuesday, Newt Gingrich spent most of his time campaigning in Georgia while Romney and Santorum spent a lot of time campaigning in Ohio. With the fast-paced schedule of the Republican primary season, advertising will have to substitute for in-person campaigning and will thus play a large part in shaping the results of those elections. Michigan was an interesting primary. Romney had put increased importance on this swing state but his criticism of the auto bailouts led to Romney just barely edging out Rick Santorum 41.1% to 37.9%. Even if Romney had just won Arizona and had lost Michigan to Rick Santorum, Romney would still have received all 29 delegates from Arizona and received a portion of Michigan’s delegates; both Romney and Santorum would still have needed an additional 1,000 delegates to receive the nomination. Moreover, losing the state of birth or residency is not a death sentence. William H. Harrison, James K. Polk, Abraham Lincoln, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush all lost their states of birth in the national election and they still became president.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

James K Polk, Woodrow Wilson, and Richard Nixon all lost their own resident states. In addition, because Michigan’s economy is so reliant on the auto industry and Romney has repeatedly said that the government should not have bailed out the auto industry, Michigan does not necessarily accurately reflect the national view of the candidates. In fact, a Gallup Poll from February 23 showed that 73% of Republicans and 51% of all Americans disapproved of the auto-bailouts. At the end of the day, the result of the Michigan primary are not going to determine much; most people know what the candidates stand for and while Santorum has gone on to win four primaries since the Michigan Primary, Romney has won seven primaries, gaining an additional 236 delegates. Notwithstanding Newt Gingrich’s win in Georgia, Rick Santorum has finished ahead of Newt Gingrich in every primary and caucus since the Nevada Caucus. This is important for a number of reasons. First, throughout this election season Santorum and Gingrich have been jockeying for the position of the Romney alternative. Should the conservative base of the Republican Party coalesce around either Santorum or Gingrich, Romney will have a much harder time winning primaries. After Newt Gingrich’s protest of John King’s opening question at the CNN debate on January 22, conservatives rallied around Gingrich and handed him a primary victory in South Carolina. Romney had 28% of the vote and Santorum came in a distant third with 17% of the vote. Yet Newt Gingrich has finished third or fourth in all the primaries after his distant second place finish in the Florida Primary. As previously noted, the massive amount of money spent on negative advertising by the Romney Super PAC in large part led to Newt Gingrich’s defeat in Florida. Having a large amount of money will be critical for the candidates in order to defend themselves on

the airwaves. With Santorum’s trifecta of wins in Colorado, Minnesota, and Missouri and his higher favorability ratings-a CNN Opinion Research Poll from the 10-13 of February showed that Santorum has 32-38 favorable-unfavorable rating while Gingrich has 25-63 favorable-unfavorable rating--the conservatives might decide to leave Gingrich behind and support Santorum. Mitt Romney does not want the conservative base to form around Rick Santorum. Romney has only topped 50% in the Nevada Caucus and a coalition around Rick Santorum could lead to a brokered convention. Even though Romney won the Conservative Political Action Commmittee straw poll, many still see Romney as being a quasi-conservative. However, Karl Rove says in his oped in the WSJ “the odds are greater that there’s life on Pluto than the GOP has a brokered convention. And while there’s a better chance of a contested convention, it is still highly unlikely.” Romney still has the most money in the bank, $7.7 million compared to Santorum’s $1.5 million, Gingrich’s $1.8 million (although he has $1.7 million in debts), and Ron Paul’s $1.9 million. Moreover, in most exit polls, Romney is leading with voters who consider electability most important. The Michigan Primary is going to have no more long-term impact on the Republican Convention than the next primary or caucus. Even if Romney had lost he would still have remained in the public’s eye as the electable business candidate while Santorum would still have remained as the true conservative. Unless Gingrich finds some inner steam, Santorum will continue to receive donations from conservatives and Gingrich will struggle on. Either way, the Michigan Primary is not going to change the minds of voters. It may reaffirm people’s opinions, but ultimately Michigan is only worth 30 delegates. HMR

Domestic

GOP Identity Crisis

lauren futter

ately the political arena has been filled with rallying cries of “I am a true conservative” and “I am a Tea Party member!” When people hear these phrases the images of Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Newt Gingrich come to mind. Ironically, in an effort to conform to these labels, these candidates have lost clarity in their platforms. While speaking in Michigan recently, Mitt Romney was asked about deficit reduction and replied, “If all you’re thinking about doing is cutting spending, as you cut you’ll slow down the economy.” Wait a second; Republicans claim they want to cut spending. So where does that leave Mr. Romney? Does he align himself with the traditional Republican belief or does he disagree? Either way, the voters must question what Mr. Romney is really thinking. Despite this confusion, the solution is simple. Why not just play a political build-a-bear: Build-a-political ideology? First, the stuffing -- what makes your political ideology tick? Instead of stuffing it with love, hugs, and kisses we can fill it

with trade liberalization, hardline foreign policy, or staunch fiscal policy. Next, we choose the type of people your ideology will benefit. Will it help the middle class, the 1%, or the poorest people in the given system? Finally, we must dress this political system. What kind of legislation do you hope will come from this new political ideology? Congratulations; you probably now have something similar to a Socially Liberal Conservative Fiscal-atarian, or

servative” does not mean much to the viewer of the program because this phrase can mean many things, just like saying you are eating a fruit can mean many different things. So the problem is not solely a person’s unspecific reference to himself or herself, but the media’s proliferation of this mistake. Now, voters and average people have no idea what to think or what to believe, and this leads to problems over voters’ understandings of what exactly

something along the lines. While the notion of thinking about one’s own political views and developing a political system based off of it may seem like a simple fix, one can not just look inwardly to fix the problem. A recent study by the Media Research Center found that 62% of television networks used the “conservative” label to describe candidates. Calling the majority of people “conservatives” is akin to referring to apples and oranges only as fruit. Really, the title “con-

they are voting for when they cast their ballots. Furthermore, putting candidates or voters into narrowly defined categories ignores the fact that not all humans believe in the same ideologies or methods for fixing problems. Whether it is the media or the candidates and citizens themselves, both the media and the American population must begin to recognize the deviations within political paradigms in order to achieve a more bipartisan future. HMR

“The problem is not solely a person’s unspecific reference to him or herself, but the media’s proliferation of this mistake.”

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

Bold Moves Needed for the Department of Education

M sahej suri

ichelle Bachman once stated, “What I would do as President of the United States is pass the mother of all repeal bills on education. Then I would go over to the Department of Education, I’d turn off the lights, I would lock the door and I would send all the money back to the states and localities.” Of the 20 GOP debates, countless attacks and assumptions have been made about the Department of Education. Many have called into question its function and existence. Some argue that the states have a responsibility to maintain public schools instead of having a national system of education. As the size of the national government has increased and the responsibility of funding has been transferred to the hands of the government instead of the states, it is advisable to determine whether or not there are alternative and viable methods. According to the Department of Education, the “ED currently administers a budget of $68.1 billion in discretionary appropriations (including discretionary Pell Grant funding) and operates programs that touch on every area and level of education.” Many have called into question if it is even necessary to provide this much funding. Yet the benefits of the Department of Education are evident. “The Department’s elementary and secondary programs annually serve nearly 16,000 school districts and approximately 49 million students attending more than 98,000 public schools and 28,000 private schools. Department programs also provide grant, loan, and work-study assistance to more than 15 million postsecondary students.” According to Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies a the American Enterprise Institute, “It’s not reThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

alistic [to get rid of the Department of Education]. If there is any official in Obama’s cabinet who has gotten more praise from the Wall Street Journal and conservative corners it is the secretary of education.” Although some believe that getting rid of the Department of Education is unrealistic, others have begun to determine which parts of the department could be cut in order to reduce the amount of taxpayer dollars put into this program. According to Bluegrass Politics, “Programs on the chopping block would include Title 1, which distributes funds to schools and districts with high numbers of low-income students; Pell Grants for low-income college students; and Head Start, an early childhood education program for lower-income children.” According to an article by Fox News, “The department itself notes it has the third larg-

skills they need to compete for the jobs of the future. Because what works in Rhode Island may not be the same thing that works in Tennessee -- but every student should have the same opportunity to learn and grow, no matter what state they live in.” If Obama can support current initiatives that are taking place on the local level instead of funding for more national plans to help the overall public schooling system, perhaps Democrats and Republicans would both be appeased. However, one consistent argument made by Republicans is that since education is not mentioned in the Constitution and is not one of the initial mandates of the national government, the federal government does not have a right to interfere with the public schooling system. As a viable alternative to the government giving taxpayer

“If Obama can support current initiatives that are taking place on the local level instead of funding for more national plans to help the overall public schooling system, Democrats and Republicans would perhaps both be appeased.” est budget despite having the smallest staff of 15 Cabinet agencies.” Perhaps the most important act that has been set in place is the No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2011 by former President George W. Bush. The funding required for No Child Left Behind increased the budget of the Department of Education by 40.4% in its first year alone. President Barack Obama has allowed waivers for states since they “have agreed to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential reforms to improve teacher effectiveness,” as stated in a White House report. Barack Obama has been a stalwart supporter for allowing more flexibility on the local level. “We’re going to let states, schools, and teachers come up with innovative ways to give our children the

dollars to students, many encourage having more scholarships awarded by private entities and less government intervention. In addition, handing control over issues to the local and state level has been suggested. Whether the solution may be cutting parts of the Department of Education, leaving it entirely, or getting rid of it completely, according to Bill Wilson, president of Americans for Limited Government, there is an “increasing ideological convergence from both the left and the right that there’s a real problem that has to be addressed. … Given where we’re going and all the indications, by 2013 the finances are going to be in such dire situation that they’re going to have to look at bold moves.” HMR

Domestic

Social Issues Incite Revolution L

jay rappaport

et’s fracture the nation. Let’s get everybody red in the face. Let’s take out Bibles and declarations and lessons our fathers taught us. Let’s talk about social issues. Fundamentally, social mores are simple concepts that we have all been taught from a young age. They are the rights and wrongs that encompass people’s morality and religion. When they make their periodic forays into the public arena, the American Civil Liberties Union, church groups, town halls, and ordinary Americans speak up. Social issues polarize us, divide us, and show us the vast disparities of beliefs in our nation. They touch something much deeper than arguments over economics can; they are debates over our very nature. Social issues, historically, have divided the nation and the world. We must only look at our nation thirty-nine years ago, when the Supreme Court issued its decision on 411 U.S. 113, often known as Roe v. Wade. Just over a year after the original oral arguments had been made, the Court ruled that that the constitutional “right to privacy,” guaranteed in the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, included the right to abortion. Therefore, a Texas antiabortion law was deemed unconstitutional. People marched on Main Street and people marched on Washington. In 1963, America was a place where an issue so purely humanitarian had the nation’s attention, and the Supreme Court floor served as its stage. It was an issue so polarizing that every corner of the country had a starkly different view. It was a social issue.

Washingyton Independant

Let us go back seven years. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 hit the Senate floor on March 30th of that year, and then came the filibuster against it. Senator Richard Russell (D-GA) said, “We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our [Southern] states.” Like all social issues, civil rights were a political hot button that encompassed lifestyle. It was an issue that uprooted lessons taught generations over, a call to nature to destroy the longest established institution of unofficial enslavement. Lest we forget, five months before this, a crowd of 200,000 people poured into the Lincoln Memorial, some by bus and some by foot, to hear Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his “I Have a Dream” speech, a call for social equality. Women suffragists, like Susan B. Anthony and Anna Howard Shaw, joined picket lines and reached for the ballots with a call for the right to vote, continuing the 20th century thread of contentious

social issues. The history of social issues runs into the middle of the 19th century with a jolt. The ultimate American social issue was slavery. Unlike the cases previously examined, national division did not happen in speeches or debate of bills; it happened through spilled blood on the battlefield. This social issue officially divided the nation. This history is proof that social issues are forces to be

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

reckoned with, not just a topic of historical study. After having looked at where they’ve been, we must see where they are, and where they’re going. Today’s major social issues revolve around two concepts, one new and one old: same-sex marriage and abortion. Since 2004, six states and Washington, D.C. have adopted legislation allowing same-sex marriage licenses (this does not include Washington state which is scheduled to start doing so on June 7, 2012 or Maryland whose governor is expected to sign into law a bill legalizing same-sex marriage soon.) Although this only constitutes 12% of the states, there is clearly a growing, liberalizing trend toward acceptance of same-sex marriage. If seven states have recognized it within eight years, there is no telling how many will have eight years from now. However, with this trend comes a counterrevolution. Many have reacted to same-sex marriage’s entering the public sphere very negatively, vowing to oppose it. According to an ABC News Poll from July of 2011, 51% of people support gay marriage, 45% are “against it,” and 4% are “unsure,” which is a large increase from another poll they conducted from MayJune 2006 that showed 36% supporting gay marriage, 58% against, and 5% unThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

sure. We cannot know what the future holds for same-sex marriage in the U.S. and abroad, but clearly it is an issue that divides us today. Roe v. Wade certainly did not end our abortion debate. Throughout this 2012 election season, Republican candidates have been asked about it, and President Obama made a mess for himself when trying to deal with contraception coverage in healthcare. A Gallup poll conducted from July 15th-17th, 2011 showed 47% of people identifying as pro-choice and 47% as pro-life (3% did not know what the terms meant, 2% chose mixed/ neither, and 1% had no opinion.) This actually reflects a more conservative trend on the abortion issue; a Gallup poll from May 2006 showed 51% pro-choice and only 41% pro-life and another one from September 1995 had an even wider disparity with 56% pro-choice and 33% prolife. Trends are certainly worth studying, but at least one thing is clear: abortion divides our country. How government can and should deal with social issues is a very delicate situation. Government action on social issues must take into account constitutional recognitions of individual liberties and regulations on government power. Sometimes government action comes

through new legislation, like the Civil Rights Act of 1964, sometimes through constitutional amendments, like the 19th Amendment falls, and sometimes through judicial rulings, like Roe v. Wade. It is a continued balance between state and federal power. State and federal governments often overlap on social issues because social issues are so pertinent to the everyday, yet arouse so much national passion and action. The clearest example of state and federal action in regards to social issues is on same-sex marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which then President Bill Clinton signed into law on September 21, 1996, defines marriage as “a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and a spouse as “a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.” DOMA does give states some latitude on deciding their own policy on same-sex marriage, but its definitions are clear. A clear conflict has developed between states’ legalizing same-sex marriage and DOMA. This is indicative of how social issues puzzle our federalist structure and how the unclear divide between federal and state power on them can yield messy results.

Domestic Now as for where social issues are going: Politics’ future at the moment is the 2012 presidential election, where social issues have recently taken a significant amount of stage time away from the economy. President Barack Obama has had an interesting, evolving stance on social issues, trying to balance the interests of the nation and his party. According to OnTheIssues.org, Obama has a history of supporting gay rights and trying to focus the same-sex marriage debate more around rights and less around marriage. He is against same-sex marriage at the moment, but says his policy on it is “evolving.” However Obama’s policy on same-sex marriage has to be viewed in what he does not do or say. He has not enforced DOMA, and recently declared it unconstitutional and said he will not defend it in courts; his not enforcing it has allowed for state legislatures to legalize same-sex marriage on their own. Last December, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced that the U.S. would use foreign aid to improve the rights of lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgender (LGBT)

in other countries. Obama simply used Clinton as his mouthpiece. She said what he could not. This shows the political considerations Obama is trying to balance for his public approval and his 2012 campaign. He is trying to balance courting both gay and conservative voters. The gay community has lauded Obama, so he

of people support gay marriage, only 12% of states have legalized it, so it would be tough for Obama to get the political support needed in an overt pro-gay marriage policy. Sometimes the federal government needs to take a stance supporting the right thing on tough issues, but the gay movement must gain more political traction in town halls and state legislatures across the country before it would make sense for Obama to publicly support it. Obama’s major overt action regarding same-sex rights was his repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a law that prohibited homosexuals from openly serving in the military. It will be interesting to see how that affects him in 2012. Obama had an interesting February with the abortion and contraception issue. At first he announced that employers, including religious institutions, had to cover the costs of birth control, included in their health care cost overage. The Catholic community spoke out against this policy, and Obama felt himself entering political hot water, so he reversed the policy for religious institutions and called it a compromise. I do not know if he did the right thing; this is a very tough issue dealing with all that Roe v. Wade did and religious freedom, but it will be interesting to see if and how this affects his reelection campaign. Republicans seem to be fighting a losing battle on social issues. As the nation appears to be liberalizing, Republicans continue to pander to the far religious right whose biggest stake in politics is social issues. The far right certainly seems to have a louder collective voice than more liberal republicans. Maybe Republicans are sticking up for what they actually believe in; their arguments certainly deserve to be considered. One thing is clear, however: social issues will be very difficult for them to balance in the 2012 election. Winning without swaying Independents is a tough order, but those Independents may be more liberal on social issues while Republican candidates still, very overtly, support the far Right. Current Republican front-runner Mitt Romney knows the impact of social

“When issues [like abortion and gay marriage] make their periodic forays into the public arena the American Civil Liberties Union, church groups, town halls, and ordinary Americans speak up.”

seems to be winning that effort. And with skepticism over how conservative Republican front-runner Mitt Romney’s policies, he may be able to sway some conservative Republicans, but more importantly retain conservative Democrats. Gay citizens also know that Obama is their best advocate in 2012; he may not be perfect, but he has given them much more than any of the Republican candidates claim they would. Without needing to balance political interests for another election, Obama may be more liberal in a second term than he has been in his first. For the moment, I personally support Obama’s policy. I think that he is pursuing a liberal, humanitarian agenda in promoting gay rights even if he won’t say it. Also, he is trying to lessen this social issue’s division of the nation, and he has done a pretty good job. Finally, although 51%

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic issues all too well. Romney is constantly vilified for switching positions on social issues. Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage while Romney was Governor, despite his opposition. Romney has been accused of flip-flopping on his position regarding civil unions for gays and lesbians. Now, he is unequivocally against gay marriage, supporting a constitutional amendment to ban it and federal legislation that would allow one state the right to not recognize a same-sex marriage from another state. Romney was prochoice, but is now very much pro-life and in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade with another Supreme Court case. As the far Right grows more suspicious about Romney’s being too liberal for their taste, he gets more and more conservative on social issues. Romney has to recognize that his going too far right has negative effects as well. His change makes him less appealing to moderates and Independents, groups which could be the deciding factor in the general election. Romney may win the primary with this, but it may force him to watch a second inauguration for Obama about a year from now. Romney’s switch on social issues also begs the question about the possibility of a socially liberal Republican on the national stage.

social issues. Santorum is against abortion universally, even in a case of incest or rape, and supports federal action banning same-sex marriage through a constitutional amendment. I doubt this con-

“Social issues touch something much deeper in us than do arguments over economics; they are debates over our very nature. They inspire revolution, but most importantly they raise the number of people who care about what is happening in Washington.” Without knowing it, Romney may have marked the end of that rare breed of politician. Rick Santorum’s ascension as a serious contender for the Republican nomination brings social issues’ to the national stage again. He has put his conservative position on social issues at the forefront of his campaign, and has perhaps succeeded because of that. This tells us two things about the Republican party: it is not satisfied with Mitt Romney as a conservative, and that, perhaps as a reactionary force to America’s recent liberalizing, Republicans are still very conservative on The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

servative agenda could work in a general election despite its recent success in the primaries; it would push away too many Moderates and Independents for Santorum to win. There is a new branch of the Republican Party to consider: the Libertarian. Reverting back to a classical Republican stance of lessening government’s role in every sector of life, the Libertarian movement has been gaining momentum in the past few years with over 800 Libertarian candidates having run for public office in November 2010. Ron Paul, the Libertarian leaning Texas Congressman,

exemplifies this in his 2012 presidential campaign. Paul supports removing the federal government from issues like gay marriage and abortion, and says states should take the lead on gay marriage. Libertarians often seem more liberal on social issues because they don’t think the government should regulate them but for different reasons than Democrats. If nothing else, they are another section of political interests and of the population to balance come election time. I do not always know what to do with social issues. I know what I think about different ones, but one can never be absolutely sure if one’s beliefs are right or if they are just another product of time and place. I do fervently believe, however, that social issues have a profound effect on our lives and on political discourse. They inspire marches, demonstrations, and revolution - but most importantly, they raise the number of people who care about what is happening in Washington. They strike a chord deep within all of us and are many people’s breaking point to jolt them from an unintentional position of political apathy to one of political activism. So keep fighting for your social issues; they count. HMR

Domestic

mitchell troyanovsky

n February, President Obama released his budget proposal for the 2013 fiscal year. While this economic blueprint has drawn widespread praise from the Democratic base, there are many who are rightfully critical of his proposal. First of all, the Presentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s budget calls for increased revenue through the expiration of the Bush-era Tax Cuts. This measured would effectively raise the tax

rate on the highest income bracket, those making, and raise taxes on corporations. He would also raise the capital gains tax from 15% to 20% and have dividend income be taxed as normal income for anyone who earns more the $200,000 a year. Moreover, the proposal calls for a massive $476 billion dollar stimulus package that would put Americans to work by employing them through public works projects. This stimulus would also include tax in-

centives for companies to hire workers. These proposals are flawed and misguided. Jobs are created by corporations; therefore, why would anyone raise taxes on the very institutions that create Americas jobs? President Obama taking money away from not only the job-creating engines of our economy, but also from individuals in our society who create jobs as well. The tax hikes on the wealthiest people and corporations will indirectly affect The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic porary jobs that will not spur long-term economic growth. The point of a stimulus package is to inject money into an economy to stimulate it. But why does this process have to go through an extremely tedious, bureaucratic process. We should give tax cuts to all income brackets and corporations to spur economic growth. Such a measure would give people more money to invest and would create permanent jobs because people will have more money and be able to spend more. When they spend more this creates higher revenue for corporations. When corporations get higher revenue they want to expand, and to expand they need to create jobs. This will create permanent jobs for hard working Americans who are currently unemployed.

from investing, thus discouraging further investment. If people don’t invest, then companies won’t have the capital they need to keep people employed during bad times. If people stop investing, we could enter into a double-dip recession, an outcome that would fundamentally undermine the economic vitality of the United States. The government should not punish people for investing in the U.S. economy and creating jobs; now is definitely not the time to start. While piling debt forever is not the way to go, you can’t kick Americans while they’re down just to solve the government’s problems. Instead, the government should enact expansionary fiscal policy tax cuts to start the multiplier effect and get our economy going again. We

“Jobs are created by corporations; therefore, why would anyone raise taxes on the very institutions that create Americas jobs?”

the lives of the middle and lower class, because with less capital companies will be forced to fire workers. What’s ironic is that this is completely counterproductive to the goal of this budget, to create jobs. In addition, President Obama wants to fund a mammoth stimulus package that would create jobs by rebuilding bridges, creating new public works, and giving some tax incentives to hire workers. While these may seem like effective proposals, the truth is that these are temThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Another problem with President Obama’s proposal is that it does not fully address the root of our economic woes. Believe it or not, there are currently jobs available here in the United States. The reason that the unemployed can’t take these jobs is that they require levels of education that many of these people don’t have. So why don’t we solve the problem at its source: our public education system. Obama’s budget states that only 3% of our budget is going to education and training. How is that right, when unemployment is the biggest issue concerning our country right now? People who get laid off from jobs that require human capital always find other jobs because they have the skills and the knowledge to perform these tasks. This is why we should make sure our youth is educated well. We should raise education to at least 5% of the budget and give future generations the education they need to fill jobs that require a good amount of knowledge. Another problematic aspect of President Obama’s tax plan is that he is raising the capital gains tax. This is simply unacceptable. The reason the capital gains tax is low is to incentivize people to invest. Raising the tax will take away a larger portion of the income people could earn

need to put money back into the hands of the American people and not punish them for the government’s problems. Also, spurring our economy can go a long way towards addressing our debt crisis because once the U.S. begins to see widespread economic growth, the taxpayers of this country will have more money and therefore the government will be getting a higher tax revenue without having to raise taxes and the government won’t have to spend so much money on social security because more Americans will have jobs and livable incomes the they do now. Once the government gets America back on the path of economic growth and prosperity, then it can enact contractionary fiscal policy by raising taxes and lowering spending. This will address our debt crisis without big economic side effects in the private sector. We have to focus on what is currently important and right now, that issue is putting Americans back to work. Obama has the right intention but his budget proposal does not correctly address the main problems that our country faces. HMR

International

A Crime Against Criminals T

Adam Resheff

here are two completely incompatible theories on the purpose of prison. One is that prisons are meant to punish the inmates for their crime. The other is that prisons are meant to rehabilitate inmates so that they can eventually enter society as upstanding citizens. South American prisons take the latter approach. If prisoners could develop job skills and get over their psychological issues, then past prisoners can eventually enter the world as functional people. The ironic reality is that prisons are overflowing and encourage violence. The prison in Apodacawas was built for 1500 prisoners, yet it holds 3000. A riot in a northern Mexico prison resulted in the death of

44 people, proving this remarkable prison violence. Venezuelan prisons show the same phenomenon: prison-organized knife fights are commonplace in prisons which hold 4300 people despite being built for a mere 1700. Reform needs to come to South American prisons, at both the humanitarian and procedural level. Honduras suffers from frequent organized violence and drug trafficking, leading in turn to overcrowding in their prisons. The Comayagua prison has a maximum capacity of 500 but houses 850 inmates. This unreasonable size leads directly to the high death toll and the public, negative feelings of the inmatesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; families. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Thd

International To reduce prison size these governments should simply ensure that the people in prison are in fact guilty of a crime. In 2003, to combat the numerous drug gangs that ravaged the country, Honduras implemented a law that allowed police to arrest anyone under suspicion of belonging to or working with a gang. Certain tattoos were deemed sufficient evidence for an arrest warrant. Those under suspicion are put in prisons until their cases are taken up by the court. Unfortunately, since an excess of drug cases overwhelms the system, their cases generally take a very long time to reach a judge, leaving many people never convicted of a crime sitting in jail-cells for years. Although Honduras has the right to reduce its drug crimes aggressively, it’s evident that imprisoning potentially

innocent people will only cause harm to more potentially innocent people by overcrowding prisons. All Honduran citizens should have the right to a fair judicial process and should not have to face imprisonment before proven guilty of a crime. Prisoners are people too and thus there must be some value on their lives. For a while now, the families of the inmates and human rights groups have criticized the Honduran government for not putting into place procedures to ensure the safety of the inmates. Essentially, inmates are kept in gang-run prisons with little to no protection. In the event of an emergency, they face certain death with scarce hope of help from those working within the prison or from the

This past February, 359 inmates in the Comayagua prison in Honduras died in a massive inferno. outside. These conditions cannot persist. This past February, 359 inmates in the Comayagua prison in Honduras died in a massive fire. In addition to this disaster, debatably one of the greatest in the country’s history, Honduras has dealt with two other significant prison fires within the last ten years. The cause of this fire is still unknown. Initial reports indicate that an inmate set his mattress on fire, while later reports suggest that a circuiting malfunction led to the fire. However, since this fire is clearly not an anomaly, the cause is irrelevant. The prisoners deserve more protection. The fire is a perfect example of an incident where better procedure could have saved the lives of many prisoners. During the fire, most of the inmates’ cells were locked. Only one guard had

Thde fire at Comayagua prison that killed 359 - Courtesy of Awsome Blog

the key to unlock the cells. However, the inmates swear that the guard with the key fled from the prison. The inmates were forced to either break down the metal cell doors or break out through the cell walls. Those who did not posses the strength to do so were left trapped in their cells, burning or suffocating in the flames. Had emergency procedures been put into place or had guards used their keys, hundreds of lives could have been saved. It is the government’s responsibility to ensure the safety of its prisoners. Each prisoner still holds certain liberties, and unless legally taken away from them through the courts, they are fully entitled to preserve these rights. It is the government’s job to assure that the prisoners maintain their right to life. HMR

Thde fire at Comayagua prison that killed 359 - Courtesy of Awsome Blog

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

International

robert hefter

insanity, the word used to describe the starburst of basketball player Jeremy Lin, started in New York and spread across the world in a way that can only be described as viral. His success on the court is not only astonishing, but also inspiring to the millions of people abroad in China. Jeremy Lin became this influential figure by demonstrating courage, skill, and determination. Jeremy Shu-How Lin was born in August of 1988 in Palo Alto, California. He is of Taiwanese descent and his family emigrated in the mid-1970s. Lin was not offered any athletic scholarships to play college basketball in the United States. He took haven in his academic performance to attend Harvard University, but Lin ended up walking

onto the Harvard team. After a somewhat unsuccessful rookie season with the Golden State warriors with a mere 2.6 points per game, he jumped from team to team with the hopes of playing in the NBA. His journey took him to China, where he was named the MVP of the Chinese Basketball Association. In 2011, the New York Knicks claimed Jeremy Lin off waivers, as he was a free agent. At that time, Lin was considering quitting basketball all together. Little did he know, he was about to play in the most crucial game of his early career. On February 4th, the New York Knicks played the New Jersey Nets. Jeremy Lin scored 25 points, grabbed 5 rebounds, had 7 assists and 2 steals. His mesmerizing performance led the Knicks to 7 straight wins. The Knicks went from a weak team to a hopeful playoff team. The ensuing media storm and fever pitch interest in Lin became instantly known as Linsanity. Describing basketball, his rise to fame raises questions regarding his race and athletic stereotypes. Lin said, “It’s a sport for white and black people.

You don’t get respect for being an Asian American basketball player in the U.S.” The most prominent Asian basketball player in the NBA was Yao Ming. “When Yao Ming retired from professional basketball 7 months ago, there were fears that interest in the NBA among China’s 1.3 billion people would dwindle.” However, Yao Ming stands at 7 feet 6 inches, which makes him a very different player than 6 foot 3 inch player Jeremy Lin. Ming said, “I think they can relate more to Jeremy because they’re more common-sized.” Yao Ming also had to deal with the stereotypes against Asian-American athletes, but he had an easier time dealing with these stereotypes due to his prowess on the court. On the other hand, Lin did not originally stand out with his skill. Therefore, he had to overcome the infamous racial barrier, which not only consisted of the fact that he is Asian, but also that he is a Harvard graduate. Although Lin has proved his abilities as a basketball player, some still believe that he achieved fame because of his race. Floyd Mayweather, a professional boxer stated, “Jeremy Lin is a good player, but all the hype is because he’s Asian. Black players do what he does every night and don’t get the same praise.” This could be true, but early in Lin’s life he was probably not given the opportunity to show his proven talents due to the racial profiling. However, once he was given the chance to prove himself, Lin exploded into the limelight. Jeremy Lin’s booming career has proven that anybody who has the determination can become a successful role model, despite racial stereotypes. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

China’s New Leader, America’s New Friend

International

matthew harpe

ess than two weeks ago, a 58-yearold Chinese man observed a Lakers-Suns game from a box seat. Unlike the average Lakers fan experiencing the seventeen-time champions play at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, though, Xi Jinping received a visit from legend and former Laker Magic Johnson, was presented with a personalized jersey by the mayor of Los Angeles, and given a pair of signed basketball shoes courtesy of star Kobe Bryant. The son of a leader of the Chinese guerilla movement, Xi Jinping, who started working in a factory at age 10, is currently the Vice President of the People’s Republic of China. This year Xi appeared on Forbes’ Most Powerful People List and not to much surprise, considering that he is soon to be the leader of the world’s most populous nation. In fact, if all goes well, it should be less than two years before he claims the number one spot in China’s almighty government. Over the past year and a half, following his appointment as Vice President in October of 2010, Xi has received more and more attention as the future leader of the world’s second biggest economy, as shown by his much anticipated mid-February trip to the U.S. earlier this year when he met with President Obama. Recently, much speculation has surrounded what type of leader Xi will prove to be and how he will shape the

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 46

future of relations between the Western world and emerging superpowers, and specifically with the U.S. Twenty-seven years ago, when Xi Jinping was just thirty-one years old and only a lowlevel government official in the Communist Party, he travelled to Iowa, hoping to learn from American corn farmers in Muscatine. Planning his five-day tour of the U.S., Xi made it a priority to return to Muscatine for a reunion with his former hosts and colleagues. Vice President Xi’s knowledge and understanding of American culture, especially compared to current President Hu, makes him much more relatable to the American people, a political reality that will hopefully help him in his diplomatic dealings with the West. Within China, Mr. Xi is extremely popular and seems to be at peace with everybody in and outside of the Chinese government. His ability to compromise is especially important in U.S.-China relations, where almost every issue is a contentious one. Furthermore, despite being a leader of the Communist Party and supporting most of its views Xi is relatively progressive in that he understands and advocates for the importance of private business and acknowledges that there is indeed “room for improvement” on human rights. Little is known about Mr. Xi’s actual agenda, and it is very difficult to foresee the extent to which he will transform U.S.-China relations. However, even though it’s hard to judge his authenticity, at the least we can assume that his understanding of western culture and his willingness and ability to compromise and be progressive on certain issues will help to remove the tension of Chinese relations with the U.S., and further encourage them in an era where they will only become more important. HMR

International

Iran’s Explosive Aspirations

samantha rahmin

ran is building nuclear weapons. Although American officials are skeptical as to the details of Iran’s nuclear program, the nation’s suspicious actions show her true intent: a nuclear bomb. On February 24th, the United Nations’ nuclear inspectors reported that Iran was rapidly producing nuclear fuel. Of course, Iran claims her nuclear program is meant for en-

speeds. While Fordo currently has only 696 centrifuges, 2,088 are being partially installed. This combined number of centrifuges would put Fordo near maximum capacity. Iran does not need that much enriched uranium to make medical isotopes or for energy. The only reason why Iranians could need the enriched uranium is to make a nuclear bomb. This past November, the International

Some intelligence officials feel that Iran is not building a bomb, but rather aiming for “strategic ambiguity.” Instead of building a bomb, these officials think that Iran is trying to increase her power by making other nations uneasy about the truth behind her nuclear program. However, if Iran’s goal is only to intimidate other nations, she has taken it too far. Israel is torn, unaware of how to react to Iran’s

“The facts add to only one conclusion: Iran is building a nuclear weapon.” ergy production and medical research. However, the substantial amount of nuclear fuel is causing the rise of global suspicions. National Security Council Spokesman Tommy Vietor stated, “Iran has continued to pursue its uranium enrichment program in violation of multiple United Nations Security Council resolutions without demonstrating any credible or legitimate purpose for doing so. When combined with its continued stonewalling of international inspectors, Iran’s actions demonstrate why Iran has failed to convince the international community that its nuclear program is peaceful.” Adding to suspicions, Iran has also begun producing fuel in a new facility, Fordo. Iranians know that this facility scares both Israel and the western nations. Built under 250 feet of granite, Fordo is carved into a mountain near Iran’s holy city of Qum. This new fortress is thus virtually impossible for Iran’s enemies to destroy, especially given their efforts at maximizing the resources of this fort. The key to enriching uranium is centrifuges, which are machines that enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic

Iran Main Site: Fordo Program Age: est. 2011 Arsenal Size: 0 20

Atomic Energy Agency released information that shows “Iran has carried out activities relevant to the development of a nuclear device.” In November, Iranians were producing fuel at 20% purity. This purity level is in fact the level of purity Iranians need to make medical isotopes. However, one European diplomat noted, “They have now produced nearly enough 20% to fuel the Tehran Research Reactor for the next 20 years.” Also, Iranians indicate that they will begin producing more than the 20% amount of fuel necessary. Again, the only cause for this uranium is a nuclear bomb. The West is becoming increasingly suspicious, and understandably so. In addition, Iran refused to talk about experiments that inspectors believe are linked to nuclear weapons. Inspectors were banned from visiting a military site called Parchin. The IAEA is aware that at Parchin personnel are playing with conventional explosives. The analyses reveal that particular experiments done on these explosives can trigger a bomb. Nothing has been reported to suggest that Iran has halted any of these programs since November.

Iran and Israel By The Numbers

Distance Apart: 1070 miles Avg. Range: 7145 miles

booming nuclear industry. American officials think that if Israel launches any attack on Iran’s nuclear industry, Iran would launch missiles on both Israel and the United States. Iran is too threatening just to be looking for “strategic ambiguity.” So in the face of all this evidence, why won’t the CIA admit that Iran is making nuclear weapons? The CIA is overly cautious of its assessments of Iran, probably because it is still overcompensating for it’s past unreliable intelligence, namely its famous 2002 report that erroneously stated that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. These weapons never existed. Now of course, the pendulum has swung in the other direction. The CIA wants to be a reputable source and therefore is currently overly hesitant about what opinions are published. Officials shy away from saying it. The CIA is trying to repair its damaged reputation. However, the facts add to only one conclusion: Iran is building a nuclear weapon. HMR

Israel Main Site: Negev Program Age: est. 1967 Arsenal Size: 75-400 The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

Is the uan Really the Reason? docstoc.com

Recently, analysts have observed that the Yuan is not the reason for the U.S.-China Economic deficit.

O ryota ikeda

n Valentine’s day, Xi Jingping came to America, meeting with President Obama and Vice President Biden for talks about the upcoming future. In these meeting, they had extensive talks, discussing the economy, development, and future relations between these two power nations. Quoting Vice President Biden, “[their] relationship is literally going to shape the 21st century.” It is obvious that both countries want a mutually beneficial relationship. However, Biden made it clear that the relationship had to be fair. In his speech at their lunch together, he remarked how the greatest concerns for these two countries at this moment are “need to rebalance the global economy, to protect intellectual property rights and trade secrets, to address China’s undervalued exchange rate, to level the competitive playing field and to prevent the forced transfer of technology, and to continue a constructive dialogue on policies that would benefit our citizens and the world.” However, Biden may be wrong in focusing his attention on one point. Until last year, Wayne M. Morrison, a specialist on Asian Trade and Finance has explained how “China’s refusal to allow its currency to appreciate to market levels,” is one of the largest reasons for the large economic deficit between the United States and China.” He goes on to say later that “China’s large holdings of U.S. secu-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

rities can be largely attributed to its policy of intervening in exchange rate markets to limit the appreciation of its currency, the renminbi (RMB), to the U.S. dollar.” However, many articles after Biden’s talk with Xi have recently expressed how we should focus on other factors instead of currency appreciation. Although the Yuan is still undervalued compared to other currencies by 5 to 20 percent, it has still grown exponentially, up 12 percent from 2010. At this point, the government must focus its attention on issues that are actually more significant than the currency, mainly intellectual property theft and barriers for Americans to enter

China’s markets. The government has to realize that they need to prioritize what is actually the most damaging to America’s economy, and acknowledge that the Chinese have made leaps of progress in appreciating their currency. Not acknowledging China’s effort is disrespectful, and also directs the government’s attention towards issues that have died down, rather than ones that are still strongly present. We must trust that China will appreciate their currency on their own, instead of focusing on an issue that will fix itself from their end. HMR

International

the spirit of the

syrian revolution

IKAASA SURI

ach country, each revolution, each definitive action, war and battle has had its particular spirit that characterizes it. For the U.S. it might be its proud outlook; for India it could be its vibrant culture and colorful bazaars. The fiery Syrian revolution has become Syria’s new spirit. Amidst the Arab Spring, the Syrian revolution has taken the central ideas of the recent uprisings, twisted them to fit into the Syrian culture and molded them into the needs of the people. The common bond that has formed between the people is the identification with this revolution, making it a daily cause on one hand, but at the same time, still maintaining the need for an absolute break from the regime. Although the Syrian people have made it clear that they want a complete separation from President Bashar al-Assad’s reign, through a series of violent and civil resistances, demonstrations and hackitivism, what they want coming from the revolution

is not an opposition to the regime, but rather a complete break from it. A Western assumption of the protests flaring up across North Africa is the common desire for democracy. Here in Syria, the protest calls for change, but isn’t directly in favor of democracy. Although protestors are inspired by the Western sense of liberty, it isn’t fair to say that they aspire to become the commonwealth country Americans experience everyday, as most in fact are uneducated about general political structure. The Syrian protestors have sewed in a common thread among its rebels to simply take advantage of the blazing momentum building across the North African and Middle Eastern regions. While they wish for improvement, the actual notion of change to the protestors is inconsistent among all individuals. Starting with the spark that lit the fire, the detention of children in Dar’a and their imprisonment and torture over a period of ten days, Rosa Yaseen Hassan, a Syrian journalist and ac-

tivist, believes that the Syrian people began protesting with a simple idea: they are poor and there exist people that have stolen their wealth and freedom. She views liberty as a certain warmth the freezing Syrians wish to enjoy, but knows there are many paths the people can take to get to their destination, rather than the almost uncomprehended democratic political structure. The Syrian culture does not discuss politics, nor was it ever concerned with the regime until now; therefore this phenomena of what is considered the Syrian citizen is not able to understand the complete concept of freedom. The revolution has politicized what was originally a nonpolitical, unengaged society. Thus it is most accurate to say that regardless of the implications of the emergency law, civil rights, and the regime in current Syria, the engagement of society through a common bond on the Syrian street is rather the most important aspect of the revolution. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

The

Trouble with

Somalia

by benjamin davidoff

he situation in Somalia is an incredibly complex one. This East African nation of only 10 million has been in constant warfare since 1991. There has been no central government during this time period, and today the socalled â&#x20AC;&#x153;Transitional Governmentâ&#x20AC;? is fighting wars on two fronts. Additionally the country is faced with a humanitarian crisis - a famine that cannot be stopped without the defeat of the Shabab, Islamic terrorists. The civil war has been continuing since 1991 and has left at least 350,000 dead. To prevent further loss of life and stability the international community, namely NATO and the UN, need to intervene. Stability in Somalia is of utmost strategic importance, as it is necessary to protect East African trading routes and to prevent

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

International

“ The reunification of Somalia can and will not happen overnight, but happen it must. A combustible Somalia is a safe haven for terrorists, who would seek to destroy western the continual surge of radical Islamists. However, to begin to understand the conflict one must examine the so-called “players” and review a history of the conflict. Prior to 1991, Somalia was a totalitarian Communist country under control of the dictator Siad Barre. In 1986, Barre was involved in a serious car crash. His injuries coupled with his old age led to widespread speculation over who would succeed him. At the same time, Somalians became disillusioned over the restrictions imposed by a totalitarian government. As Barre felt his power slipping away he became increasingly more draconian. Ethiopia, a neighboring country, encouraged resistance movements. In 1991 Barre’s government was toppled, and the Somalian national army was disbanded. The age of conflict had begun. Much like Afghanistan, Somalia became divided as warring resistance fighters attempted to gain absolute control over the country. In an attempt to quell the violence, the UN sent peacekeeping forces to the region in 1992. The peacekeeping initiative was thoroughly unsuccessful. Their failure is embodied in the U.S led Battle of Mogadishu, the capital. This battle, better known as Black Hawk Down, was a major failure and has been a key deterrent to further U.S intervention. For most of the next decade Somalia was divided amongst rival factions. Unlike in Afghanistan, there was no clear victor. There were continual violence and the senseless deaths of civilians and militants alike. The country remained without a centralized government. Aidid was the “head of state” until 1996, when he

was assassinated. His son, Hussein Aidid, would take over. Their rule was not internationally recognized. As the decade progressed, Somalia remained in shambles. There were famines and bloodshed, and for the most part the international community turned a blind eye. This all changed in 2006 when the Shabab arose as a violent force. The Shabab is an Islamic force, rooted in the south, and intent on capturing Somalia. They have pledged their allegiance to Al-Qaeda and anti-American ideologies. The Shabab rules through fear, imposing strict Sharia law onto their civilians. They are ruthless and blood thirsty. They have adopted Al-Qaeda style attacks, and have spread their violence to neighboring Uganda and Ethiopia. The despicable, senseless violence put forth by the Shabab prompted an international response. The African Union, a loose federation of African countries, sent a force made mainly of Ugandans and Burundians in 2007. Additionally, Ethiopians in 2006 attacked the insurgency after cross border raids left Ethiopian civilians dead. The international force of about 10,000 seemed to make little headway after the withdrawal of the Ethiopians following a failure to defeat the Shabab. In fact, up until August of 2011, when the international force finally captured the capital, the Shabab had so much control over Mogadishu that it was thought that if the African Union forces withdrew, Mogadishu would fall within hours. After the recapturing of Mogadishu, coupled with further support from Ethiopia and Uganda, the international community began a new foray to free the south from Shabab control. Uganda particularly was angered over attacks that

killed 74 in July of 2010 in their capital Kampala. It seemed as though the African Union had made real progress until October 4, 2011, when a truck bomb in Mogadishu killed 100. There are two other sides to the conflict. Each are in their own way elicit and deserve to elicit international responses. One of these sides is the Somalian pirates. The pirates are mainly young men from the north-

east. They are often poor and need to provide for their families. By targeting trade ships in the Gulf of Aden, they are able to make good money from ransoms. The region in which they operate is a global trade route. The current Somalian government however has refused to stop the Somalian Pirates, or is unable to deal with the problem. The pirates are of international concern because of the popularity of the trade routes that they target. Instead, the Somalian government has decided to recruit pirates to fight against the Shabab. This is a massive blunder by the transitional government because this plan creates further chaos. The root, or part of the root, of the problem in Somalia is that there is no clear central leader. Somalia is already deeply divided, with The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

targets. It is a place of hunger and disease, a place of instability and danger, and a place where pirates can run rampant and the government only has control over the capital.” the pirates in the northeast, sectarians in the province of Somaliland in the northwest, the Shabab in the south, and the government in Mogadishu and central Somalia. Asking one faction to fight another faction, particularly when both of those factions are evil in nature does not promote unity, but instead promotes disunity, chaos, and instability. The other major problems facing Somalians is famine. Eastern Africa

has been hit by the worst drought in 60 years, but starvation, often common in Africa, has only hit hard in Somalia. In fact the place in which Somalia has been hit hardest is in the Shabab controlled south. Though the UN recently declared the famine to be “over,” this section of the nation is still being rocked by thirst and hunger. The problem is punctuated by the fact that the Shabab, in adhering to their strict, anti-western ideologies, refuses to accept aid from western countries. This has left Somalia’s already poor people destitute. The hunger not only has led to tens of thousands of deaths but also has caused an international humanitarian crisis. Approximately 900,000 refugees from Somalia have fled into nearby Ethiopia and Kenya The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

in an attempt to evade the famine. The refugees are herded into camps, where there are reports of sexual violence and shortages of food, water, and adequate living conditions. To imagine having to walk on empty stomachs with skinny, destitute, starving children in tow, with perhaps your family divided or dead, from Somalia to Kenya or Ethiopia and arrive in a camp that cannot help you is truly horrific. The disgusting, cowardly and obstinate actions by the Shabab in refusing aid are simply inexcusable. To let one’s own people die for an ideology makes no sense. The question of how to control this mess is unanswerable. Yet, there seems to be progress, however minimal. In October Kenyan troops invaded southern Somalia after the Shabab undertook ruthless attacks against Kenyan civilians. It has been reported that their army has made rapid progress, though there are fears that this foray will end up in failure like all other international responses. The African Union troops also seem to be making some progress, but bombings like those in October serve as a sharp reminder that the Shabab will not go down easily. In the north, the pirates and sectarians in Somaliland each pose threats to stability in the area. While Somalia perhaps is not of strategic importance to the U.S, how can they stand idly by? As the leader of the free world, how can they allow an ally of Al-Qaeda in the Shabab steal the liberties of their civilians and subject these civilians to famine because of an ideology. The Shabab have attacked neighboring countries with ease. Who is to say they cannot attack America, particularly with Al-Qaeda assistance. While inter-

national responses from Kenya, Ethiopia, and the African Union are all appropriate, only the U.S has the military might to make a substantial difference. The U.S need not take a leading role in the mission, but “Libyan style” the UN or NATO must implement a peacekeeping mission into Somalia with substantial U.S involvement. Whether the reason to rein in the Shabab is to defeat the pirates or the noble goal of preventing a famine, further international intervention is needed. How can the world stand idly by as these atrocities continue to occur? The reunification of Somalia can and will not happen overnight, but happen it must. A combustible Somalia is a safe haven for terrorists, who would seek to destroy western targets. It is a place of hunger and disease, a place of instability and danger, and a place where pirates can run rampant and the government only has control over the capital. What world do we live in where this is allowed to continue? Three steps are needed to reverse the situation: U.S. involved peacekeeping force, or if not an increase in AU troops, a strong central government only accomplished through democratic elections, and an end to a humanitarian crisis that has been allowed to continue for too long. The world did not act during the Rwandan Genocide when 800,000 ethnic Tutsi’s were killed in 100 days. The world did not act when the Cambodian Khmer Rouge government killed 1.7 million dissidents. This time it must be different. The instability, the chaos, and the famine need to stop. The world must act now. HMR

Features

Features www.renewableenergyfocususa.com

Fueling the Future

jonah wexler

oliticians have been talking about energy independence and cleaner energy forever, but we have yet to see any results. Candidates on the campaign trail are once again talking about their plan for a comprehensive energy policy, which would both improve the economy and also help move technology towards cleaner sources of energy. At the same time they are presenting their ideas, politicians involved in political campaigns often simplify their opponents’ positions in extreme categories: “drill, baby, drill” on one hand and “solar and wind power are the only alternatives for the future” on the other. Society’s dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, available technology, and national security concerns make a comprehensive energy policy more complicated than the sometimes hyperbolized positions taken by politicians. The dependency has frozen U.S. energy policy into inaction over the past 40 years. Energy companies are in the busi-

ness of selling energy in order to make profits. If alternative energy were profitable, market forces or new entrepreneurs would encourage new energy companies to produce “clean energy,” build wind farms, manufacture and sell solar panels, or install geothermal wells in residential neighborhoods. We do

“Government incentives such as tax credits and more prudent, less onerous regulations should be sufficient to encourage natural gas and coal production.” not see this happening at this point in time because alternative energy is not efficient or economic compared to oil, gas, coal, or nuclear power. It is sensible to pursue an energy policy that continues the development of current energy technologies in the cheapest way possible and also encourages the private sector to develop cleaner, sustainable fuels.

Industrial economies are hydrocarbon-based; oil and gas are required to fuel industry and transportation for at least the near future (pun intended). U.S. oil production peaked in the 1970s but the oil demand has been increasing steadily since then. In 1970 the U.S. imported 28% of the transportation fuels used. Today we import over 65% of our transportation fuels. For our future, we need to recognize there are no quick fixes to repair our energy issues. We need leadership to initiate a national conversation about our future energy sources. The United States cannot drill its way out of energy concerns, but drilling can help. According to Energy Information Administration, the U.S. has only about three percent of worldwide known oil reserves. It is projected that the U.S. will consume 44% more oil in 2025 than it does today. An overwhelming majority of oil will be imported. Much of that oil will be from perceived unfriendly countries such The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features as Venezuela or unstable countries like Saudi Arabia. Utilizing domestic oil reserves in the Gulf of Mexico or Alaska can help dampen dependence on oil imports in the short and intermediate term. The Obama administration attempted to severely curtail production in the Gulf after the BP oil spill. Its attempted drilling moratorium was overturned in court. Given the instability of regimes in the oil rich Middle East, the Obama Administration should exploit its Gulf and Alaskan reserves; however, this is only a short-term solution, and

.com

tion. America should learn from the energy experience of other countries. While Brazil is a large energy producer, it solved its domestic energy transportation needs through renewable ethanol production. France is dependent on its nuclear power plants to provide about 80% of its electric energy. The Israeli government backed a private enterprise in a project to change its national transportation system from oil consumption to electric cars. Ethanol, nuclear energy

is currently inefficient and costly, at the expense of other ventures. The government can offer tax incentives to companies that develop new energy technologies and can also give tax incentives to investors in those companies. The private market, given a profit incentive, will take up the challenge to move the U.S. into a more sustainable energy future if given the opportunity. The U.S. needs a serious domestic conversation that will lead to a longterm energy strategy. America may

“The government can offer tax incentives to companies that develop new energy technologies and can also give tax incentives to investors in those companies. The private market, given a profit incentive, will take up the challenge to move the U.S. into a more sustainable energy future if given the opportunity.” other measures need to be taken for the long term. The U.S. is rich in non-oil energy sources. Domestic gas and coal reserves can be exploited to fulfill both nontransportation and transportation demands. Government incentives such as tax credits and more prudent, less onerous regulations should be sufficient to encourage natural gas and coal produc-

and battery technology are all proven sources of alternate energy and should become part of the U.S. energy equation promoted by private enterprise. The U.S. government should not pick energy winners and losers. The government has proven to be a poor venture capitalist. It is unfair and also damaging to the economy for the government to invest in certain energy production, such as solar power, which

need the equivalent of a modern day energy “Manhattan Project” to brainstorm the best options and outline a definite plan that will be followed. All options should be considered including drilling, coal, nuclear, and renewable energy sources. Private enterprise should be let loose to create a more positive and sustainable energy future. HMR

Net Oil Imports: US Consumption from 1973-2011

PeRcent (of World)

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

2010

mjperry.blogspot.com

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Features

Obama’s Green Budget

jennifer heon

reener: Obama’s new budget plan for 2013 represents a major step in creating a “greener” country. His proposals concerning energy directly address the issues of global warming, and through this budget plan Obama is allowing America to play a part in helping the environment. eferencing the budget plan, it calls for spending $6.7 billion on clean energy programs in the coming year. Obama clearly is passionate about global warming because this amount of money is 13% more than the amount Congress found suitable. In Obama’s campaign, he made many promises concerning energy and the environment. These promises included the investment in a clean energy future, the support of new biofuels, the beginning of oil independence in America, and the restoration of the United States as a leader in climate change. This budget plan is the proof the country has been waiting for as reassurance that Obama will come through on these promises.

vidently it seems that in the budget plan for 2013, Obama plans to support energy efficiency programs by increasing financing by $700 million for the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Furthermore, Obama wants to reauthorize the cash grants to renewable energy companies dealing with wind and solar energy. These grants expired at the end of 2011, and they were crucial to solar industry competition on a global scale. In addition, Obama is granting $95 million for research in offshore wind technologies and extending a production tax credit that is vital for the wind industry to maintain the extension investment in wind turbine and various equipments. Obama plans to implement cheaper and greener gas standards for cars. Finally, the budget proposes an 80% increase in financing of the construction of energy efficient commercial buildings, including $310 million for the Solar Shot Initiative, which is trying to make American solar power competitive by the end of the decade.

ssentially, this proposed budget is a catalyst step for America to play its role in preventing global warming. The United States currently is the source of 19.1% of global carbon dioxide emissions. This is a major issue, as global warming is very real problem that the United States cannot ignore. In the last decade, temperatures have reached record heats, which will cause dramatic effects on the entire ecosystem. There will be more intense rainfall and droughts, a rise in sea level of 2 feet in the next 100 years, and the death of sensitive living organisms such as coral reefs. The effects of global warming on the world today are undeniable, and they will only get worse as countries produce more carbon dioxide emissions. The United States is currently part of the problem of global warming, but Obama’s budget plan could help the country to be part of the solution by reducing America’s carbon dioxide emissions vastly. onsensically, Obama is likely to face opposition from Congress and oil companies because in-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features www.ajdiscala.com

cluded in the budget is the plan to cut the $4 billion in subsidies or tax breaks given to oil companies each year. Obama rightfully argues that because the five biggest oil companies alone made $137 billion in profits last year, the oil com-

scalating party dissention is the only thing blocking his path. Therefore, Obama must do his best to convince congress of the necessity of the budget plan. Proposing the budget plan was only the first step in ad-

easonably, not only does the rate of global warming depend on Obama’s ability to have the budget plan passed, but also the validity of Obama’s campaign promises rest on Congress’ decision. Hopefully the

“The United States is currently part of the problem of global warming, but Obama’s budget plan could help the country to be part of the solution by reducing America’s carbon dioxide emissions vastly.” panies do not need the government support. Still, the oil companies and their allies in Congress are sure to put up a fight against this budget in order to maintain their subsidies.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

dressing the issues of global warming, and now Obama needs to persuade the members of Congress in order for the energy portion of the budget plan to be passed and make a difference for the environment.

issues of global warming and his campaign promises will be enough incentive for Obama to stubbornly persist with the budget plan until Congress is convinced. The world needs this budget plan, and it is up to Obama to sell it to Congress. HMR

Features

A Closer Look at th

he last presidential election in 2008 was a heavily anticipated one, with huge buzz surrounding each candidate, culminating with the historic election of Barack Obama, the first African American president of the U.S. Now with the 2012 presidential election approaching, the discussions on new individual candidates are also increasing. Particularly, this 2012 election is expected to have prominence given to environmental and energy issues. This prominence is a great and a substantial one as environmental issues hugely affect everyone’s lives in one way or another. In order to understand the impact of environmental issues on the number of votes for each candidates, the past presidential elections must be considered first. In previous presidential elections, environmental issues were seldom viewed as salient, and were even absent from the 2000 and 2004 campaigns (Bloomberg in 2001; Langer and Cohen in 2005). The problem of neglecting environmental issues started to rise; from global warming to oil prices, people began to realize that these issues

must be addressed. Since Obama’s election in 2008, the importance of environmental issues has become apparent to both the public and the other presidential candidates. The reason for this change can be speculated as the shift in concern of the U.S. as a nation. In the summer of 2008, the gasoline prices were at an all time high, leading to energy issues outranking both Iraq and the economy as voters’ top concerns, according to Gallop polls.

“In previous presidential elections, environmental issues were seldom viewed salient in the US presidential elections, and were even absent from the 2000 and 2004 campaigns.” Especially between the two strong est 2008 candidates, Obama and McCain, environment and energy were presented as some of the principal issues. However, their views were a different story. Democrat Barack Obama campaigned for active government involvement in energy and environmental protection. He promised much to the public, from biofuels and scientiﬁc

research to ambitious and speciﬁc targets for renewable energy, even pledgeding to raise fuel economy standards. He was against nuclear power and oﬀshore drilling for oil. On the other hand, John McCain supported the use of both. Unlike Obama, he had no set target for the fuel prices; rather, he favored less government involvement in environmental programs, with exception to nuclear power. Many of Obama and McCain’s policies were completely opposing. But even so, there was one striking similarity; both candidates concentrated on environmental and energy issues to a much greater extent than in any recent election. In times of elections, the perspectives of the voters are taken into great consideration. In the last election, the younger voters tended to lean toward the Democrats and were more likely to have energy policies be one of their top priorities than older voters. While 68% of all voters were for off shore drilling, only 57% of the young voters supported it. Although this data refers only to the 2008 election, the trend seems to be continuing into future elections, thereby concluding that younger voters are more liberal and environmentaly forward than

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

the Environment Wendy Jo the older generations when it comes to alternative energy. This trend is a positive one and should continue as environmental issues are a major part of everyone’s lives. With these situations in mind, the breakdown of the 2012 presidential candidates now becomes comprehensible. Recognizing the importance of environmental issues, all the active candidates, Barack Obama, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, and Rick Santorum, provide individualized environment policies. Barack Obama is planning to continue with his past policies such as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which includes $54 billion in incentives for renewable energy, energy efficiency and more. Republican candidate Newt Gingrich ardently believes global warming is man-caused and needs solutions to directly address the problem. His position has been a controversial and unpopular political stance, which has been giving him trouble as a candidate. Gingrich said in CPAC 2011, “We should end the Environmental Protection Agency’s war against American oil and gas,” and “Now in order to have an American energy policy, we need to replace

the Environmental Protection Agency with a new fundamentally different Environmental Solutions Agency. For my friends in the media, I would like to emphasize replace. This is not about tear down, destroy, eliminate, walk away, let the environment be destroyed, sell out to corporate interest, and all that bologna.” Ron Paul, also seeking Republican nomination, rather opposes the idea that human pollution is a significant

“Like in the last election, where the environmental policies played a big role, these policies are predicted to influence the 2012 presidential election once again.” cause of global warming. His voting record supports his position; he voted down enforcing limits on CO2 global warming pollution, voted down tax incentives for energy production and conservation, and more. Mitt Romney is an advocate for the development of all our energy sources, nuclear, oil, natural gas and coal and presents a climate protection plan as he believes the world is getting warmer due to human

activities. His Climate Protection Plan includes guidelines from creating partnerships with cities and towns, businesses, colleges and universities for climate protection targets to including carbon pollution as a criterion when making state decisions on transportation funds. Lastly, Rick Santorum has a lot of say in the ethanol industry, but unlike other candidates, he’s lacking in other aspects considering other environmental issues. Rick Santorum said, “My pledge to you is to work with this industry to create a bigger and bigger place in the market for domestically produced ethanol and biodiesel,” in his speech before the Iowa ethanol industry. From the amount of policies regarding environment and energy issues, it is apparent that each candidate is aware of the concern and priorities of the voters. As in the last election, where the environmental policies played a big role, these policies are predicted to influence the 2012 presidential election once again. The inclusion of environmental policies is a great addition to the other usual policies such as political and economical and should continue to be addressed in the future. HMR

www.shiksha.com The Horace Mann Review | Issue 5

Features

By Jenna Barancik 32

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

n 2010, the federal government supported the wind energy industry with almost five billion dollars in direct federal interventions and subsidies. In addition to aid from the federal government, individual states added to the massive support for the wind energy industry. Wind energy companies lobbied for this support, claiming it was needed to make clean energy competitive. Giving wind energy companies a handicap in the market does not make the wind energy industry self-sustainable in the future. The government should subsidize the research and development of economically feasible and energy efficient renewable energy instead. That way, subsidies will not be necessary in the future. Wind energy is very expensive. Assuming regulators place a tax of $15 per ton of emitted carbon dioxide on power plants, wind power will have a 54 percent premium to electricity from natural gas. Why

nies receive government subsidies, i.e. taxpayers’ dollars. One would hope that these subsidies benefit taxpayers. However, renewable energy only contributes to eight percent of the U.S.’s energy consumption. Furthermore, only eleven percent of that eight percent comes from wind energy. Wind energy hardly makes a dent in our total energy consumption. Feeding more money into the creation of new wind farms with old technology is not the answer. The

“Wind energy hardly makes a dent in our total energy consumption, and... Feeding more money into the creation of new wind farms with old technology is not the answer.” current technology has so many issues that wind farms are being abandoned. A large problem developers have is Americans’ “not in my backyard” mentality. Residents object to windmills being erected nearby where they live. Many consider windmills to be eyesores, but recent studies show that the noise produced by windmills causes adverse health effects. Take the example of DeKalb County, IL where at least 38 families have sued to remove nearby wind turbines. As Harvardtrained PhD Carl V. Phillips said, “wind turbines cause serious health problems in nearby residents, usually stress-disorder type diseases, at a nontrivial rate.” Most often, people do not live near the ideal locations for wind farms (windy, desolate areas.) Wind

would anyone want to invest in wind energy, considering the more economically practical alternatives such as natural gas and coal? The financial support of the government largely eliminates the risk to private investors. In fact, it allows for annual profits of ten to thirty percent. Private investors include companies such as Goldman Sachs and Google. Investors such as these can only make profits if wind energy compaThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

farms are constructed far away from civilization, requiring the need of high-voltage transmission lines to transmit the electricity. Burying and maintaining the lines is expensive and difficult. At least wind energy is better for the environment than non-renewable energy sources. But what if the government supported research and development, as opposed to companies that use existing technology? We would create better, more efficient technology. We would create

renewable energy that did not need to be replaced by nonrenewable energy sources on a windless day. Renewable energy can be cost effective, therefore not requiring subsidies and being a practical source of energy for average Americans. Companies should want to produce cheap, renewable energy and be able to sell it to the average American. However, the federal government’s loan guarantees and cash grants incentivize companies to use existing, inefficient technology. From their perspective, it’s a race to claim as much financial support from the government as possible. Because wind energy contributes such a small amount to our total energy consumption, the wind energy industry has a minimal impact on the environment. The industry uses a wealth of taxpayers’ money without benefitting them. So whom does the wind energy industry benefit besides private investors and developers? No one, except, maybe lobbyists. HMR

Features

THE NUCLEAR PROBLEM WHY THE UNITED STATES MUST ACT CAUTIOUSLY IN BUILDING NEW NUCLEAR FACILITIES MIHIKA KAPOOR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

n February 9th, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) approved the licenses to begin work on two nuclear power plants in Georgia. The plants are expected to be completed by 2017, will cost $14 billion and will be situated at the Vogtle nuclear power plant complex, 170 miles south of Augusta. This is the first time in thirty years that the NRC has authorized the construction of nuclear power plants, and the decision consequently sparked much controversy. Although there is no doubt as to how efficient nuclear plants are, the fact remains that they pose a serious threat to humans given the possible repercussions. Although the Southern Company, the firm in charge of construction claims that This project is expected to create thousands of jobs, if it threatens lives, the expenses and efforts required are simply not worth it. The utilities building the plants at Vogtle wrote their application seven years ago, and so preparations have been arranged for a long time. In the past 2 years, $4 billion has already been spent on preparing the area. The reactors will reside in steel dome containment capsules 215 feet high and 130 feet wide. 1700 people are already at work, and numbers are expected to grow to around 5000, with 800 permanent workers. The approval of the nuclear plants passed with high approval in the NRC, with four votes to one in favor of the plan. The Department of Energy agreed to loan $8.3 billion of the $14 billion required. However, Gregory Jaczko, chair-

Features man of the committee, was against the project, as he did not believe the licenses sufficiently required builders to ensure that the plants will be safe. Until now, licences have not been approved since the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant in Pennsylvania, which caused reactor manufacturing to halt. Once the license was approved, Thomas Fanning, Southern Company chief executive, said, “Today marks and advancement in our nation’s energy policy.” Two more reactors are expected to be approved for South Carolina. A lot of people are convinced that the project will be safe, and because it is clear that nuclear plants certainly have advantages, many are in favor of the decision. Nuclear reactors are considered to be on of the most efficient, environmentfriendly ways of producing energy. By mid-century, the world’s population is estimated to come to around 9 billion people (a 30% increase from today), and it is expected that energy consumption will double or even quadruple. U.S. Energy Secretary Stephen Chu speculates that if the nuclear plants in Georgia are a success, many other states will follow suit. It would be extremely unwise to increase our use of gas and oil with the environment in mind. Many people insist that our old reactors cannot sustain such heavy growth, and consequently nuclear reactors are necessary. Unfortunately, though nuclear power is undoubtedly efficient, it still poses tremendous dangers as highlighted by the disaster with nuclear reactors in Fukushima, Japan last year. This occurrence is the most prominent reason why

Jaczko was against the license for the reactors. This meltdown of the Fukushima nuclear reactors has resulted in 14,000 excess deaths in the U.S. in the fourteen weeks following the incident due to the radiation. In addition, the rate of infant deaths increased by 1.8% in the spring, as compared to a decrease of 8.37% in the preceding weeks. Overall, this disaster exposes the chances we would be forced to take in the construction of nuclear reactors. Although the usage of gas and oil for energy must be stemmed due to consideration for the environment, nuclear reactors are not the only option. Solar and wind energy can also be used for electricity and heating. It is significantly less expensive than the copious amounts that must be spent on nuclear power plants, and also poses no threat to the environment. Nuclear power plants, on the other hand, present many problems, such as what to do with spent fuel rods and how to avoid the risk of radiation. These are issues that cannot go unaddressed. Furthermore, jobs can also be created in this industry, in areas such as research for making green energy more effective. Although an immediate transfer to green energy is not possible, we can easily incorporate it into our society little by little. It is crucial that the safety of humans is considered first when making such decisions, and the construction of the nuclear reactors must be treated with the utmost care and precision. It is important that we also look into solar energy to sustain ourselves, so we do not have to depend upon gas, oil, or nuclear energy. HMR

“IT IS CRUCIAL THAT THE SAFETY OF HUMANS IS CONSIDERED FIRST WHEN MAKING SUCH DECISIONS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NUCLEAR REACTORS MUST BE TREATED WITH THE UTMOST CARE AND PRECISION. ” The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Features

Moving Past Solyndra

Why the United States Must Compete with China in Solar Energy SAMUEL HENICK There has recently been a lot of talk about solar energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. More recently, attention has turned to the fall of Solyndra, a solar panel manufacturer, and to China. Before addressing these issues, we should first mention what solar energy is, its pros, and its cons. Solar energy—power from the sun— is a vast and inexhaustible resource. Once a system is in place to convert it into useful energy, the fuel is free and will never be subject to the ups and downs of energy markets. In 1839, French scientist Edmund Becquerel discovered that certain materials would give off a spark of electricity when struck with sunlight. This photoelectric effect was used in primitive solar cells made of selenium in the late 1800s. In the 1950s, scientists at Bell Labs revisited the technology and, using silicon, produced solar cells that could convert four percent of the energy in sunlight directly to electricity. Solar panels do not produce pollu-

tion like fossil fuels and are not loud like wind turbines. Solar panels can pay for themselves over time; however, prices of highly efficient solar cells can now be above $1000, and some households may need more than one. This makes the initial installation of solar panels very costly. Furthermore, solar energy is only able to generate electricity during daylight hours. This means for around half of each day, solar panels are not producing energy. Also, pollution affects the efficiency of solar cells, so buildings in industrial areas, cities or other polluted areas would not benefit much. According to a study by Mikael H. Matossian, silicon cells are more easily damaged by pollution than the Gallium arsenide cells are. Nonetheless, pollution can damage both. All of these flaws considered, the AEIC (American Energy Innovation Council) report concluded, “Energy innovation should be a higher national priority.” Right now, the federal government spends a middling amount on en-

ergy research (about $3 billion in 2009), compared with the sums lavished on the National Institutes of Health ($36.5 billion) or defense research ($77 billion). The AEIC report goes on to recommend public support for all aspects of the innovation process, from basic research to pilot projects to helping companies commercialize their products (Solyndra was in that last phase). Although the reliability of the sun varies by day and does not contribute to solar energy at night, storage technologies continue to improve; in July, a solar plant in Seville, Spain, achieved continuous 24-hour operation using molten salt storage. All told, some 24,000 megawatt worth of projects are in the grid in the United States, led by California. Those projects may not all get completed, but that is a lot of growth underway. Nevertheless, some people might say that solar is a doomed industry. This view has been gaining popularity, but it is not borne out by the numbers. Prices The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

for solar photovoltaic modules continue to tumble, even as fossil-fuel prices rise. A June report by Ernst & Young suggests that large-scale solar could become costcompetitive within a decade, even without government support. Of course, grid operators still have to grapple with the fact that the sun doesn’t always shine. Other people say that Solyndra’s downfall is due to China. In four years, the solar manufacturing sector shifted from being led by a geographically dispersed number of companies to one dominated by Chinese companies. In 2006, there were two companies from China in the list of the top ten global cell producers. In 2010, there were six, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. There are currently only two non-Asian manufacturers in the top ten, and those companies -- First Solar and Q-Cells -- have shifted a lot of their production to Asia. “The Chinese strategy is very clear. They are engaging in predatory financing and they’re trying to drive everybody else out of the market. When you’ve got free money you can out-dump everybody below cost,” Bryan Ashley, the Chief Marketing Officer for Suniva, said in an interview with Climate Progress. That “free money” Ashley refers to is the cheap debt provided by the Chinese Development Bank (CDB). The CDB was originally set up as a “policy bank,” to operate as an arm of the Chinese central The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

government, doling out public funding to support central government development programs. Now it is a “joint stock company with limited liability” that often reports to China’s national cabinet on certain policy issues. This allows the Chinese government to get involved in CDB activities and direct loans toward projects officials want to support. Unlike most regular commercial banks, CDB raises most of its money via long-term bonds.

“A June report by Ernst & Young suggests that largescale solar could become costcompetitive within a decade, even without government support.” Funders cannot take that money back out until the term is up, so the bank can make longer-term loans to Chinese companies. CDB also gives borrowers very low interest rates, and, if the borrower cannot pay back the loan, it may be back-stopped by the Chinese government. This makes it easier, cheaper, and a lot less risky for solar companies to obtain financing, giving Chinese companies a competitive edge on American ones. In 2010 alone, the bank handed out

$30 billion in low-cost loans to the top five manufacturers in the country. This has enabled China’s solar producers to grow to global scale in a very short period of time, turning the country into a leading exporter of solar panels and pushing down prices dramatically. “Free money is impossible to compete with,” said Ashley. “Even when global demand went down they were able to keep producing, producing, producing,” said Ashley. “And now they’re dumping. If something isn’t done, there will be no American product left on the market.” China does provide hefty subsidies to its solar industry. As Climate Progress’s Stephen Lacey details, the CDB offers cheap long-term loans to domestic manufacturers that dwarf anything Solyndra ever got. That allows Chinese solar companies to offer cutthroat prices and drive competitors out. And yet, as Westinghouse Solar CEO Barry Cinnamon explains, it wasn’t China that caused Solyndra to go belly-up — the company had invented a solar panel that didn’t use silicon. The Chinese government backed their companies just like the U.S. government did when it granted a $535 million dollar loan to Solyndra. However, when silicon prices plummeted, so did Solyndra. HMR

Features

Gone With The Wind The Inconvenient Truth of Wind Energy Nathaniel Tillinghast-Raby

"In

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

h y

t’s a fact that as we move into an era where it is possible to foresee our oil running out, we need to make the switch to renewable energy. The question that environmentalists, politicians and citizens have been asking is: “How?” One much hyped possibility is wind power. Its advocates like to say that wind is a two birds – one stone scenario that will reduce our reliance on oil and natural gas and help to save the environment at the same time. They firmly believe that soon, oh so soon, wind power will prove itself to be the energy savior that America needs. After all, the wind industry grew 39% in 2009. All it needs is just a little more time (and a lot more subsidies). They could not be more wrong. One of the biggest problems with

Features that wind power has. Infrastructure is proving to be more and more of a problem for wind power. One difficulty about increasing our reliance on wind power is that it gets harder to improve wind power because the more you add, the more you have to account for the fickleness of the wind and the resulting need for backup generators. Hardly the steady and constant source of energy that America will need to replace oil. The amount of natural resources necessary to produce wind power is no small issue either. In order to construct an average turbine, around 200 tons of steel are needed. This winds up making a turbine that will have a 3 or 4-megawatt capacity. In short, it takes about 50 tons of steel to produce a single megawatt of power using the wind,

nect a wind farm in Texas to a city in New York, but it is also difficult to buy land near and around cities. Therefore, there are going to be heavy costs either way; whether through buying expensive land near cities or through connecting two faraway points so that the energy gathered by a wind farm can actually be used. There are also numerous health concerns that have been linked, in some way or another, to the wind industry. One of the most heavily documented ones is a lack of sleep caused by the noise that the turbines make as they go about converting wind power to electrical. The constantly fluctuating noise of the turbines results in a near insomnia-like effect, making it almost impossible to work. Another worry is the consequences of infra-

"In short, the reality of wind power does not even begin to live up to the hype surrounding it." wind power is the truly staggering sums of money involved. Each megawatt of wind power costs $2.43 million to install. America currently produces around 40,000 megawatts, meaning that wind power has cost us close to $100 billion overall, not including maintenance costs and other expenses. And yet despite the amount of money we have invested in wind, the industry currently produces only 2.3% of the kilowatt-hours that America uses. This only serves to highlight the point that wind turbines are incredibly inefficient and expensive. But the costs of installation aren’t the only issues

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 5

while it takes less than a quarter of a ton of steel per megawatt with natural gas. There is no competition; wind power is so inefficient that it is hard to see how it could ever truly challenge oil or gas as the nation’s top energy provider. Of course, with all this steel comes the necessity for a lot of land with it. That’s how environments all over America have been destroyed: chopped down by the very people that want to decrease our negative impact on the world. Of course, the ideal place for a wind farm would be in the windy, sparsely populated states of the Midwest. That is, unfortunately, very difficult to do. The energy demands of cities are much greater than those of the rural areas. It is expensive to con-

sound that is produced by the typical wind turbine. Other possible side effects of having a wind turbine near you include headaches, high blood pressure and (though this is likely a bit of a stretch) seizures. This combination of being noisy, destroying the environment and causing health problems, though perhaps enjoyable for some, has also been found to reduce the prices of homes in the surrounding area by up to 17%. In short, the reality of wind power does not even begin to live up to the hype surrounding it. That’s why the subsidies for the wind industry must stop; the reality is that it simply would require far too much investment to make wind power cost-effective. It is time that the American government realizes this and starts thinking about other ways to solve this energy crisis. HMR

Features

Corn Subsidies: How the Government is Shortchanging our Health and our Wallets

james megibow

he U.S. government perpetuates inefficiency in cheaper as a result of the enhanced supply, they pay far more American agriculture, cripples the consumer, dollars than they would have in the free market in the form of and undermines global free market trade with redistributed socialist taxes to farmers. To make matters worse, subsidies force the agriculture enormous expenditure in unwarranted corn subsector into a state of stagnation since they incentivize techsidies. The government, through outdated bills such as the nological recession. Subsidies are currently given in greater Grain Futures Act, the Agriculture Marketing Act, and the Ag- amounts to those who produce a small amount of crop per riculture Adjustment Act, provides direct subsidies to farmers acre; family farms for example. Why would a family farm want growing corn. This fundamentally consists of the government to industrialize if they lose their subsidy? Industrialization is sending small family farms supplementary funds to ensure great for the consumer, citizen, and economy seeing as the that the farm remains economically afloat. Though some ar- costs of food and ethanol are reduced by mass production. Yet gue that through providing corn subsidies, the government is the government only offers subsidies to those who are inefinvesting in sustainable ethanol energy, the reality of this cycle ficient and detrimental to economic growth. In this way, the government is encouraging agriculture businesses to devolve vastly outweighs the potential benefits. The use of corn subsidies in the U.S. induces crop into local farms that increase the cost of food and energy for overproduction, industrial underdevelopment, and overall in- American citizens. Corn subsidies trigger inefficient overproduction, higher taxes, and a efficiency in the entire agriculhigher cost of food and energy ture sector of the U.S. economy. â&#x20AC;&#x153;As subsidies incentivize the use by the devolution of industry, all Without subsidies, the people of corn, they take the focus away to the detriment of the Ameriof the United States create a from other, more healthful crops.â&#x20AC;? can economy and people as a simple supply-and-demand rewhole. lationship with the farmers. The Corn subsidies also farmers would create enough toll the nutrition and health of Americans. As subsidies incorn to meet the demand of the people. If farmers donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t meet this exact demand, they will be left with either too few prod- centivize the use of corn, they take the focus away from other, ucts to sell or a significantly diminished profit. Therefore, this more healthful crops. As such, the American public is being free market incentivizes the ideal supply to meet the demands robbed of essential health benefits. When the government subsidizes corn, it becomes cheaper than crops such as cane sugar. and needs of the people. When the government enacts subsidies paid for with Consequently, processed forms of corn such as high fructose tax dollars, they manipulate the supply being created by incen- corn syrup are used in lieu of the natural sugar cane crop. Corn tivizing farmers to create more than the demand of the people. subsidies impair the health of American citizens by substitutThe product remains profitable due to the subsidies. The sur- ing for natural crops with the processed form of corn. The United States government should immediately plus of corn that is created is then unused because the demand has already been met. The people of the United States pay for repeal the current corn subsidies. Every American is affected this useless excess of corn through increased taxes imposed by the heightened taxes and increased deficit engendered by by the government to cover the cost of the subsidies. Subsi- useless spending to support the corn industry. It encourages dies force citizens to indirectly purchase corn that they do not economic devolution, unavailing excess product, poverty, and want or need. While the price of the corn that they do buy is even American obesity. There is no valid reason to keep the current corn subsidies. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

A Nuclear Debate d Ahmadinejad famously ou hm Ma t en sid Pre n nia Ira , 05 In 20 iped off the map.” This shot declared that Israel must be “w ed fear over Iran’s potential heard around the world heighten ilities. Israeli Foreign Minister development of nuclear capab “Iranian nuclear weapons do Tzipi Livni opined in 2007 that Israel.” The majority of Isto t ea thr l tia en ist ex an se po not me Minister Benjamin Pri ate ter rei r, ve we ho ns, cia liti raeli po

accept a nuclear Iran. The inNetanyahu’s staunch refesual to hed a strict set of economic ternational community has launc n to coerce cooperation with and political sanctions against Ira y Agency. “There has never erg En c mi Ato al on ati ern Int the has ever agreed upon,” rld wo the t tha m the e lik ing yth been an Hillary Clinton in February. stated U.S. Secretary of State

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute,

“

60%

of New York’s emissionfree power is provided by nuclear power plants.

“

Features

Experts and politicians around the globe grapple with the implications of using nuclear power as an Tod alternative source of energy. The day ay, every inhabitant of this pla net m when debate is much more nuanced woman this planet may no longer be ust contemplate the and child lives habitable. Ever y man, under a nuclea than a pro-con argument; as a hanging by r sword of Dam the slenderest ocles, of threads, ca nation seeking to reduce our de- at any moment by p ab le o f ac b eing cid pendency on fossil fuels, we must The weapons of war mu ent or miscalculation or by mad cut st be abolished ness. before they ab consider such issues as the cost of olish us. President John electricity, the safety of nuclear faF. Kennedy, 196 2 cilities, radioactive waste disposal, and effects on global warming. With Iran’s nuclear program atThe safety of nuclear power plants is a hot topic. Many optracting international attention, ponents of nuclear energy cite the 1986 disaster at the the question over whether counChernobly nuclear reactor in Ukraine. Due to design flaws tries should develop any technology that could be used as a weapon and inadequately trained personnel, the meltdown caused is as relevant now as it was at the radiation poisoning in hundreds of people in the vicinclose of World War II.

ity. The World Nuclear Association points out that Chernobyl, along with accidents at plants at Three Mile Island and Fukushima, “are the only major accidents to have occurred in over 14,500 cumulative reactor-years of commercial nuclear power operation in 32 countries.”

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

Economics

THE GOOD $AMARITAN VIVIANNA LIN

For decades, Germany has been Europe’s powerhouse, the strongest country on the continent. Now, with Europe plunged deep in an economic crisis, Germany has been propelled to the forefront of the rescue effort.

erman Chancellor Angela Merkel has taken her duty in stride, ceaselessly pushing for austerity measures both in Germany and the rest of Europe. From the very beginning of the crisis that arose in 2008, Germany has maintained the steadiest economy on the continent, while its neighbors have been the victims of a marked decline. Each time any of its weaker neighbors nears default, Germany is given the

weighty burden of bailing them out. The Germans have grown increasingly reluctant to help pay off the debts of their profligate neighbors as they have watched one country after another stagger under the market’s attacks. Though initially Chancellor Merkel and her advisors adamantly refused any bailout plans, by April of 2010 they had been forced to sign a $40 billion loan package for the sake of the euro’s stability. The package, along with its successors, however, failed

to adequately calm markets, and countries like Greece and Portugal continued to decline. Merkel has received increasing pressure from all sides, especially on the home front. Germany is the only country strong and prosperous enough to cover her neighbors’ debts, but many Germans strongly protest paying taxes in order to help other irresponsible, spendthrift countries. Chancellor Merkel famously (or infamously) advocates severe austerity meaThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics sures and reduced spending in the profligate European countries that require the aid of bailout packages. Her detractors argue austerity will only drive Europe into a deeper recession by slowing growth and undermining the only path to recovery. But no matter what her opponents say, official data showed Germany’s economy had been slowly improving over the past few months and its unemployment rate had fallen to 6.7% in January, a record low. In 2011, German companies exported over €1 trillion worth of goods, the highest figure in the country’s history, while the number of employed people rose to 41.6 million, also the highest in history. Clearly, Germany is doing something right, because as its fellow countries flounder in recession, it has risen to a new level of prosperity. The Germans, though certainly pleased with this unprecedented level of growth, are nowhere near warmed to the idea of sharing the burden of other countries’ debts. On the contrary, Merkel has been facing increasing opposition at home because of her foreign policy. She has been unjustly criticized and attacked from all sides: for stepping up to be Europe’s torchbearer through the dark times of recession; for trying to push austerity measures onto countries like Greece who have put in less effort towards recovery than Merkel has herself; for aiming to build the foundations of a more unified Europe. Of course, Merkel has her fair share of flaws; she initially continued Germany’s traditional role of taking the back seat in negotiations, and often is viewed as narrow-minded and uncompromising. But she has stepped up to the plate and is dealing with crisis after crisis as well as she can. Germany itself has once again been made out to be the villain; the country floats above the woes of a recession affecting everyone else, and yet its leaders continue to preach the path of redemption for those countries that are suffering. Merkel was pinned as sanctimonious when she called the debt crisis Europe’s “most difficult hours since World War II.” What did the Germans truly know about hardship? Germany’s continued prosperity has fueled anger in countries such as Spain and Greece, where people believe The Horace Mann Review | Issue 95

that Germany is slowly gaining hegemony over Europe. The citizens of Spain and Greece have every right to be frustrated, for their countries are on the brink of collapse. But falling to the clutches of the green-eyed monster will do no one good. Germany cannot be blamed for performing “too well” or faring better economically than all the rest, and after all it has done for countries such as Spain and Greece, the people of those nations really have no right to complain. Perhaps the Germans don’t have a true sense of suffering. But without Germany, where would Greece and Spain be? It’s a future no one wants to think of. Germany’s current surplus has convinced economists all over the world that

“Germany has once again been made out to be the villain, but without Germany where would countries such as Greece and Spain be?”

Germany is benefiting at the expense of other countries, namely its southern European partners. For moral as well as economic reasons, Germany now has an obligation to restore the balance. But this verdict is dangerously accusatory and myopic. If Germany continues on its path of growth, it will eventually pull its neighbors up with it. However, Germany may just as well not continue down that path. We cannot view Germany through rosecolored glasses and believe it is the perfect role model for all other countries. It, along with the rest of Europe, will likely experience an economic slowdown this year. Merkel, whether she is attempting to shape all of Europe after the German model, or whether she truly wants to create a stronger European Union, has decided to proffer help without forgetting the best interests of her own country. The German conservatives are already clamoring to leave the EU to the wolves, and with the recent scandal over President Christian Wulff ’s resignation, Merkel has her fair share of duties. That she is choosing to aid failing countries should be regarded as an act of the Good Samaritan; PIIGS should heed her advice and deal with the austerity. Bailouts are only a short-term fix; for Europe to truly get back on its feet, it needs Germany to lead it in the creation of a stronger fiscal union. HMR

www.payplan.com

photo left page: img.ibtimes.com; this photo: www.boston.com

Economics

Ready and Willing by Caroline Kuritzkes 44 40

The TheHorace HoraceMann MannReview Review| |Vol. Vol.XXI XX

Economics Economics

n Europe, young adults are faced with deteriorating hopes and mounting frustrations as youth unemployment rates soar. According to The New York Times, 1.3 million people in England are currently classified as NEETâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s â&#x20AC;&#x201C; young people not involved in employment, education, or training. For people between age 16 and 24, unemployment rates have escalated to 48% in Spain and 46% in Greece. Though it may seem like young adults have difficultly finding jobs in the U.S., by comparison, only 18% of young Americans are unemployed.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 95

Economics Naturally, unemployed young adults feel desperate and dejected. Without sufficient education or training, young people resort to gangs and crime as the answer to their financial woes. In August, high youth unemployment rates, severe austerity measures, and government cuts in social welfare fueled thousands to participate in the London riots, where young people in poor London neighborhoods looted, set fires, and violently clashed with local police officers. But what are the sources of European youth unemployment, the catalyst of the frustration of so many young adults? The answer is the implementation of severe austerity measures and the lack of training and apprenticeship programs for young Europeans. In an attempt to slash government debt and create a budget surplus, European governments have

cut spending, salaries, and welfare through harsh austerity measures. But these measures ironically lead to a shrinking, rather than growing, European economy. With less government money circulating in the economy, consumer spending dwindles, employers generate less revenue, and they are compelled to lay off their workers. It is much less likely that employers would hire new employees in a strained economy, so the austerity measures that England, Spain, and Greece have put in place only exacerbate the financial problems of the unemployed young adult. Employers also deny jobs to young people who do not have sufficient experience, so without training programs, young adults have extremely limited job opportunities. Moreover, the few apprenticeships that are being offered are not intended for young

adults, but for older employed individuals. In England, 40% of 500,000 apprentices are over the age of 25, and while apprenticeships should be made available to young adults to enhance their skills through training, they are instead being offered to older adults who already have jobs. In other words, many people who are being trained are already employed, indicating that many employees are not qualified for their jobs at the time they are hired. It is imperative that European governments implement training and apprenticeship programs to increase youth employment. With access to training, young people would gain experience, have more job opportunities, and become more qualified for their work. Training and apprenticeship programs would not only create more jobs in the long run, but also improve the skill set of the workforce

Europeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Youth Unemployment by Country (%)

28.2

8.6

47.8

21.8 The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics over time. Though England has focused more of its government spending on training programs in recent years, apprenticeships need to target specifically young people to ensure a rise in youth employment. Perhaps governments could design new training programs or strategize with existing ones to set an age quota for people who are offered training opportunities. Yet training may not be enough to stimulate Europe’s economy and increase youth employment. Training is a long-term process; depending on the job, it could take months, if not longer, for an individual to complete a training program. Even after being trained, the government cannot guarantee that a person will be hired. England, Spain, and Greece may also need to take a more direct, short-term approach. In addition to implement-

ing training programs, European governments should create jobs that are worthwhile investments (in schools, hospitals, and public infrastructure, for example), rather than implementing austerity measures that slash social welfare benefits and salaries. By creating public works projects, governments would enlarge the workforce while also improving infrastructure, a benefit to the community as a whole. Though launching jobs would not enhance the skill set of the workforce, this more direct strategy would increase employment rates and quell the frustrations of thousands of young adults. But what’s unsettling is that the youth unemployment rates now could leave a long lasting impact on Europe’s economy in the future. Since young adults are not being hired now, in future years, they will not be quali-

fied enough to move on to higher-level jobs when older adults retire. If this generation cannot gain entry to jobs, young people will not acquire the experience necessary to take the jobs of older retiring adults. The skill set of the work force will surely decline, and the economy will suffer. Though young people are currently energetic and motivated to work, their frustration and desperation can only mount as youth unemployment rates continue to rise. Ten, fifteen, or twenty years from now, young people will be unqualified and unmotivated to do the jobs they are ready to do today. It is in Europe’s best economic interests to increase youth employment by creating jobs and training programs for young people. Europe’s economic future depends on it. HMR

%) 7.3

45.8 22.8 The Horace Mann Review | Issue 46

17.5 47

Economics

THE TAX PROBLEM WHERE THE TAXES ARE COMING FROM

JESSICA BERNHEIM

axation is incontrovertibly an important issue in the upcoming election, especially given the need to increase governmental intake to offset federal expenditure. With tax rates rising to compensate for increasing costs, taxation is a prominent issue that serves as a defining point of contention between our two major political parties. Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and a wide variety of other public services that include public education, police and firefighter services, food stamps, and emergency room services which are for the most part paid by the government when low-income sick individuals wander in serve as a wide net of public welfare for American citizens. However, the phrase, “paid by the government” really refers to the people, or rather those people who pay taxes. Everyone benefits from the myriad governmental services that improve our quality of life, but

www.washingtonlife.com

“Who is not paying? Is it only the destitute, the extremely poor, the hungry, and the sick? Can it be that the one hundred plus million people not paying federal income taxes are comprised of solely these individuals?” The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics only half of us pay the federal income taxes that largely allow for such public amenities. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, produced findings that stated that as of 2009 almost 50% of American citizens did not pay federal income taxes. Is that fair? Should everyone be contributing to services from which everyone benefits? In an ideal society, everyone contributes a little something to a general pool from which a nonpartisan arbiter reallocates funds into general services that serve the best interests of the total society. That pool of resources can potentially go towards maintaining schools, roads, hospitals, and prisons, and even if some individuals use those various services more than others, everyone pays a sum appropriate to their earned income so as to ensure a basic minimum quality of life for all the citizens of the society. In our country, however, we operate on a dissimilar premise, because only half of us contribute to the federal government through direct income taxes and, ironically, those who do not pay federal income taxes often reap the greatest benefits from the services provided. Who is not paying? Is it only the destitute, the extremely poor, the hungry, and the sick? Can it be that the one hundred plus million people not paying federal income taxes are comprised of solely those individuals characterized by the epithets above? In data collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Census bureau, the number of individuals below the poverty level (before taxes) in 2009 stood at 14.3%. The percentage grew when the definition of poverty was expanded, but even with the greatest leeway allowed by the definition of poverty, the percentage of those living below the poverty level (before taxes) remained under 24%. As such, it is fair to conclude that it is not only the very poor who do not pay taxes. A study produced by the IRS in 2009 indicated that due to clever manipulation of the loophole-riddled tax code, 1,470 millionaires and billionaires did not pay any taxes. Such a system undermines the spirit of equal treatment under the law that is lauded by our Constitution and the founding notions on which our country was built. But putting aside the various numbers The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

of the tax system so as to regard the issue in a more philosophical, theoretical manner, we must ask ourselves several questions; first among them: should the extremely poor pay nothing? Yes. For those who are truly at a point in which they have so little money that they are barely surviving on a day-to-day basis, the government should not burden them with additional costs. Surely, our morality as a society will prevent us from demanding revenue from such people. But should only half the country bear the federal income taxation burden of 300 million citizens? Definitely not. Such a standard perpetuates the very wealth stratification that serves to create the ardently pronounced class divisions that facilitate the divisive political and social atmosphere in this country. The system that the American government should try to implement is one in which 90% of the country pays federal income taxes to the federal government, one in which corporations pay their full share, and one in which the wealthy are not expected to foot the entire bill but are expected to contribute according to their means, which means more so than the rest of the population but less so than the current standard. Only the absolutely destitute should pay nothing. Otherwise, we should operate in a society where everyone contributes to the general welfare. There are many aspects of our government that need to be addressed – our tax code, for one, is a complex bundle of paradoxical notions in which the billion dollar corporations pay far less in proportion than many American citizens, and where the tax burden for some is overwhelming, while for others it is inconsequential. There is a lot of rhetoric clouding our political sphere, and though we, the constituents, hear much about the needed reform, we see little implementation. “No government is perfect. One of the chief virtues of a democracy, however, is that its defects are always visible and under democratic processes and can be pointed out and corrected.” These words, delivered to a joint session of Congress in 1947 by President Truman, still ring true. We have got a lot to fix, but our system does allow us to fix, and change, and rectify. We should get started. HMR

“A loophole-riddled tax system which allows 1,470 millionaires and billionaires not pay any taxes undermines the spirit of equal opportunity under the law of our country.”

free-images-etc.rb-d.com

Taxes will be at the center of an extremely contentious debate during the upcoming presidential election, and the system needs to be reformed to properly serve the interests of the American people. 49

Economics

The Education Gap by charles cotton

It wasn’t all that long ago when the education gap existed between whites and minorities, whether they were black, Hispanic, or another ethnic group. Affirmative action helped this gap . But there is a new growing economic gap and it is between the rich and the poor. As this economic gap widens, so does the difference in the quality of education afforded to the rich and poor. This was revealed in a recent article in the New York Times that cited multiple lengthy studies that proved just this: a growing education gap between the rich and poor. To some this may not come as such a surprise consid-

ering the generally depressed economic climate, but it should be, considering the fact that gaps like this didn’t exist during other rather dark economic periods in America’s history. Historically, education was seen in the United States as a great equalizer, a way for the lower and middle classes to gain upward mobility. Since free education was available to all, the nation has prided itself on one of, if not the best, public school systems in the world. This was still the case even during some rather tough economic times in the recent recession. But now, as the rich grow richer

and the poor poorer, for the first time in a while, the education gap grows too. This is not to say that there was never an education gap between financial classes before, but in a time when the importance of education is rapidly growing, this becomes more and more of a crucial issue. In this day and age, if you lack a proper education you are at a greater disadvantage relative to your educated peers, then ever before. The recent studies tend to focus less on the usual questions--how many poor people graduated from college compared to rich people--but rather on one’s primary and secondary school The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

education statistics:

–“Between 1989 and 2009, the percentage of public school students who were White decreased from 68 to 55 percent, and the percentage of those who were Hispanic doubled from 11 to 22 percent “ Graph: Percentage distribution of public and private school enrollments, by race/ethnicity: School year 2009-10

From National Center for Education Statistics educations. In the ultra competitive environment of mainly primary schools, young children from rich families are being tutored in math and reading to give them a “leg up” on their peers. They are being intensively coached in sports and music; they are taking summer-school classes to be ahead of their classmates rather than to catch up with their classmates if they fall behind, as was traditionally the case. As they grow into their middle and high school years, the focus continues on math, but science and language enter the mix. In high school, SAT tutors appear, as the push for higher standardized tests scores moves to the forefront. The stakes are high, and the affluent parents need to keep their children competitive no matter the cost. With plenty of resources, there are no limits on how many tutors the students can have, or how many hours of tennis lessons they can take. On the other end of the spectrum, children from poorer households rarely have the benefit of extra help outside of school, excluding even their own parents, who often have more than one job, or are on their own, without a spouse or a grandparent to help. Even though, as mentioned before, the United States pubThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

lic schools are considered to be good, and the public school system as a whole is always ranked in the top fifteen in the world, if not higher according to the Guardian’s rankings, it has become more and more about a student’s out-of-school enrichment rather than their in-school instruction. This fact has somewhat neutralized these public schools’ impact on the students’ overall education with regard to everyone else, because simply put, utilizing the educational resources made available at an average public school is no longer good enough, whether it be getting into a good college or just being intellectually competitive at any other point in life. Although the quality of the public schools is not the only thing that matters anymore, it is still very important; even though they have been improving for the most part, they still must get better. A long-standing problem has been that public schools in more affluent neighborhoods have had more resources than the schools in poorer areas. This is still the case in many places. Also, the rich have far more options in terms of their children’s education. They can choose to home school, send their children to private schools, or move to an area with a better public school. These are all things

that the lower classes are usually unable to do, either because they can’t afford to pay for private schools, they don’t have the time for home schooling, or they can’t afford to move closer to the superior public schools, which are usually in more expensive and affluent neighborhoods. In general, over the past couple of decades, higher education has become increasingly important, and this education gap, which often begins as early as pre-school and continues throughout a child’s school years has reached a point where it is almost impossible for someone with an inferior education to get accepted into a good college instead of a better educated person. Because of this, the majority of underprivileged students do not get the same opportunities that the more privileged do get. For this reason, these less privileged people often do not get to be the best that they can be, something that has long been something that American’s were supposed to get the opportunity to be. Lastly if these people don’t get to be the best that they can possibly be, then the country may very well miss out on many talented, innovative people, because their education was poor and therefore they simply never had a chance, no matter what they did. HMR

Science & Tech.

Science Technology Science&&Tech. Tech. Acting on ACTA

KELVIN RHEE

Western government's attempts to curb our basic freedom of speech on the Internet.

n late 2011, 30 countries including the United States, Japan, the European Union, and 22 of the Union’s members signed ACTA, or the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The name leads the average person to believe that ACTA is something that would protect the intellectual property of people and corporations. It suggests that ACTA fights things such as product and trademark counterfeiting or using brand logos or names on products not produced by that represented company. The name also suggests that ACTA aids musicians, journalists and other creatives to help them produce unique, higher quality work. All these assumptions arise from the interpretation name of ACTA. Disguised as a trade agreement, ACTA in fact infringes upon the basic free speech and expression rights of human beings. Within the context of ACTA, the term “intellectual property” is never clearly defined. Because the term is not defined, intellectual property can be interpreted many ways including both trademarks or even an idea that exists only in someone’s mind. Intellectual property does not necessarily have to be copyrighted or trademarked. Under ACTA, the unauthorized distribution of intellectual property would be illegal. For example if you took a culinary class and learned a special recipe for meatballs, you then went home and shared this recipe with your children, significant other, or anyone else for that matter you and whoever you shared this information with are now criminals. As punishment

52 The Horace Mann Review | Issue 1

you could be fined or sent to jail. In reality, you would not be prosecuted for sharing, but ACTA would implement some intense surveillance to attempt to catch these so described “criminals”. ACTA basically calls for the invasion of privacy in one’s daily life though governments receiving access such documentation as one’s Internet history or phone records. This is one of the things that people find most distressing about ACTA; governments would be allowed to monitor individuals with uncomforting detail. This unreasonable enforcement of not sharing intellectual property should concern everybody, as it would affect just about all Internet users. The violations of ACTA translate to the Internet in ways that could even surpass the absurdity of real world examples like sharing a cooking recipe. Computers are constantly exchanging data. Whether you are sending emails or playing YouTube videos your computer is constantly packaging data and sending them through an ISP or an Internet service provider. Under the enforcement of ACTA your Internet provider would be able see and open every data-package of your computer sends and receives essentially giving them information about everything you are doing on your computer in explicit detail. In fact there is no way around this system. What does this mean for the average person? It doesn’t seem completely awful at first glance. You are essentially anonymous person browsing the Internet identifiable only by your IP address, but if the ISPs see your computer sending or receiving any copyrighted in-

formation then your Internet access terminated and you could face criminal charges. Copyrighted material runs rampant on the Internet, without copyrighted information the Internet would loose a majority of its activity. Most pictures, songs and text documents are copyrighted and the Internet would be left as a barren wasteland after the storm of ACTA. Even something unintentional such as streaming a video chat with a friend and some copyrighted music from a speaker set or television starts playing and that copyrighted material passes through your computer you can now face criminal charges for sharing copyrighted information. Not just material itself could be basis for criminal charges, but just having links to something containing copyrighted material would qualify for criminal charges. This would be the end of popular social networking websites like Facebook, YouTube and Twitter. This is because with ACTA the websites themselves are held liable for their users. If someone posts a link to a copyrighted song on Facebook than this person and the entire cooperation of Facebook could be criminally charged. ACTA and its consequences would destroy most of the active Internet rendering it nearly useless and destroying the Internets passive potential. ACTA is even more devious than this. One would assume that the money from the lawsuits involving their copyrighter material would go to them, however it does not it goes to things like the RIAA and the MPAA the Recording Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech.

Association of America respectively. These companies are hell-bent on protecting copyright laws, as lawsuits are essentially their only source of revenue. These companies will bend over backwards to find and criminalize people on the Internet sharing their industries work. This is why industries such as Hollywood and television networks are in favor of these ACTA and its associated acts as ACTA will make their jobs much easier. Also I see jealousy in the eyes of Hollywood, television networks and even news sources as they feel as the Internet is taking away viewers and business from them and they feel it is their mission to take away as much entertainment appeal that the Internet has in a desperate reach to reclaim movie goers. This may be the reason why in recent news things like ACTA, PIPA and SOPA have not been getting coverage on the news because the networks and publication are in favor of these acts. People complain about bias in the new all the time in terms of things like religion and political parties, but it feels as most of the media is neglecting ACTA, SOPA and PIPA because of their generally sup-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

portive stance on them. This is why places like Wikipedia, Reddit, Google and other Internet hubs are blasting their message to the masses. ACTA is just a government representation of these corrupt businesses that are pressing for the Internets demise. Even worse all these negotiations are being done behind closed doors and even more horrific the negotiations with ACTA are being handled by unelected government officials. For all we know these people could have been hand picked by ACTA advocates to get the bill passed. ACTA in its essence is a censorship of free speech as if it were to be passed it would give the government the right to censor anything you say or post on the Internet as they please. This would give even our own U.S. government censorship powers similar to the Internet censorship of North Korea or the likes of any other country under tyrannical oppressive rule. This would suppress peoples own insight on things like politics and national issues which would be detrimental to the flow of information in our country and throughout the world. The Internet has become a

critical part of that. People working for the government may not know the entire story of the Internet and what it does and can do for society. Think of the freedoms you have on the Internet today. And think if you had to put up with censorship, loss of free speech, loss of an unbiased network, constant and total surveillance of your activity, loss of civil rights and the possibility to loose your Internet access or even worse criminal punishment. ACTA would establish all of these things into your life on and off Internet. So much is lost and nothing is gained. The Internet is flourishing and it will not be stopped now. The uprising from the Internet and its supporters has been overwhelming people protesting in the streets of countries in the European Union holding signs saying “Sharing isn’t stealing” and wearing Guy Fawkes-esque masks stating their distaste and opposition towards ACTA. These people are standing up for what is right and what the world deserves and you should too. We will not be censored. HMR

Science & Tech.

An Affordable Proposition?

NASA’s budget under the Obama Administration

LENN UCHIMA

resident Obama’s proposed budget plan for NASA for 2013 sees a sharp shift in the priorities of the space agency. At a total of 17.7 billion dollars, government funding is at its lowest level in four years, and the individual budgets specified leave planetary scientists fuming. Receiving $1.2 billion, a twenty percent cut, NASA will be forced to back out from the European Space Agency-led ExoMars missions aiming to launch in 2016 and 2018. Since the exploration of Mars was one of NASA’s most successful projects, it came as a shock to many that funding would undercut a key chance for sample-return, which, according to experts, is the most productive way of searching for extraterrestrial life. Instead, the suggested budget plan favors research of new space technology, an act many in the science community are critical about. Bill Nye, CEO of The Planetary Society, a space exploration advocacy group, stated: “When you cut NASA’s budget in this way, you’re losing sight of why we explore space in the first place.” Realistically speaking, however, finding life on our galactic neighbor is not what the space agency needs right now. What it does need is a cost-efficient method of returning to its former prevalence in outer space. NASA has been floundering the past couple of years, and not only financially. Ever since the retirement of the three decade long Space Shuttle program in 2011, the United States has largely lost its presence as a major contributor to space exploration, particularly in regards to the ISS (International Space Station). For many Americans, especially those who still remember the years of the Apollo Program, space has become somewhat of a national pride, a sentiment that has regrettably been lost over recent years. John Glenn, the first American to enter space, stated in a recent interview celebrating the 50th anniversary of his historic flight: “I didn’t like that decision [cancelation of the Shuttle Program] made

by a previous administration when they decided to start a new mission. It sounds great: We’re going to go to the Moon. We’re going to go on to Mars. We’re going to set up a base on the Moon, OK, but no money to pay for it, nothing in the budget for it.” Now, with no means for American astronauts to reach the station on their own, the United States has had to rely on the Russian spacecraft Soyuz to transport astronauts and American cargo. A group of astronauts and former NASA employees wrote to President Obama about this, saying, “Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away.” In an already economically constrained time, NASA has also had to cover the many pension bills since the Shuttle program ended. In addition, the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope), ridden with huge cost overruns and delays since 2001, has been eating up much of NASA’s funds. In this way, that which will benefit the agency most immediately is a national effort to reestablish the United States as the world’s leader in space advancement, and not continuing to depend on other nations to carry out work for us. Thus, President Obama’s plan is essential to ameliorating NASA’s problems and redirecting them towards a steady comeback. To replace the space shuttle program, the budget allocates 2.9 billion dollars for the next-generation manned transport system, SLS (Space Launch System), which will boost manned flights by the United States. 4 billion dollars are allocated for the Human Exploration Operations mission directorate, including closeout of the Space Shuttle Program, as well as continued funding for the ISS. Completion of the JWST, which NASA bills as the successor to the aging Hubble, is given priority and 628 million dollars, an increase of over 100 million

dol-

lars for this year. This will speed the telescope’s development towards launch day, scheduled for some time in 2018. Over 1.1 billion dollars are allocated in total space technology and aeronautics research, giving rise to testing for laser communications, zero-gravity propellant transfer, and other high payoff technologies. These will not only make space activities more efficient, but will also create new high-skilled jobs in the United States. The budget also provides 830 million dollars to the CCDev (Commercial Crew Development Program) to encourage growth of commercial space transportation, further stimulating the economy. A few American flight companies such as Virgin Airlines and Boeing are already designing spacecraft that are open to public tourism, astronauts going to the ISS, and scientists who wish to conduct experiments. At this rate the United States will witness an influx in space exploration, allowing us to be an independent force once more, and returning our reputation as a “can-do” nation to our space program. Overall, NASA’s heads recognize the budget plan’s effectiveness as well. “The 2013 budget moves us forward into tangible implementation of a sustainable and affordable exploration program,” NASA’s Chief Financial Officer Elizabeth Robinson said. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

blogsp

Science & Tech.

Our Generation’s Addiction: The Internet and Reliance on Technology

blogspot.com

jane thier

ccording to a recent survey, 239,863,600 Americans use the Internet on a daily basis. Some of them will be frazzled, young businessmen rushing to a meeting while downloading a spreadsheet on their iPad. Others will be college students, relaxing The Horace Mann Review | Issue 5

in their dorms, watching a newly released movie from their iPod. And the majority will be tech-savvy teenagers “mupping” a picture of the infamous purple-haired lady strolling down Park Avenue with whom so many of us seem to be familiar. In my opinion, this constant stream of updates on our life has both its benefits,

and its detriments. What happens when your gadgets are taken away? What will we be left to do with our free time? Not share ever little detail of our day? While some scientists declare that we adolescents spend an average of thirty hours a week with our faces glued to our monitors, this number is becoming less

Science & Tech. “My first instinct when I want to contact someone is never to pick up a corded phone and call them; It’s to text, IM, or write on their Facebook wall. And it would seem unimaginable to many of my peers to go a day entertaining yourself, without a computer in tow.” and less accurate, as those hours steadily climb. Every day, the minute they arrive home, countless of teens across the globe are bolting to their computers, hastily logging onto their various accounts and typing at lightening speed. An ever-growing amount of our daily lives is reliant upon modern-day technology. According to multiple resources, we have commenced a generation in which on average, 90% of children learn to operate an iPhone before learning to tie their shoes. However, as these little children grow older, technology grows more advanced, to the point where one day, kids will not know a world where an iPad isn’t nestled into their tiny palms. Many parents may find themselves shuffling their feet outside of their child’s door, wondering what on earth they are

doing on the computer at 11:30 PM, after remaining sessile at their desks for the past six hours. “I’m on the computer for an average of three to four hours after school at night,” assents Zoe Katsamakis, ’14. “And two or three hours of that is academic.” Making a valid point, Katsamakis mentions that in light of the heavily used Moodle page, a large amount of our schoolwork at Horace Mann is done on the computer. Some assignments are not accepted unless they’ve been diligently typed. It is not as though teenagers have become so reliant on technology that they have given up on real human contact. Though it seems sometimes that we have isolated ourselves and communicate entirely by technological means, this is not

the case. Pressing further, I query Katsamakis as to what she would do all day, should she no longer own a computer. Without missing a beat, she replies, “I’d probably hang out with my friends, exercise, or listen to music.” This answer gives our generation a bit more faith, unlike the answer of a different student, who haggled, “I’d use my iPhone!” After a careful survey, it became clear that a largely known scapegoat for hours and hours on the computer is Facebook. Quantitatively speaking, if Facebook were a country, it would be the third most populated in the world. Primarily composed of teenagers, it remains the largest online community to date. Roughly 92% of my grade is on Facebook, many of who can still maintain exemplary grades. Morgan Raum, ’15, opined that Facebook blue.utb.edu

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech. is easy to manage, and is not to be treated abhorrently by reluctant parents. Raum believes that Facebook can be easily used to your advantage, by asking other students for help, as well as making plans for social outings. On the contrary, Raum avows, that when she has her account deactivated, for any variety of reasons, that it decidedly “impacts [her] life better.” Insinuating that this helps her addiction to the website, she extrapolates, “When I’m deactivated, I have more free time and more time to concentrate.” She thinks seeing both sides of the situation—having and lacking a Facebook—helps her understand both points of view. Not to be misled, Facebook and the social networking sites of the Internet absolutely have their benefits. While it is mainly a source of pleasure, there are advantages to having all your classmates in an easy-to-reach location. Rebecca Shaw, ’14, makes it known that to her, Facebook has been a huge help in the past. “I took Summer Chemistry at Horace Mann this past summer, and we actually created a Facebook group (which included our teacher).” she recalls. “It ended up being a surprisingly helpful resource!” Shaw’s experience with Facebook being a monumental help is not unlike those of many other students, who have gotten last-minute questions answered when a teacher is not on FirstClass, or received some studying advice from the smartest kid in their class. Facebook is not the only possible website we’re on when we’re stationed at our desks, mesmerized by the screens of our laptops. Of course, a look into the browser history of a Horace Mann student would also show many visits to http://courses.horacemann.org, a familiar URL to all of us, better known as Moodle. A tremendous sum of our academic assignments is found on this Moodle. Horace Mann School acknowledges their students’ attachment and understanding of the Internet, and accommodates it with Moodle. Is this a good thing? “I definitely think it’s helpful to have the vast majority of my work accessible online,” adamantly agrees Molly Wharton, ’13. “It makes organization a lot The Horace Mann Review | Issue 6

easier because we have fewer books and sheets to keep track of.” Like every other student in Horace Mann Upper Division, Ms. Wharton was raised in the Digital Age, where using a computer is second nature. Quite clearly, inferring that combining work and computing makes academics simpler as well, putting two and two together. Then, Wharton frowns slightly, and admits, “It can still be problematic.” I entreated her for more details on why something so easy can be of inconvenience. “Well,” she continues, “It becomes completely reliant on Internet access, and when that’s not available, there’s no real backup.” On the total opposite end of the spectrum, William Welland, ’15, admonishes using the Internet as far as academics are concerned. He prefers to keep the two worlds separate. He upbraids such sites as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, Tumblr, and the like for being so distracting. Being on the computer to do work, you are always tempted to let your mind wander. While some students have a firm grasp on what not to do when you’re working, others do not. To put it simply, it is addictive to spend hour after hour on the Internet, because there is always something more to entertain yourself. Unlike hopscotch, or small talk, the Internet requires no formality. You can roll out of bed, plant yourself at your desk, and the computer does all the work for you. It displays website after website, video after video, and there is no limit until you pull the plug. Recently, my father was asking me to show him a webpage on my computer. Upon typing in the URL, when the screen displayed the homepage, he was shocked at the speed. It occurred to me that it was indeed an instantaneous reaction, but so what? It had become something I had been accustomed to, therefore I never really stopped and thought about just how fast the Internet truly is. It always entertains me to watch parents and grandparents marvel at the abilities of new technology. You wouldn’t believe the looks on their faces when I switch from checking the Dow to skimming the forecast, to taking a picture on my iPhone. I asked my father at one point what

he thought was so different about my generation in comparison to his. He pointed a finger at my computer, and said, “We didn’t need those things. We had human communication. Yes, these computers offer many things to you, and they’re genius inventions, but put in perspective, you’re slowly becoming isolated.” His words stuck with me meaningfully. It struck me how true it was. My first instinct when I want to contact someone is never to pick up a corded phone and call them; It’s to text, IM, or write on their Facebook wall. And it would seem unimaginable to many of my peers to go a day entertaining yourself, without a computer in tow. Another quote I picked up that I found interesting comes from a wildly popular romantic comedy released in 2010, Easy A. This movie takes place in modern day California. In a certain scene of this movie, the main character, Olive, is having a conversation with her teacher, who seems to be in his forties, more or less. He remarks, “I don’t understand what your generation’s fascination is with documenting your every thought. Believe me, they’re not all diamonds. ‘Roman is having an O.K. day, bought a Coke Zero from the gas station. Raise the Roof ’? Who gives a crap?” While this statement was proclaimed through a comedic standpoint, every joke has a grain of truth. This quote, which first made me laugh, also made me think. It’s true, isn’t it? We really think that with this constant access to the Internet, we have the freedom to update everybody on everything. But when does it become too much? This is a statement of our generation. We have officially become totally reliant on technology to get us through the day. While all these inventions were put forth into the world to help us get along, they have taken a turn towards the addictive, and it has become less and less of a good thing. Each app one downloads, song one plays, and movie one watches, we are losing more touch with our surroundings. Where will this take us? Surely, the future of our human communications is looking more and more grim with each new development. But is it worth it? Only time shall tell. HMR

Science & Tech.

Prescription Drug Shortage: A Dangerous Prospect By Philip Perl

urrently there are 283 prescription drugs in the United States that are in short supply. Most of them are used to treat a wide range of life-threatening diseases, such as cancer and bacterial infections. Methotrexate is one of these drugs that doctors use to treat acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), the most common childhood cancer. Because Methotrexate cures about 90% of the cases, Dr. Michael O’Neal of the Vanderbilt Children’s Hospital worries that some children “could relapse or die,” if current demand is left unsatisfied. A number of solutions have been proposed to deal with these shortages. One is for the federal government to store dry ingredients and release them to hospitals on per need basis where pharmacists could convert them into injectable compounds. Another solution, proposed by Senator Amy Klobu-

bagnewsnotes.com

char from Minnesota, is to require drug companies to give the FDA early warnings when they anticipate cutbacks in production. A third proposal is to import generic drugs from abroad. No matter how good these proposals may sound, they will not prevent future shortages. At best they will just shift the burden from the market to the FDA or the government and at worst they will produce additional inefficiencies in the market. To understand why these policies may not work, we must understand the underlying causes and effects of shortages. There are a variety of reasons why drug shortages occur. Some shortages occur due to problems in manufacturing including contamination and late delivery of raw materials. Other shortages occur due to mislabeling or mispackaging of the drug. Most of the shortages, however, stem from government imposed price controls, which are set too close to cost. Although The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science & Tech. this kind of intervention helps governments and consumers keep medical costs down by holding the price below market equilibrium, it also distorts consumer and producer welfare. While some consumers gain from this kind of intervention as they pay an artificially lower than equilibrium price, others incur a loss in consumer welfare because of the reduction in the quantity traded. And because generic drugs are especially vulnerable to government imposed price ceilings, all producers are expected to lose from this type of intervention. As a result, some companies are forced to leave the market because they cannot afford to produce at a loss while others that remain in the market are forced to take the lower price. Because price controls prevent existing companies from increasing supply and new companies from entering the market, the above-mentioned solutions will not do much to avert future shortages. In fact, the concern is that they may even contribute to additional market inefficiencies because policy makers do not understand the possible problems or costs that their interventions can create. Letting importers fill the gap will not work if the government cannot judge the quality of imported drugs or if the barriers to entry, such as tariffs, could not be removed. Worse yet, the shortage crisis can deteriorate further and the market for generic drugs can collapse if importers are subjected to the same price controls as domestic producers. It is not certain that FDA or government remedies will work either. Introducing more regulation so the FDA can deal with the shortages that government price controls created seems counter productive. Asking companies to notify the FDA of their expected output production will not improve the shortage crisis but may cause some companies to misinform the FDA and other companies to exit the market sooner rather than later, especially if asked to reveal any company secrets such as strategies about possible mergers, changes in output production or needed adjustments in supply of raw materials. If, on the other hand, the government intervenes to supply the excess demand many worry that stockpiling of raw materials will bring additional inefficiencies to the market. Since the government must adThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 46

just its stockpile to reflect fluctuations in supplies of these raw materials and the needs of individual patients, one worry is that the government will not be able to deliver the practical and action-oriented management style that is needed to make the raw materials available as quickly and efficiently as possible. Maintaining an adequate quality and quantity of these raw materials can be costly in terms of time spent managing and space needed to store the available stockpiles. The worry is that the cost of stockpiling the needed raw materials will be more expensive for taxpayers to bear than the cost of producing the needed drugs at the market equilibrium price. Since our society deems cancer drugs essential, there must be a way that will ensure availability to all those who depend on a steady supply of these goods. One way to satisfy high demand is to allow prices to rise to market levels. Since the government has no intention of removing price controls on these drugs, the key question is not whether drug companies should satisfy the market demand, but rather how they can do it with price controls in effect? To ensure that the market is served, the government might offer the firm a subsidy equal to its fixed costs. If a subsidy is not politically feasible because it makes one market efficient at the expense of another market, the regulator may alternatively specify that the firm charge

the lowest price possible, so long as it covers all costs. Alternatively, the regulator can ask the firm to behave like a public utility. The common feature of public utilities is to provide customers with essential goods or services such as electricity, gas, or water and charge different prices for different amounts consumed. One common pricing scheme is block pricing, where consumers pay one price for the first block of the product that they buy, such as the first 500 gallons of water used, then a different price for the second and subsequent blocks. Standard or declining block pricing refers to declining prices for subsequent blocks, while inverted block pricing refers to increasing prices for subsequent blocks. Unlike single pricing, block pricing of either kind enables drug companies to supply peak demand at all times and cover all costs. The appeal of block pricing is understandable. It enables firms to charge two different prices, one set high above the cost for the first block and the other set equal to government price controls that may or may not cover cost. The revenues from producing the first block of drugs would cover total cost of producing the entire demand. By allowing drug companies to charge two different price levels, the government would not only minimize market inefficiencies but would enable companies to satisfy market demand while maximizing their revenues. HMR

myqotd.com