Issue 8 - The Justice System by The Horace Mann Review

Review the horace mann

Domestic - International - Features - Economics - Science & Technology

THE

JUSTICE

SYSTEM

Issue

From The Editor etsy

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

Senior Editor - International

Dorin Azerad

Crime and Punishment

his is issue of The Review, our final issue of the year, explores the theme of justice. Journalists analyzing the troubling events unfolding around them invariably must ask themselves, “Is this fair?” In assessing the sacrifices that must be made to support the euro, the authority to determine whether Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, or the sources of funding for U.S. presidential campaigns, the active observer is forced to consider what is just. The disparity between right and wrong is rarely obvious. This month, Review writers analyze the mechanisms in place that help us to determine justice. If the philosophy behind the United States’ three distinct branches of government is to ensure balance in the law, our Supreme Court symbolizes the pinnacle of equitability and thoughtful consideration of our most valued rights. With the public sphere arrested by questions of immigration, universal healthcare, and separation of church and state, we must acknowledge the Court’s limitations and grapple with the issues at hand for ourselves. Writers also shine a light on other

current events this week that push us to explore what is just and examine different sides of a moral or intellectual dilemma. In this process, we are no different from our most powerful arbiters of justice. I would like to thank the Review community for its impressive work this year. It is for our readers as well as for ourselves that we strive to refine and communicate our opinions each month. I have learned more things than I can list from working with this publication’s committed staff and faculty advisor, and am grateful for the opportunity to help our writers share their views with you. While I will miss this team greatly, I am confident that students with a passion for learning about the world around them and expressing their views will always find a welcome community in The Review. Sincerely,

Senior Editor - Features

Jordan Berman

Senior Editor - Economics

Katherine Wyatt

Senior Editor - Science & Technology

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 Birthright Bound

Namit Satara

GOP

Allison Chang

Newcomers

Lauren Futter

Inefficiency

Robert Hefter

A French Revolution

Sam Henick

Calling the Bluff

Kelvin Rhee

A Real Threat

Austin Rahmin

Belgrade: The New Cosmopolitan Look

Philip Perl

Dazed and Confused

Henry Luo

The Supreme Courtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Folly

Isaiah Newman

A Minor Dilemmna

Adam Resheff

Justice Clash

Benjamine Greene

Obamacare: The SCOTUS Showdown

Brett Silverstein

Justice for Trayvon

Hannah Davidoff

Immigration Battleground: Arizona

Mohit Mookim

Islamophobia in America

Catherine Engelmann

Is Google Bustable

David Hackel

The Big Threeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Road to Recovery

Matthew Harpe

Just Another Good Company

Mitchell Troyanovsky

Oil Dependency

Jacob Haberman

International

Features

Economics

Science and Technology Only They Know?

Jonah Wexler

Make Him Infamous

Ikaasa Suri

An Invasion of Our Privacy

Nathaniel Tillinghast-Raby

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Domestic

BIRTHRIGHT BOUND

Freeusandworldmaps.com

WHY THE UNITED STATES MUST CHANGE ITS CITIZENSHIP POLICIES

NAMIT SATARA

ore than 150 years after the creation of the 14th Amendment and America’s birthright citizenship clause, it is high time that we evaluate whether or not the United States is currently benefitting from birthright citizenship. Is it essential to keep just because it is inscribed in our constitution or should we abolish this outdated amendment? The United States of America defines this law as the acquisition of American citizenship through circumstance of birth on American soil.

But looking back at the 14th Amendment’s origins, we see that its intentions have been completely skewed; no longer is birthright citizenship used to grant citizenship to former slaves, but seen as a motive by foreigners to illegally immigrate onto American soil. Not to mention, birthright citizenship unfairly disadvantages and undermines our nation’s system of legal immigration. And if the immorality of birthright citizenship’s modern-day effects were not enough of a reason for its eradication, welfare benefits for the children of unauthorized

immigrants is enormously expensive. The Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution states, “All persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” This clause was adopted shortly after the Civil War to ensure that former slaves receive the benefits and privileges of citizenship, which had previously been denied by the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott v Sanford decision. Because the U.S. did not limit immigration in 1868 when the 14th

Washington Independant

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

“Ultimately, chances are slim that the Fourteenth Ammendment will be overturned, but our government can make small changes to prevent some of the ammendment’s consequences.” Amendment was ratified, there was no idea of an illegal immigrant; anybody was granted access to United States’ citizenship. Therefore, the issue of residency for children of those here on American soil in violation was non-existent back then. Those who criminally arrive onto American soil to give birth and have their children gain citizenship cut a line of millions of people around the world waiting patiently for several years. These individuals are cheated by illegal immigrants who manage to evade immigration laws and are subsequently rewarded for doing so, as their children are granted automatic citizenship and can therefore help their parents become American citizens as well. These cheaters create an irrational and unfair system where children of illegals skip the entire naturalization process just by virtue of circumstance of their birth. Another downside to the birthright citizenship policy in the United States of America is that welfare benefits for families of illegal immigrants who are granted access to live in our country is costly on our government. Illegal immigrants obtain welfare benefits such as Medicaid and food stamps on behalf of their U.S.-born children. Nationwide, 40% of illegal alien-headed households receive some type of assistance from the government. This rate is higher in some states; 48 % in California and 49% in New York of illegal immigrants feed off

our tax money. Illegal households also only pay about 1/5 of the taxes that lawful families pay, as they statistically have much lower incomes and larger family sizes. Ultimately, chances are slim that the Fourteenth Ammendment will be overturned, but our government can make small changes to prevent some of the ammendment’s consequences. Countries around the world have handled this clause differently, with some methods proved successful. The United Kingdom, a nation that used to have birthright citizenship, reversed its decision in 1981. Now, one parent has to be a legalized resident of the United Kingdom to have birthright citizenship apply to his or her children. This new law also prevents other concerns raised by America’s birthright citizenship policy, such as chain migration. An anchor baby, a phrase coined to a child who is born in the United States to immigrant parents, is one who can later facilitate immigration for other relatives. Let’s say a child is born to illegals on U.S. grounds. When this adolescent becomes of age, he or she can then legalize his parents, a foreign-born spouse, and any foreignborn siblings. These sponsored relatives can then go on to bring in their foreignborn spouses and siblings, creating a virtually never ending and always-expanding migration chain. A child born on U.S. soil can strengthen an immigrant’s presence in our country, leading

to more access to welfare benefits. A fair resolution that has been proposed for this problem is to exert state control on the matter of citizenship, so states like Texas, California, and Florida can take whatever measures they deem necessary. The problem of illegal immigration holds a stronger presence in these states; 6% of California’s population is comprised of undocumented aliens. Of the developed nations of the world (as stated by the International Monetary Fund), America and Canada are the only who grant automatic citizenship to undocumented aliens’ children. Several different approaches have been taken to tackle this problem by other nations, most of who have abolished this clause in the past three decades. Germany practices a different form of birthright citizenship, where German citizenship is not given automatically to all children of non-Germans, but if one of a newborn’s foreign parents has been in Germany for at least 8 years, the child is eligible for citizenship. In Australia, at least one parent has to be a native or a permanent resident for a child to receive Australian citizenship. However, the children of foreign nations can became residents if he or she stays in Australia for at least ten years after birth. We Americans can definitely take a similar approach on the matter to resole what seems to be an increasingly prominent issue our our nation. HMR

pendant

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Domestic

GOP A Allison Chang

s political veterans like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Mitt Romney dominate current events, it may seem like our government—especially in the GOP—could use an influx of fresh faces. The upcoming presidential elections have set the Internet abuzz, whether about Gingrich’s recent withdrawal or Romney’s impending success. However, Capitol Hill breakouts like Florida’s Marco Rubio are also making waves in the media and proving that the legislative scene isn’t a stagnant pool after all. As senior politicians struggle to juggle all of our country’s pressing problems, new members bring hope in the form of original, new, and creative ideas. From a more pessimistic angle, young, unmarked statesmen will replace disgraced old-timers like ex-Senator John Edwards. Since Obama’s ascension to the presidency in late 2008, the GOP has devoted itself to reinvention, and as a result, the radically conservative and libertarian Tea Party has emerged almost overnight. The sudden rise of the no-nonsense, back-to-basics Tea Party is a testament to how desperately Americans want to dramatically change the current government. With that in mind, it almost seems inevitable that the Senate would welcome sixteen new members after the 2010 elections: thirteen Republicans, including six Tea Party-ers. A recent Fox News article containing a list of thirteen of Romney’s potential running mates included four first-term Senators: Rubio, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rob Portman of Ohio. They appear alongside some big names, including former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, former governor Mike Huckabee, and Wisconsin House Representative/economic policy wizard Paul Ryan. Considering that Ayotte, Toomey, Portman, and Rubio have only been in office for a little more than two years, these new politicians have already made strong impressions. You don’t have to follow the latest political headlines to have heard of Marco Rubio. His classic rags-to-riches story and underdog victory in the Senate elections make him the latest media darling. The son of Cuban exiles, Rubio strongly

advocates for a more permissive immigration system. Although he has no interest in becoming president or vice president in the near future, his ethnic background will gain him the support of many Hispanic voters. Time named him one of “The 100 Most Influential People in the World” for being a “fresh voice for small government.” His ideas are far extreme and Rubio is no revolutionary, but his willingness to change some of the most controversial laws and policies is relieving for frustrated Americans. Not every journalist is a Rubio fan, but the fact that he has garnered so much attention means he has the potential to become another big name in politics. However, most new statesmen don’t get nearly as much coverage as Marco Rubio. The same senior legislators often appear in one article after another, and perusing the Politics section of the New York Times may lower one’s optimism concerning the powerful figures of tomorrow. Then again, it’s important to realize that the process of climbing the political ladder can’t happen overnight. Newt Gingrich and Ron Paul first entered the House of Representatives over thirty years ago, and have spent decades working their ways up in Washington. The reason we don’t always hear about the fresh new faces is because they first have to prove themselves worthy of being regarded on equal ground with the hardened political fixtures. Then again, our satisfaction (and dissatisfaction) with our government representatives can only be fairly shown through the voting, and the polls prove that Capitol Hill is definitely experiencing a turnover. Republican senator Richard Lugar, of Indiana, suffered a landslide primary defeat in his bid for a seventh term; his critics claim he wasn’t conservative enough. Many of the newer Senators are less experienced, more energetic, have clean reputations, and are willing to take great risks to catch voters’ attention. As a result, we can expect to see more dramatic reforms that attack crippling issues like the national debt, gay marriage, taxes, and the war on terror. While the effects of the changes in Washington may not affect us immediately, the arrival of fresh faces definitely heralds a new era in political development. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Domestic

Newcomers

ately, news has been a little flat, and by flat I mean it makes you want to fly off to Newt Gingrich’s moon colony. Every day the same stories appear on the screen: The economy is doing poorly, bipartisanship is splitting up congress, and Republicans do not accept Mitt Romney as the Republican nominee. So, the news is left with several options, all of which include talking about Mitt Romney strapping his dog to the roof of his car on a trip to Canada. So, what accounts for the dismal state of the media, and our inability to solve the various crises this country faces? A lack of fresh new voices.

he 2008 elections were all about change and making a different. Though, while President Obama rhetoric earned him a spot in the White House, it also earned him the infamous nickname “campaigner in chief ” from Republicans. Many Republicans believe that President Obama did not accomplish much during his first term in office seeing as the economy is only slowly improving. Despite their defamation of President Obama as not having done much, Republicans are not putting new solutions to the problem that they ridicule the President for not being able to solve. As if a child who repeatedly denies suggestions for where to eat for dinner only to not have preference to begin with, the Republican party has put Mitt Romney forward as the Republican party despite little enthusiastic support from the base. Do not worry, though, Mr. Romney has an average of mentioning the economy five times per speech, this must mean that all problems concerning the economy will be fixed! Sadly, this misconception is false. Mr. Romney has failed to mention any plan for actually fixing the economy other than mentioning that the economy needs to be fixed preferably by tax cuts for the one percent. The economy is not akin to Tinkerbell; clapping more and saying “I believe” is not going to fix it. Unfortunately, the other former Republican candidates did not fair better in this assessment of new thinkers with new ideas. Former Speaker of the House from two decades ago Newt Gingrich The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Lauren Futter seemed to talk more about social issues than the economy and Rick Santorum also seemed to care more about social issues and beating President Obama in the general elections. Each Republican candidate has run in many elections prior to their presidential candidacies making them far from new voices. At this rate, it appears that they did not care about being this new voice the country needs, but just furthering the agenda of the party. It does not even matter if the agenda of the party is right or wrong, either way they should have a plan that is not just toted as Republican or Democratic ideology. The Democrats do not appear to fair much better than their Republican counterparts. As vice president Biden stated while addressing NYU, if you need a bumper sticker for what the administration has achieved, it would read, “Osama Bin Laden is dead, General Motors is alive.” While these accomplishments may have been major milestones in the administration, the majority of the population sees the bumper sticker as reading, “economy still down, unemployment staying up.” Either way, the amount of information that can fit on a bumper sticker is not going to help the economy. It’s the plan behind the bumper sticker. Recently, President Obama unveiled his new campaign slogan as being “forward.” “Forward” is not going to change the economy, decrease unemployment, or keep the NASA space shuttle program going. It is the words behind “forward” that will. The only problem is that it appears there is no one to say these words. A deadlocked

House of Representatives confines President Obama and Mitt Romney does not know where he stands on the issue. So, what are we left with? Well, according to CNN and the Washington Post, one of the top political newcomers was Wisconsin’s Scott Walker, who single handedly caused month long protests by teachers, their students, and just about everyone. Or, we can all congregate around Elizabeth Warren the oft under-appreciated Harvard law professor who was passed over for the top position of a bureau she created. Now she is back and running against Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown for office in the 2012 elections. Why, though, has Warren been greatly disregarded? Politics. The great irony of political science is that politics is its greatest downfall. Warren, while being an important voice that should be heard, has fallen victim to the fallacy of one side of the political spectrum liking her, while the other does not because the first party likes her. As a result, the American people are in the middle of this game of political hot potato with no end in sight, and no new ideas are being put forth. Since no new ideas are have been created, there are no solutions to the problems of this nation. Thus, the citizens of America are in need with a new bumper sticker. So, maybe it is time for the people of the United States to be the voice this country so desperately needs and write the bumper sticker they want to see on their car. HMR

Domestic http://blog.studentsforafreetibet.org/

Inefficiency

Robert Hefter

he first United States Postal Office opened in New York City on January 1, 1837, at the corner of William Street and Exchange Place. Merchants and businessmen argued that the postal office at that time was located too far uptown, so in order to satisfy them, a new post office was created amongst the entrepreneurs in the city. However, this branch was eventually closed, and on March 3, 1847, Congress ordered the Postmaster General to create more branches of the post office, thus causing the genesis of what is now known as the U.S. Postal Service; although, at that time the Postal Service only ran throughout New York City. The U.S. Postal service once served as the hub of all connection circulating throughout the United States as well as internationally. Not only did the Postal Service act as the sole form of communication, but it also served as the core unit of a town. When a stranger would walk into a town, they would identify

the town by its postal office. The Service had a huge social impact on the United States. However, the U.S. Postal Service now competes with another leading form of communication and news: the Internet.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;The U.S. Postal service once served as the hub of all connection circulating throughout the United States as well as internationally.â&#x20AC;? New forms of technology emerged from this breakthrough. E-mail now trumps the speed that it would take to mail a postcard or a letter. Large stacks of files that would need to be sent no longer had to be paid for due to the Internet. In fact, the world was going through a rapid change and the Postal

Service could not catch up. This advancement was inevitable, but now the Postal Service is undergoing a decline that, if it keeps going on for much longer, the Service could end up bankrupt. This is not only detrimental to the once flourishing company at large, but it is also affects every town that the Postal Service has had an office in. The Postal Service offices serve as a job source as well as a way for towns to become a part of the map of the United States. Now that the company is suffering due to competition, many offices are being forced to shut down, and as a consequence, many people are being forced out of work, and towns that once had a symbol that told the world that they were part of the United States no longer are being recognized. This phenomenon of the evolution of technology has thrusted the United States into a new era in which all it takes is a click of the button to send a message instead of buying a stamp and mailing a letter. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

www.abc.net.au

A FRENCH REVOLUTION ?? THE POSSIBLE OUTCOMES AND EFFECTS OF THE FRENCH PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

SAM HENICK arkozy, the incumbent, and Hollande, the socialist contender, are vying for the presidency in France. If he wins, Sarkozy will serve his last term under the regulations of the French constitution. If Sarkozy loses, he will be the eleventh European leaders who resigned or lost reelections. The presidential election on May 6 will be followed by a legislative election in June. Although France is one of the strongest countries on the Euro, it is still feeling the strain of Europe’s economic crisis.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Sarkozy believed in a “fiscal shock” that would reinvigorate the economy through tax cuts worth about €15 billion a year. He also believed in the philosophy of a “financial shield,” a concept that received criticism on the grounds that it benefitted the wealthy. The “fiscal shield” was designed to protect wealthy households from paying more than 50% in taxes on their overall income. This theory of economics resembles that of “trickle-down economics” or “Supply-side economics.” This philosophy is generally a conservative philosophy that is paired with a balanced budget and cuts in government spending. Despite this, in 2009, Sarkozy

told a group of lawmakers in Versailles, “I will never conduct a policy of austerity because austerity always failed.” The idea of no austerity measures resembles “deficit spending” or “Keynesian Economics,” which is what FDR used to get the US out of the Great Depression. These two contradictory ideas both seem to be the backbone of Sarkozy’s economic policy and have led to economic troubles. Sarkozy was elected five years ago with the promise of recovery, through more jobs and cutting the country’s state sector. However, at the present time France is currently the world’s fifth largest economy, but is €1.7 trillion [$2.24

International trillion] in debt, which is 86% of its GDP (compared to 100.3% in the US in January). The public debt level is about 90%of the country’s annual output compared to 64% when Sarkozy took office in 2007. France is also struggling with a jobless rate of 10%, a 13 year high. The government let the budget deficit grow to 7.5% of the GDP Gross Domestic Product) in 2009 from 2.7% in 2007. Furthermore, the government raised €35 billion to fund a number of projects ranging from the renovation of historical monuments to university research. 62% of France feared that France could join the PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, and Spain) and other nations such as Belgium. These economic shortcomings have led some voters to the Socialist candidate Hollande. Nonetheless, Sarkozy has had his successes. Partnered with German chancellor Merkel, Sarkozy made up half of the power couple that tackled the sovereign debt crisis. He led two simultaneous wars in Africa: one in Libya and the other in Ivory Coast. He maintained control of domestic politics and imposed an increase in the standard retirement age despite strong popular resistance to the accolade of debt-rating companies. When chief executives of automakers Renault SA and Peugeot SA met with Sarkozy to warn him that unless a repaid solution was found, they would have to lay off thousands of workers. Sarkozy granted €3 billion in government loans to each company and introduced a cashfor-clunkers plan, solutions that were widely imitated in the US and Europe. Despite these measure, Sarkozy’s term has also had its flaws with a few truly indiscreet and embarrassing situations. The day after his inauguration, he flew to Malta with his ex-wife for a cruise on a billionaire’s yacht. He got divorced and was caught sending texts during a meeting with Pope Benedict XVI. According to Sarkozy, “It took me time to embody the presidential function.” Unfortunately for him, the embodiment of a true president may have been too delayed. The image of a lavish lifestyle and alleged closeness to France’s business elite—something he has strongly denied—has haunted him throughout his term. His “moving target” strategy of

being in constant motion was criticized by Mr. Devedjian, a senior minister in Sarkozy’s administration in 2009 and 2010, who said the, “There is a major flaw in the ‘moving target’ strategy: Political action becomes illegible.” He went on to say that any considerable things that were achieved would go unnoticed. The president also created a ministry of national identity that launched public forums on what it means to be French; the debate led to a torment of xenophobic, anti-Muslim comments that Sarkozy struggled to mute.

“SARKOZY’S FLAWS MAKE IT NO GREAT SURPRISE THAT HOLLANDE HAS BEEN LEADING IN THE POLLS FOR SOME TIME AND IS WIDELY EXPECTED TO WIN THE ELECTION.”

referentiel.nouvelobs.com

Hollande presents a change from the Sarkozy who promised that, “I won’t betray you, I won’t lie to you, and I won’t disappoint you.” For some, the incumbent did not live up to his compelling words (*cough* *cough* *Obama* *cough* *cough*). He wants to see the ECB (European Central Bank) involved in supporting the euro-zone countries more directly as they look for more growth. He has vowed to revise the European compact on fiscal discipline by emphasizing growth. If elected, Hollande will call for euro-zone bonds to finance industrial and infrastructure projects, an increase in the financing capacity of the European Investment Bank, the creation of a financial transaction tax, and the consolidation of unused structural funds. Because his views contradict those of German chancellor Angela Merkel, who wants greater austerity, Hollande said he would talk to Merkel to reach a new agreement. On January 26, he outlined a full list of policies in a manifesto containing 60 propositions including, but not limited to, raising taxes for big corporations, banks and the wealthy, creating 60,000 teaching jobs, lowering the retirement age from 62 to 60, pulling French troops out of Afghanistan in 2012, and granting marriage and adoption rights to samesex couples. Marie Le Pen, the far right presidential candidate who lost in the first round of voting (which took place on April 22, 2012) with almost 18% of the vote, said she would not endorse either candidate for the presidential election. This move probably deprived Sarkozy of some sorely needed votes, despite the fact that Sarkozy is also conservative and borrowed some of Le Pen’s rhetoric about immigrants. Due to Le Pen’s lack of support and Sarkozy’s personal flaws, therefore, it is no surprise that Hollande has been leading the polls for some time now and is expected to win the May 6th presidential vote. HMR

NOTE: Since The Review went to print, Francois Hollande has won the French presidential election. The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International

CALLING THE BLUFF WHY NORTH KOREA DOES NOT POSE A REAL THREAT TO THE U.S., itS AGGRESSIVE TALK JUST A BLUFF

BY AUSTIN RAHMIN

www.davegranlund.com

KELVIN RHEE

ver since the Korean War there have been threats from North Korea of striking back at South Korea and its allies, namely the United States. The Korean War technically never ended, for it only resulted in a cease-fire and could technically resume at any moment. As this threat is ever present in the minds of war strategists on both sides of the conflict, the aggressor, North Korea, has recently threatened a large-scale attack against South Korea and the United States. North Korea constantly boasts its military strength and even declared that it could “defeat the imperialists [US] at a single blow.” That is immense hubris coming from a country that is notoriously impoverished and that suffered a failed rocket launch in early-mid April that has most people beginning to fear less and less. Along with the fact that North Korea is not nearly as strong and mighty as it claims too be, there are many other factors that play into the reason why North Korea will never attack either South Korea or the United States.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

The first of many reasons is that North Korea has nothing substantial to gain and way too much to lose from an attack. Yes, a successful attack would boost their military “prowess” (if one could call it that) and add to their ever-growing ego. However, at the same time that the allied forces just want to be left alone by North Korea, which seems to be a pest biting at the heels of bigger countries and trying to receive recognition for nothing. An attack would be fruitless for North Korea and turn out to be more of a detriment to the North Koreans than anything else. North Korea not only has nothing to gain; it has much to lose. North Korea is clearly China’s subordinate in the alliance between the two nations. China dominates North Korea in almost every aspect possible. China has a superior economy, better technology, and more weight in foreign policy. In paying allegiance to China and being its subordinate, North Korea would have to obtain China’s permission to attack South Korea or the United States. China would never let North Korea launch an attack, and if North Korea did, China would almost certainly cut all its ties to North Korea. Such a scenario would be devastating to North Korea, since China is one the few (if not the only) ally that North Korea has. The reason China would never tolerate a conflict is that China’s economy is starting to thrive, and the nation is becoming one of the fastest growing markets in the world. China would not allow its exponential growth to be hindered by a vain attack by North Korea. A war in eastern Asia would deter many people from doing business with China. The potential loss of business for China is enough of a

reason for China never to permit North Korea to launch an attack. The lack of an incentive and reward for North Korea are major factors in why most of their aggressive talk is a bluff. North Korea is very mysterious in the sense that we do not know much about it and the type of military power and weapons it has. North Korea has recently been boasting of military prowess. The country claims to have weapons of mass destruction such an as nuclear bombs and missiles that could potentially reach the United States. North Korea has solemnly vowed to turn Seoul, the capital of South Korea, to dust multiple times in the past few months alone, and yet not a single shot has been fired. From what we have seen of their technology, North Korea attempted to launch a rocket beyond the earth’s atmosphere and it broke midflight. It was an embarrassingly poor display of modern science and only further demonstrates the fact that North Korea is bluffing with the only hand it has been dealt. HMR

“NORTH KOREA HAS NOTHING TO GAIN AND WAY TOO MUCH TO LOSE FROM AN ATTACK. CHINA, NORTH KOREA’S PRINCIPAL ALLY, WOULD NOT TOLERATE SUCH AGGRESSION.” 11

International

A REAL THREAT

WHY THE WORLD COMMUNITY MUST DEAL WITH NORTH KOREA NOW face from: www.abc.net.au

n April 12, 2012 North Korea attempted to launch a satellite into orbit to honor the 100th anniversary of the regime’s founder, Kim Il Sung. However, this rocket launch defied a United States as well as a United Nations Security Council agreement. The United States believes this rocket launch was a hidden attempt to test missiles for North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. This failed rocket launch has raised fears that North Korea will now conduct a third nuclear test. Although this rocket launch failed only 81 seconds after liftoff, North Korea’s nuclear program must be considered a threat to the United States. It is important for the United States to preemptively prevent North Korea from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The United States has allied with South Korea since the Cold War. When North Korea invaded South Korea on June 25, 1950, the United States allied with South Korea to prevent the North from spreading its communist principles. Thus, for 58 years, the United States has had troops stationed on the border of North and South Korea to

AUSTIN RAHMIN

prevent North Korean aggression. In fact, the United States has 20,000 more troops protecting the Korean borders than it has guarding its own borders with Mexico. The number of troops stationed on the Korean border indicates just how significant a threat North Korea is. North Korea is believed to have a handful of nuclear bombs and conducted successful nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. North Korea does not yet have the technology or the missiles to launch bombs that would reach the continental United States. However, if North Korea

“NORTH KOREA WOULD BECOME A TREMENDOUS THREAT TO U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY IF IT WERE TO ACQUIRE BOTH NUCLEAR BOMBS AND THE TECHNOLOGY TO LAUNCH THEM.”

does eventually obtain the technology, the United States would be a primary target of North Korea because of its relationship with South Korea. Moreover, it is speculated that North Korea will use uranium in its third nuclear test. Uranium-enriched bombs carry enormous power; the United States used such bombs against Japan to end World War II. North Korea would become a tremendous threat to U.S. national security if it were to acquire both nuclear bombs and the technology to launch them. Thus, it is necessary for the United States to take action against North Korea. Additionally, it is believed that Iranian scientists were in attendance at the failed missile launch. This attendance is significant because Iran is believed to be developing nuclear capabilities. Therefore, it appears as if North Korea is working with Iran to acquire the technology for a long-range missile. In fact, North Korea contributed to the Iranian program by importing midrange missiles from Iran just ten years ago. Although the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs are very different, both programs pose a serious threat to not only the United States but

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

International to its most important allies, including Israel, South Korea, and Japan. It is important that the United States take preemptive action to combat North Korea’s missile program. By working in conjunction with the United Nations and imposing strict sanctions on North Korea, the United States can prevent a potentially very serious problem before it occurs. While this is speculation, it is important to note that North Korea already has a handful of nuclear weapons and lacks only the missile technology. In response to the failed rocket launch, the United States suspended all food aid to North Korea. In February, the United States promised 240,000 tons of food aid on the condition that North Korea freezes its nuclear program. However, the rocket launch violated this agreement, and the United States suspended food aid as a result. The United States must continue to weigh stricter sanctions. Additionally, by violating its food aid agreement with the U.S., North Korea demonstrated that it is highly invested in continuing its nuclear development program and aggressively pursuing weapons of mass destruction. The rocket launch cost eight hundred and fifty million dollars - enough to feed the nation for an entire year. Thus, the United States has to consider a stricter policy against North Korea because North Korea is not willing to negotiate and is aggressively pursuing nuclear weapons. HMR

“IF NORTH KOREA DOES EVENTUALLY OBTAIN THE RIGHT TECHNOLOGY, THE UNITED STATES WILL BE A PRIMARY TARGET BECAUSE OF ITS RELATIONSHIP WITH SOUTH KOREA.” The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

International

Belgrade: The New Cosmopolitan Look Philip Perl

T D

uring the decade long break up of Yugoslavia, Belgrade was seen as the center of all that is “grey, grim and negative,” writes Stefan Pfeuffer. Yet despite these evoked images, Belgrade remained an open, dynamic and vibrant city. Today Belgrade is the new party capital of Europe. It has a nightlife industry that is better organized and has more to offer than any other city in the world. So what is it about Belgrade that makes it so different from other cities? Belgrade or Beograd, which means White City in Serbian, is one of the oldest cities in Europe. It was established as a Serbian town in 1284 at the confluence of the Danube and Sava rivers. It is not a particularly attractive city, but it is visually comfortable and friendly city that historically attracted people from the East and the West into its embrace. Settled by the Celts, Romans, Thracian-Cimmerian and Scythian tribes and targeted by the Ostrogodos, Avars, Turks, Austro-Hungarians, Germans and NATO, foreigners are rediscovering what the locals always knew. Belgrade’s appeal is not just in its diversity, rich cultural life or gastronomic wonders. Its appeal is also in the welcoming hearts of

its people and their unique and infectious joy of living. Momo Kapor’s city in The Magic of Belgrade, ”does not photograph well and always looks like some other place.” It is not visually striking as Paris on paintings, as London on photographs, as Rome on souvenirs, or as Moscow on glass globes or Athens on stone paperweights. Yet it is a city of life that will pull you in and the magic that Kapor portrays, through various tales, comes from its exuberant citizens and their zest for life. As Yolanda Clatworthy discovered, Belgrade is a city “to live in and experience rather than to look at.” Despite the fact the Belgrade organizes and hosts important economic, political and sports events and has a rich and varied cultural life that supports numerous galleries, museums, theaters and other cultural manifestations like the BITEF, BELEF and Bemus, it is Belgrade’s music scene that is attracting international tourism and changing its global image and position. The city’s nightlife began in the 90s as the main protest against all the hardships of living in the capital of a nation that was isolated and falling apart during the Slobodan Milosevic years. “Living through the break up of Yugoslavia, civil war, UN sanctions,

worst ever hyperinflation, high unemployment and many years of negative press, Belgraders took their joy of living more seriously than ever before. Huge concerts began to emerge throughout city squares and on city bridges, while some of the most famous nightclubs began to operate during daylight hours,” writes the Lonely Planet. Although the city’s political image changed since the 1999 NATO bombing, its music image has not. Every night, music fills the air and the Serbian capital rocks until sunrise to a variety of music styles that range from rock and jazz to Balkan beats and turbo folk. What is not so well known is that in search of a good time, Belgrade’s café culture and exuberant nightlife attracts people from all over the world including many from the former Yugoslav republics. Belgrade has identified three main sectors – business, cultural and sports – as most prominent tourist attractions for the 21st century. To transform its economy, the city is relying on different elements of its nightlife industry. Using aggressive advertising, it hopes to increase international tourism and create a new cosmopolitan image. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

t a c a a r m h

w f c p f g a “ t g c

2 m b i a d

International

Dazed and Confused

he downfall of Bo Xilai, a prominent member of China’s Communist Party, has led to chaos and international scrutiny. Murder and corruption have all been exposed as the sordid affair continues to implicate even more authorities. However, the turmoil and upheaval has the potential to reform a crooked Chinese government and change where power is held. In November 2011, Neil Heywood, a British businessman, was found dead in his hotel room. The cause was deemed to be alcohol poisoning and no autopsy was performed. However, there were lingering doubts as Heywood’s friends and family had described him as “not a serious drinker.” Despite those misgivings, the affair was forgotten until the demotion of police chief, Wang Lijun. On February

ate, where he provided incriminating information on Heywood and in return demanded asylum. Lijun was not granted asylum though and he was taken into custody by the Chinese government. One month later, China announced that Bo Xilai had been sacked from his position as party chief in Chongqing for his handling of the Wang Lijun affair and rumors begin to emerge that Heywood was murdered by Xilai’s wife, Gu Kailai. The British government asked for China to investigate further and as a result, Kalai and her bodyguard are arrested while Xilai is placed under house arrest. Even grimmer was the evidence of wiretapping and corruption that came to light. A wiretapping network existed throughout Chongqing and even phone calls with President Hu Jintao were monitored. The corruption consisted of bribes given by Xilai to high ranking officials. Currently, Xi-

“The Bo Xilai scandal exposed the dark underbelly of Chinese politics and the seedy corruption that still occurs within the Communist Party.” 2nd, the Chongqing city government announced that Lijun had been reassigned to a job overseeing “municipal education, science, and environmental affairs.” Four days later, he fled to the US consul-

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

by henry lou

leader of the conservatives, regarded as one of the more popular politicians. His collapse has led to the rise of China’s reformists, officials who advocate for more political and economic reforms, led by Premier Wen Jiabao. Jiabao has been able to use Xilai’s ouster to his own advantage and push an agenda of change. Xilai’s exit also has implications for the National Party Congress where a new set of leaders will be appointed to replace the current President and Premier. Reformers have an opportunity to bring improved conditions and change the system. The Bo Xilai scandal exposed the dark underbelly of Chinese politics and the seedy corruption that still occurs within the Communist Party. However, the ruin of a once promising figure could possibly be the beginning of a transformation in China. This is a year of political transition and the time for the reformers. HMR

lai is in complete disgrace as more of his crimes and background are uncovered. Bo Xilai’s downfall has transformed the political picture in China completely. Previously, he was the

Features

Features Features

The Supreme Court

By Isaiah Newman

n recent years, the Supreme Court has issued several incredibly controversial rulings, most notably in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, in which the court ruled that the government could not limit corporate expenditures on elections and campaign donations. More recently, on April 2, the court issued its ruling in Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington, in which it held that law enforcement personnel are allowed to perform strip searches on anyone they bring into custody, no matter the severity of the reason for their arrest. In the case, the plaintiff Albert Florence’s wife had been pulled over for speeding. Upon checking a statewide database, the New Jersey state trooper found an outdated and incorrect warrant for Florence’s arrest based on an unpaid fine for a traffic violation, and promptly brought Florence into custody. Florence was held at two separate jails for over a week, and at both jails he was strip searched by security officers. Upon his

release, Florence, having felt demeaned by the invasive searches, sued the officials in control of the jails, eventually taking the case all the way to the Supreme Court. Unfortunately for Albert Florence, the Court did not decide to rule in his favor, and instead elected to grant new and intrusive power to law enforcement officials and prison security officers. In a 5-to-4 vote, the court decided to constitutionally permit strip searches to be performed on any person arrested, even if for a minor offense, as in the case of Florence. The majority opinion of the court, penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, uses largely flawed reasoning to justify these invasions of privacy. Justice Kennedy’s main rationale in the decision is that sometimes, those arrested for minor offenses can turn out to be dangerous criminals, who might be hiding contraband in their body cavities. While this is certainly a possibility, it is not by any means likely. The fact that a given person is arrested for a minor offense does not mean that

they necessarily are carrying contraband in places that would necessitate a strip search. Strips searches are humiliating to individuals, and to use them when it is not necessary, or when there is no reason to believe that the person being searched is carrying anything harmful in their body cavity is abhorrent, and is a terrible and unwarranted violation of privacy. While the Court’s decision does not directly require or encourage the use of strip searches for any arrest, that fact that it allows this to go on is absurd. It even goes against statutes in several states, in addition to the policies of federal law enforcement authorities and international human rights treaties. In addition, the court’s decision seems to be wholly ignorant of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which protects against “unreasonable searches and seizures” that are perpetrated without probable cause. The language of the Fourth Amendment directly includes a person’s body as part of this protection, by guaranteeing “the right of the people

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features Features

urt’s folly to be secure in their persons” against such searches. The use of strip searches on minor offenders without any reason to believe that the suspect is carrying contraband directly goes against this amendment, and absolutely constitutes an unreasonable search and seizure. Forcing someone to strip naked and allow law enforcement officers to violate their bodily privacy is in almost all cases unnecessarily invasive, and allowing this demonstrates not only that the Court has an apparent disregard for privacy rights, but also that they are woefully unaware of the Constitution. A frightening thing, considering that upholding the Constitution is perhaps the largest item in their job description. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that the Court will reverse their decision any time soon, even with the significant public outcry that has already arisen. The Court has increasingly become an “activist” court under Chief Justice John Roberts in recent years, and will likely continue to make many controversial decisions.

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

For now, all we can hope for is that the next decision they make does not intrude on American civil liberties and constitutional rights as greatly as this one. HMR

Features

Adam Resheff

M inor Di lemma

n regards to the United States justice system, there is one fundamental aspect of our penal code that the majority of people can agree on: all crimes warrant a punishment. In order to establish justice and civility, the government has to enforce laws and inflict punishments for breaking these laws. Although a set of consequences for actions within a society would seem to be necessary for a safe and stable environment, at times, people question the rules and procedures of our justice system. Where the debate might stem from in the guidelines of the penal code is not whether certain crimes deserve a punishment, but whether the crime committed warrants the specific punishment. For example, is capital punishment morally justified, and should juries have the right to decide who lives or dies? Or, should white-collar criminals get longer sentences than someone who has committed a violent crime? Where the matter really begins to complicate itself, though, is when dealing with juvenile crimes. In the U.S., minors who commit illegal offenses are held culpable for their actions, just as adults would be, because they are included members of society, even though these minors donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t get to enjoy many of the benefits and rights that adultâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s possess.

Juveniles are expected to behave within the confines of the justice system and accept the punishment for going beyond the boundary of the law. But unlike critics of the penal system for adults, people who criticize the juvenile justice system not only focus on the degree to which minors should be punished, but also whether juveniles should be held responsible for their crimes at all. In terms of the harshness of the punishment, many people feel that the government needs to reduce

the number of minors placed in juvenile detention facilities. This statement has a strong validity to it, as juvenile detention centers are intended to hold minors who are a danger to society, such as those who are convicted of violent crimes like murder or rape. Although this would seem like a just course of action, the problem is that many juvenile offenders are put in detention centers for minor crimes, such as drug possession or even truancy. According to an article from the Center for New York City Affairs, 80% of the juveniles held in detention centers were placed there from Family Court, which deals with cases for minor of non-violent offenses. This means that 4 out of 5 of the inmates at the detention centers have not The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features committed a serious violent crime. Although there may appear to be justice in having minors put in juvenile detention facilities as a form of punishment, most of the kids have committed a crime that has brought no harm to others, yet in the New

because their brains have not fully developed. It’s a fair argument to make, as the brain is responsible for all the decisions and actions that one makes. What critics specifically point out is that the part of the brain that influences decision-making

and have a better grip over their actions. New York City and New York State both look sold on the idea of sending teenage offenders of non-violent crimes to foster care and non-for-profit housing facilities instead of state detention

York juvenile system for example, these minors are separated from their families and given very few visits throughout the year. In juvenile prisons there is little or no schooling, even though the average 16 year old reads at a third grade level; many of the inmates have mental diseases or disabilities such as schizophrenia, but there are no licensed psychiatrists that can prescribe the proper medicine, only physiologists who don’t have the authority. In the juvenile detention centers, the state has assembled a group of misguided minors that can only take the example of other misguided and violent kids. Such circumstances are conducive to poor decisions and possible violence within that environment. According to the NYT, the state requested that in late 2009, Family Courts refrain from sending minors to detention centers unless they were deemed an absolute threat to society due to how dangerous the facilities had become. Clearly, the dangerous, volatile situation at these detention centers makes it unjust to send juveniles committing minor offense to such quasiprisons, especially given that most medical and psychological professionals find that placement in a rehabilitative environment has a better impact on the kids, making it less likely they will become repeat offenders. When looking at the actual culpability of minors for crimes, critics argue that juveniles should face more lenient punishments, if any punishments at all,

and weighing actions and consequences, the frontal lobe, doesn’t finish developing until one is in his or her early twenties. In addition, as doctors point out, the combination of teenagers’ hormones and wavering emotions with the frontal lobe’s lack of development can result in stress and overstimulation that can impair the frontal lobe’s functions and lead to do an unintended action. As such, the argument then presents itself as how one blames a teenager for decision-based crimes if the teenager can’t fully control his or her decisions. There is one flaw in this argument that critics point out, in that all or most teenagers deal with stress and wavering emotions, but not all teenagers steal or murder. Reformers of the justice system tend to agree with them on this point, but they still find that for the teenagers who having trouble coping with their emotions and stress, rehabilitation in foster care or non-profit housing facilities will have a greater impact on helping these teens manage their emotion

centers. Mayor Michael Bloomberg advocated earlier this year that he felt rehabilitative non-for-profit housing was a more productive alternative to the detention centers, saying that the kids were less likely to become repeat offenders, in turn creating a safer city and costing taxpayers less due to reduction of detention inmates. In the housing groups the minors get to go to school, see their families on a weekly basis, and receive counseling. Although New York State Governor Cuomo supports the idea, he has met some opposition to proceeding with the plan because it isn’t fully laid out. Juvenile detention centers have evolved into prison-like environments, harming rather than helping its attendants. The state needs to start placing more kids in non-for-profit housing centers, as rehabilitation will allow for minors to learn from their mistakes and improve society through transformation from former “criminals” into functioning members of our society. HMR

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Justice Clash

Features

National International

benjamin greene

n light of one of the greatest social media initiatives of our time period, the idea of independent states’ national sovereignty has truly surfaced to global attention. Kony 2012 has not only triggered a new form of activism and sparked a new form of advertising, but has also carried out its stated purpose of bringing viral attention to an embattled region and pressing topic in our world. The movement opened the eyes of many people who had never heard of Kony and even led to mass followings over various social media networks. Thinking hypothetically, if Joseph Kony were to be captured, arrested, and detained in the upcoming weeks or months, what would happen? Who would detain him? Herein lies a contentious issue. Kony lies atop a list of criminals wanted by international juridical organizations liked the ICC (the International Criminal Court) and the ICJ (the International Court of Justice). The cause for his global infamy is that Kony has torn apart the lives of innocent Ugandan people and inflicted pain on the country of Uganda. So who deserves the

right? A highly regarded, fully effective, and successful international organization like the ICC or ICJ, or a un-proven, fairly unorganized, and not-as-effective country like Uganda. Well, clearly the latter. The question isn’t whether or not the ICC and ICJ are legitimate and effective international institutions, but rather, to what extent they can exert their international power. Both the ICC and the ICJ have explicitly stated the jurisdiction of their organizations in an attempt to clearly map out the reign and capabilities of their institutions. For example, Article 5 of the Rome Statute that has regulated the capabilities of the ICC specifically states the court’s jurisdiction as “the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole.” The four crimes that are considered to be under the reign of the ICC are genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes of aggression. Furthermore, the ICJ’s stated jurisdiction lies in conflicts over two specific issues: contentious issues and problems between states that have a previously-agreed, binding

contract that the states must honor, and advice on specific issues between states that are non-binding and are in regard to international law. Clearly, both of these prestigious organizations serve different purposes and undoubtedly represent the hard work and responsibility of the international community. But at the same time, there is a sense of independence, of sovereignty, and of authority that each nation has an unbreakable right to. Many cases that the ICC and ICJ have undertaken are situations that primarily involve one country and the horrible acts that tear apart the hope and wellbeing of the people. The case of Thomas Lubanga, who was convicted of war crimes by the ICC in March of this year, undoubtedly reveals a sense of justice done for the country of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. There, Lubanga’s rebel army had terrorized innocent civilians for years. Despite this achievement in justice, it would have been even more just and righteous if Lubanga could have stood a fair trial in the Congolese capital of Kinshasa, where Congolese lawyers, judges, and people could have determined the The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

fate of this wretched man. In the future, the goal of international judicial organizations should be to establish a world in which each independent country is both capable of detaining and providing a fair trial to a suspected war criminal, while still providing justice to the country in the form of life imprisonment or any other fair sentence. Lubanga’s case did not belong in The Hague; it belonged in Kinshasa where the Congolese would determine the fate of their criminal: a Congolese criminal, not a Dutch one. This is not at all a slight on the ICC or ICJ. Both organizations are essential in implementing and maintaining order in the international community. They both provide a framework and an orderly and effective system in bringing heinous criminals to justice. It appears as if the ICJ’s jurisdiction is a little more appropriate in respecting the national sovereignty of each nation. The ICJ’s stated capability is to either provide binding or non-binding decisions on contentious situations between two separate countries. However, at the same time, the ICC (deals with more urgent and pressing issues in many cases, where the governments and judicial systems would not effectively provide a fair and correct trial. The ICC takes the world’s worst violators of the fundamental rights The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

of a human being and attempts to bring them to justice. So while in many cases the ICC strips individual nations of the right to prosecute their own criminals, they also undertake the arduous task of representing the thousands of victims who have been terrorized by these criminals. For now, the ICC should continue to prosecute suspected criminals of war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and crimes of aggression. Yet the ICC should still look to one day instill the capabilities and resources to successfully prosecute these criminals in their own countries because national sovereignty is what defines each individual state; lets

make sure it stays that way. The cases undertaken by the ICC and ICJ are not only of the utmost urgency, but they also create some debate over the capabilities and stated jurisdiction of each of these organizations. There is no question of the good intent and effectiveness of these international judicial systems, but if there were a national violator of human rights in the United States, an American court should prosecute the criminal, not some seemingly distant international court in the Netherlands. HMR

Features f any day could determine an election other than election day it would probably be the day in June when the Supreme Court is predicted to hand down its ruling on Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida. You can call it what you want; Obamacare or its official name, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). Either way the court’s ruling on the signature legislation of the Obama administration could be enough to tip the result of the Presidential election one way or the other. If the Supreme Court does strike down the health care law then the status quo of Congress’ power to mandate the individual and state to do things--and thereby what has been individual and state rights--will be preserved. However, if the court upholds the law, then the court will have granted Congress and the President near unrestricted power in the years to come over what the federal government can require the individual and the state to do. Before we get to the problems associated with the health care law, let us first discuss the individual mandate. Currently there are 50 million uninsured people in the United States. While many of these people are uninsured because they are priced out of the market or are denied coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions, many simply elect not to seek and secure health insurance because they do not perceive a need. Relatively young, single people, lacking family dependents (i.e., a spouse or children) are an example of this latter category. The health care law would expand coverage to the 30 million people who cannot afford health insurance or who are denied health insurance because of preexisting medical conditions. However, extending coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions will drive up costs for the insurance companies, which they will then pass on to the consumer in the form of higher insurance premiums. To keep insurance premiums from rising, under the health law the federal government—i.e., taxpayers, who happen to be largely, although not identically, the same group of people as those covered by health insurance––would pay the health insurance companies money and, more controversially, the federal government would

require all people to buy health insurance. This in theory would keep the costs of insurance from rising because all of the healthy people who do not currently use health insurance would have to buy health insurance, which would then spread the risk of covering the people with preexisting medical conditions to people who would not be using the health care system as frequently. However, this is highly controversial because the federal government would be forcing people to buy something they do not necessarily want. Such a government mandate raises the possibility that in the future the government could go so far as to require a person to buy one food or another; if the government can require a person to buy health insurance then why can’t the government require a person to buy a food it thinks is good for him or her. In short, it raises the question of what personal activities and actions, if any, are beyond the scope of federal government compulsion. This is because the Commerce Clause has traditionally been interpreted broadly and can give the federal government the power to do a wide variety of things. Thus, whether the Supreme wordpress Court decides that the PPACA is constitutional or not will come down to its interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Obama administration is using the Commerce Clause to justify the constitutionality of the individual mandate and the rest of the law. Specifically, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution says, “[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” After Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, the Supreme Court tended to view the clause liberally. However, after the Nixon

administration, the Supreme Court has tended to see the Commerce Clause in a more limited, conservative light. The interpretation of the Commerce Clause—narrow or broad—naturally has depended upon the individual justices tasked with its interpretation. Given that Supreme Court justices are appointed by the President (subject to the confirmation of Congress), U.S. Presidents have the ability to influence Constitutional interpretation by seeking out justices that have a certain ideological bent. Part of the reason why the Supreme Court became so liberal after the Roosevelt administration is because in the 12 plus years that FDR served as president, he appointed eight different justices to the Supreme Court.

Obama c

The Suprem Showd

However, during the time that Richard Nixon served as President, he appointed four justices to the Supreme Court; since he left office the Senate has confirmed nine justices nominated by Republican Presidents while the Senate has only confirmed four justices nominated by Democratic Presidents. Currently, of the nine justices serving on the bench, four were appointed by Democrats: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan; whereas five of the justices were appointed by Republicans: Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and John Roberts Jr. This would suggest that the healthcare law is likely to be struck down. However, if Justice Kennedy, the most moderate of the Republican Justices, decides that the PPACA is constitutional, then the law will likely be upheld as the four justices appointed by Democrats will almost certainly rule in favor of the law’s constitutionality. Should the Supreme Court rule the law constitutional and should Congress take more steps in the future that will make our health care system more like Europe’s, then we would not necessarily be better off. While most European social democracies provide free public healthcare, there are a number of disadvantages

According to the OECD, health care costs in the OECD for 2009 were about 9.6% of GDP while in the US health care costs were about 17.4% of GDP. This would mean that on average about 2% more of the GDP in OECD countries goes to health care costs and taxes. However, the greater problem with the PPACA is not that it attempts to make the government more involved the health care system like in Europe, but rather that it will greatly increase the deficit. The government claims the PPACA will reduce the national debt, mainly by cutting Medicare Advantage payments. However, it does not address the underlying issue of prescription drug costs and the CBO estimate double counts Medicare savings by counting the same Medicare savings in both the PPACA cost projections and the Medicare cost projections. According to a study from the Mercatus Center of George Mason University by Brett Silverstein Charles Blahous, a public trustee whom President Obama appointed to the Social Security and Medicare programs, between now and 2021 the health care law will add as much as $530 billion to the federal deficit while to such systems. Due in large part to the increasing spending by more than $1.15 costs associated with providing health in- trillion. Currently our GDP is about $15.1 surance to the public, Europeans on aver- trillion dollars while our national debt age pay more taxes than Americans. Ac- is about $15.7 trillion (a figure that will cording to the Tax Policy Center, in 2008 grow another $1.3 trillion this year). This U.S. taxes were on average 26% of GDP, is not that far off from Greece’s debt to compared with an average of 35% of GDP GDP ration of 164%. If the US debt ratio for the 33 member countries of the Orga- goes up that high then the US will likely nization for Economic Co-operation and be in a position similar to that of Greece. Development (OECD). Moreover, even if Moreover, more debt means higher interwe factor in the lower costs that Europe- est payments, which means less money ans and Canadians pay on healthcare, the for the government to spend on services combined cost of healthcare and taxes is for the people. greater than the costs in the United States. Going back to the Commerce Clause,

a care:

reme court wdown

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

there will be many questions as to what extent the government can mandate people to do things in the future if the law is upheld. One of the main parts of the Federal Government’s case as to why the health care law is constitutional is that all people, even if they are healthy right now, will eventually participate in the health care system as they get older. During the Supreme Court hearings Chief Justice Roberts said to Solicitor General Verrilly, “But once we say that there is a market and Congress can require people to participate in it... it seems to me that we can’t say there are limitations on what Congress can do under its commerce power.” If the government can tell you that you have to buy insurance now because almost all people will have to buy insurance, then what can’t the government tell you to do. While not quite analogous to being required to buy health insurance, as Justice Scalia was saying to Solicitor General Verrilly, since a lack of exercise can lead to illness, which would increase health care costs, the government could require you to join an exercise club. We do not know what laws may be passed in the future, but if the Supreme Court rules that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional, then Congress will have far greater power to mandate and regulate individuals’ actions under the guise of the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court will be making a profound decision this summer as to the boundaries, if any, secured by the Constitution on the role of the Federal Government in our lives. While the amount of uninsured people is a serious problem, the solution is not to force people to buy health insurance against their will. The far greater problem is prescription drug costs, which According to the Kaiser Foundation, have been the fastest rising health care cost over the past 15 years. Using healthy people to subsidize the costs of the unhealthy and prescription drugs is only a temporary solution; our government must be creative within the bounds of our Constitution, even pressuring the many countries that have price caps on drugs to allow them to rise, so our prices may fall. Until the Supreme Court comes out with their decision, let us think about what we want the role of government to be and take our views to the next election. HMR

Features

Justice for Trayvon Hannah Davidoff

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

n February 26, 2012 George Zimmerman, a community watch guard, shot and killed seventeenyear-old Trayvon Martin in Sanford, Florida. Initially, Zimmerman was not arrested on the grounds that he had been acting in self-defense. This caused riots and outrage through the public. The law has been called to attention and people are looking towards revoking it. When the case got bigger Zimmerman was tried for second-degree murder but can be found innocent if he proves that killing Trayvon Martin was an act of self-defense. This law needs to have boundaries like the Model Penal Code so a tragedy such as Trayvon Martin will not happen again. The law that is currently protecting Zimmerman is the Stand Your Ground law, which was signed into law seven years ago. This law states that if you feel that you are under immediate danger, you are allowed to use violence, including deadly force. In states that do not have the Stand Your Ground law, or the equivalent, people have a obligation to retreat, meaning that the person is supposed to back awar from the attacker rather than fight back. There is also the Model Penal Code, which gives exceptions to the duty of retreat. The Model Penal Code makes it so that if you are being attacked or someone is on your personal property you can use selfdefense, but any other time inflicting violence would be seen as a crime. If the Model Penal Code was used in the

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Trayvon Martin case than Zimmerman would not in any doubt be found innocent. George Zimmerman has said that he felt threatened by Trayvon Martin’s presence and that Martin had given him reason to use self-defense. The problems with using this, as a defense is that Zimmerman will have to prove that he was in fact in actual danger. Many people think that George Zimmerman saw that Martin is an African American and the stereotypes attached to African Americans, not a genuine threat, are what made him feel in danger. The police released Zimmerman’s phone call stating that there was a suspicious person in the community, before the death of Martin, and none of what Zimmerman said showed that Zimmerman was in any actual danger. But nonetheless if George Zimmerman can prove why he felt in danger the law will protect him and he will be set free. This case and this law have been brought under public scrutiny. On April 1, 2012 people rioted calling for justice and crying for the arrest of George Zimmerman. People find this law outrageous and want it revoked in the case of Trayvon Martin. People are saying that if George Zimmerman is not convicted of the crime then he will be getting away with murder and it will prove the ineffectiveness of the law. The riot gathered around the first high school for black students in Seminole County and mourned the death of a young teenager. There have also been riots through out

the country such as the million hoodie march, which marched demanding justice for Trayvon Martin. This law is unnecessary and with it only causes trouble. This law makes it possible that for killings like Trayvon Martin to occur. The Stand Your Ground Law says that it is all right to kill if you feel in danger, which makes it okay for something like Trayvon Martin’s case to happen. The Model Penal Law is a lot more effective than the Stand Your Ground law. The Model Penal Law makes it clear when or when not you can use violence. While the Stand Your Ground Law makes it possible for someone to inflict violence on someone if his or her presence is at all threatening, a feeling that led to the murder of Trayvon Martin. With The Model Penal law a person is only allowed to use violence if someone has stepped on to their property or is inflicting physical violence onto you. Trayvon Martin’s death is a tragic story that could have been stopped by the simple means of a law. The Stand Your Ground law that is held in Florida has given Zimmerman the freedom to kill Trayvon Martin and virtually get away with it. With such a law the boundaries can be taken far, as seen in this case. With the Model Penal Code, boundaries are made and something like the story of Trayvon Martin would never have occurred or in the very least Zimmerman would never be found innocent or let off. HMR

Features

ImmigrationUND: O R G E L T baT

ona z ariMohit Mookim By

epublicans have pushed for years that we should toughen up our immigration policies and rule with an iron fist when it comes to dealing with illegal aliens. But for the first time, Arizona legislators translated these radical sentiments into a stringent immigration statute called Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Notably, this piece of Arizona legislation mandates that all arrested individuals be checked for their immigration status. Also, the Act requires that all aliens over the age of 14 carry their immigration papers at all times. Finally, the media often cites the incredible arbitrary power given to cops by this bill; in the event of a lawful stop, police officers can question citizenship if they have “reasonable suspi-

cion” that an individual is unlawfully present. This lenient policy opens the door to racial prejudices by cops. The bill supposedly as some commentators have lamented, encourages illegal aliens to leave this county on their own by making it impractical to live here. For example, it calls for an online service called E-Verify that was designed to help employers screen job applicants for their immigration status. Through SB 1070, Arizona enforces this policy of “attrition through enforcement” or “self-deportation.” Though SB 1070 has resurfaced in the news for a reason separate from these obvious ethical concerns—in response to an Obama administration lawsuit, the Supreme Court will be ruling on this Arizonian policy’s constitutionality. On April 25th, the Supreme

Court held its first oral arguments regarding the law, and the results were unclear; the court seemed torn on the issue. Both sides debated this major point of contention: do Arizona’s immigration policies violate the balance between states’ and federal rights? In my opinions, yes they do. These laws not only are poorly intentioned but also take away necessary powers from the federal government. In many ways, the arguments made by the Obama administration reflect my own views on the issue. The president, as represented by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, argued that the state immigration laws overstep constitutional bounds; they criminalize working illegally—something that is only a civil infraction under federal law—and they expand the The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Features

power of local police to enforce immigration laws beyond what Congress has permitted. New York State’s Solicitor General wrote in his brief on the behalf of the administration, “Congress could have delegated to the states, as it did to the executive branch, the same broad enforcement authority to arrest and detain undocumented immigrants for purposes of removal. But Congress declined to adopt that model.” Verrilli added that if each state and locality set its own immigration policy in that fashion, Congress’s goal of a single national approach would wholly be subverted. Essentially, the crux of Obama’s argument rests on the premise that immigration issues are to be presided over by the federal government or Congress, and states should not be able to alter Congress’s chosen course of action. On the opposing side, appellate lawyer Paul Clement shot back, “There is absolutely no conflict between these [Arizona] provisions and federal law because SB 1070 adopts the federal rule The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

as its own.” In response, Verrilli argued that because congress explicitly chose not to enforce those same provisions, federal intent was in fact undermined. The administration further argued that because immigration policy is a matter of foreign policy, the federal government has even more power in dealing with the issue. In addition to this obscure legal dilemma regarding state and federal powers, we must also look carefully at the immigration law itself for how effectively it handles the problem of illegal immigration. First of all, as previously mentioned, these laws would essentially promote racial profiling amongst police officers. Latino Americans would be stripped of a basic Fourth Amendment right—to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures. With near-full autonomy allocated to cops in deciding whose papers to check, Latino people would be subject to humiliating searches on the premise of a racial ste-

reotype. We must understand what message and attitude this law itself is representing. Instead of enacting this ugly, meanspirited approach of “attrition through enforcement,” we should acknowledge all that we have gained from these immigrants. The problem we’re faced with is caused by decades of American hypocrisy—years when we turned a blind eye to immigrants coming to do jobs we needed done, yet gave them no workable way to enter the country legally. We have to accept that these illegals do help our country in many respects. In accordance with the president’s policy, I suggest providing a path to citizenship for hardworking, decent illegal immigrants, but act more harshly in dealing with criminally active ones. We should pave the path to citizenship for these illegal immigrants. I don’t condone their wrongdoings, but we must make up for years of unfair immigration policies. HMR

Features

Islamophobia in America By Catherine Engelmann

ut of the 313 million people living currently in the United States, just 2.6 million are Muslim. That comes out to be only .8% of the total population, which is a very small portion considering the sometimes negative prejudice surrounding the ethnic group. Muslims are facing much anti-Islamic sentiment, labeled Islamaphobia. For instance, the radical preacher Terry Jones has stated, “I personally believe and agree with the fact that Islam is completely of the devil. It is the devil’s end-time strategic plan to steal, kill and destroy innocent lives (most of whom are Christians) under the disguise and cover of peace.” My views do not align with Jones’; however, the treatment of ehtnic groups is a situation one can look at with the ideas of Utilitarianism—one should act based on what will do the greatest good for the greatest number of citizens. While it is easy to get caught up in rules and logistics, we should take a step back and think about the consequences of passing laws that discriminate against Muslims. What are our reasons for passing them in the first place? Are we willing to sacrifice the goodwill of .8% of the population if it will benefit the other 99.2%? Must one group suffer at the expense of another? These are questions the Obama administra-

tion is considering as we dispute the prevalence of the Sharia law in U.S. Courts. Although there is never a right answer to questions such as these, we can carefully weigh the consequences of one decision or the other. There has been recent outrage in public discourse surrounding the banning of Sharia law and private discrimination against Muslims in U.S. Courts, while the United States government is acting upon the greatest good for the greatest number of people. One argument against discrimination against Muslims such as the banning of Sharia law as legal defense in courts would be that such an action would inspire animosity among the Muslim-American community—a problem that might lead to breaches in national security, or at the very least, cultural alienation of a group of citizens. If Muslims feel as if they are second-class citizens, these feelings of resentment will rub off on the rest of society, causing more anti-Muslim sentiment from the public and even government agencies like the police. In addition, disgruntled Muslims are less likely to cooperate with the government in keeping counterterrorism efforts up to speed. If the government loses its connections with the Muslim community, it will lose touch with their biggest aid in predicting terrorism movements stemming from

within the country. However, it is debatable whether these losses outweigh the gains from focusing airport security on Muslims. Statistics from the Department of Justice also show that despite constituting less than 1% of the population, “more than 80% of convictions tied to international terrorist groups involve defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.” These statistics would give us good reason to select people appearing to be of Islamic descent before, say, screening African Americans—a minority that is often discriminated against when it comes to racial profiling. There is a fine line between racial profiling and stereotyping. The Obama administration is put in a difficult situation when it needs to decide between avoiding racial discrimination and taking race into account in order to increase national security. The NYPD spies clandestinely on Muslims for reasons other than race and religion. For instance, during the September 11 attacks, one of the targeted areas was Newark, New Jersey, which would justify surveillance in nearby Muslim neighborhoods. The job of the police department is to prevent events such as 9/11 from occurring again, and with surveillance they can keep track of any suspicious activity. In doing this, they are not breaking the law; they are doing whatever is in their power to proThe Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

tect us. As of now the TSA randomly selects people for screening. There have been complaints, however, that after Islamic terrorist attacks such as 9/11, the attempted 2001 shoe bombing, the 2006 plot to bomb planes flying from London to the U.S. and the December 2009 attempt to blow up a plane over Detroit, that extra care is given to people that appear to be of Islamic origin. Unfortunately the TSA does not have the resources to screen every single person walking through security, so would it not make sense for Muslims to be a top priority after catastrophes like the ones above mentioned? A Constitutional approach to the question of whether or not to ban judges from taking into account Sharia law, or the Islamic religious doctrine when making court decisions, is to examine the principle that Americans value so deeply—separation of Church and State. The First amendment to the Constitution clearly states that legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” The fact that judges could consider Islamic law in making rulings The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

seems completely contradictory of this principle. Some may argue for freedom of religion to overrule separation of Church and State in this case, and this dispute comes down to the Elastic Clause. However, Muslims have plenty of freedom to practice Islam in ways other than bringing it to the courts. In some areas, Islamic beliefs are so fundamentally different from the majority of other religions practiced in the U.S. that it does not make sense to take them into account over, for instance, Judaism or Christianity. All citizens should be equal before the law, regardless of individuals’ religions. Another question to ask is: How much of the public attention given to the issues is discrimination and how much of it is skewed by public perception? Conspirators are quick to criticize supposed Muslim discrimination after terrorist attacks because after all, the vast majority of Muslims in America are not part of Al Qaeda. Statistics show that the majority of hate crimes committed in the United States in 2008 were against Jews--in fact, 65.6 percent of them--and only 7.7 percent against Muslims, thus proving that

Muslims are not the group most commonly discriminated against when it comes to violent crime. Contrary to popular belief, the quality of life for most Muslims in the U.S. is quite high. Studies show that the average income of Muslims is higher than national average, so, in fact, their lifestyle is more comfortable than one might expect from the media frenzy over the ethnic group. Are Americans truly Islamophobic or is it a sentiment portrayed by the media? It turns out that the two are one and the same. All over the news, we hear the words “Islam” and “terrorism” grouped in the same sentence. These news stories are all that the American people have to base their assumptions on. While laws that straight out deprive Muslims of equal access to the law are uncalled for, some of the laws that have received criticism over the past year or so have legitimacy. Again, even if a few extra minutes at the security line for .8% of the population seems silly, if it will help to prevent one less terrorism attack, then it is a worthy cause to pursue. HMR

Economics

Is Bustable?

G David Hackel

oogle, one of the country’s largest companies with over twenty-three billion in cash, is being investigated by the Federal Trade Commission and European Commission to determine if the search giant abuses competition laws. The case in Europe may prove to be tough on the company, for European anti-trust regulators are much more powerful and stricter than its United States contemporaries. As Google continues to grow, both the American and European governments have raised questions if Google is distorting the search engine market. The cases against Google may prove to be the largest anti-trust decisions since Microsoft fourteen years ago. In that landmark decision, Microsoft was forced to fork over more than two billion to the European Union, a penalty Google

clearly wants to avoid. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Google, told the Senate last fall, “If you don’t like the answer that Google Search provides, you can switch to another search engine

with literally one click.” Still, Google controls seventy percent of the market in the United States and ninety percent in Europe. On Thursday, April 26th, federal regulators enlarged their anti-trust

“If you don’t like the answer that Google Search provides, you can switch to another search engine with literally one click.” - Eric Scmidt

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics investigation of Google by hiring Beth A. Wilkinson, a former Department of Justice prosecutor and partner at the prestigious law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP in Washington, DC.

of Option Monster, stated, “I’m not worried about this hurting shares. This is a stock to own.” An example of what the United States government would view as unfair is, perhaps, if someone were

at sixty percent and they are in trouble.” When Google was a fraction of the size of Yahoo, they had a virtually unlimited right to make and capitalize on its search algorithm “better,” but as the size of Google

“The government needs to do less regulating and allow the great companies we have to remain great.” “Working on the investigation will be a great challenge. I don’t underestimate Google,” Wilkinson stated in an interview with the New York Times. The lawsuit by the United States government against Google is more than a couple months away. Before determining if Google is abusing its power, Wilkinson needs to complete heavy-duty research. Nevertheless, bringing Wilkinson to work on the case is a giant leap towards a full-on investigation of the large company. “It would seem to me to be highly unlikely that they would hire a litigator unless they had some very strong prospect of litigating,” said Albert A. Foer, the president of the American Antitrust Institute. However, prosecutors realize that in order to obtain a conviction they must show specifically that Google’s complex algorithms for advertisements and search results are designed to put its competitors at a clear disadvantage. The news of the prosecutor being hired by the Federal Trade Commission did not seem to have an effect on the stock price of the company—as it remained relatively flat on Thursday April 26th and Friday the 27th—the days where the news broke of the Federal Trade Commision hiring a litigator. Jon Najarian,

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

looking for a flight from New York to London, and if the first link to appear in the search were from Google’s program: Google Flights. This would bump competing sites such as Expedia Inc. further down the list, thus giving Google an unfair advantage—according to the United States government. Regarding the allegations of Google’s distorting the market, government claims are utterly absurd. Google has simply been more successful than its peers, including those well-financed firms, such as Microsoft, that have been in the search marketplace significantly longer. Google began as the underdog in the technological market when compared to great powerhouses such as Microsoft and Yahoo, but simply built a better mousetrap. As a result of their success, which was determined by the marketplace, Google grew and at a remarkable rate. It would seem that their use of their own invention is perfectly legal, and for companies with less share and inferior technology to use the legal system as a defense is the antithesis of the capitalistic system. Nicholas Economides articulated that Google “did the same things when they were at fifteen percent market share and suddenly they are

increased—this has become lesser the case. Christopher Yoo, who is a teacher of antitrust law at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, set forth about Google, “If they drive you out of business, it sucks to be you.” However, that does not necessarily mean antitrust laws have been broken. Sometimes businesses fail, and that is just the way it is—so if Google is outcompeting Microsoft’s Bing, than they may be simply producing the better product. “Our size and success rightly generate scrutiny, which is why we have worked hard to explain how our business works, cooperating with the European Commission since this investigation began,” said Al Verney, a Google spokesperson. “Because there is always room for improvement, we are happy to discuss any concerns the commission might have.” Google has done nearly everything right, and therefore has gone from a small startup to a large corporation. The government needs to do less regulating and allow the great companies we have to remain great. HMR

Economics

The Big Three’s Road To Recovery

Matthew Harpe

ot many people can recall the day when the automobile industry was the pride of America. After all, it was Henry Ford who produced the first affordable car and the Americans who dominated the industry for over half of a century. However, less than 50 years after “the Big Three” – Ford, GM, and Chrysler – controlled well over 80% of the American market, two of them requested government bailouts, totaling almost $30 billion, and the other required multi-billions of dollars in loans. It seemed unfathomable how a company (GM) could go from being the most profitable company in the world, out earning its closest competitor by almost two times, to being one of the world’s least profitable, loosing over $35 billion in 2007. The reason for this transformation lies primarily in the extremely subpar efficiency of the American automakers. To start, in 2008, General Motors had nine car brands in the United States alone, many of which sold the same car just under a different name. Furthermore, according to the Economist, General Motors had more than twice as many car dealerships than necessary. Similarly, Ford had seven brands selling in America in 2007, and Chrysler had five. Toyota, the world’s largest automobile producer, on the other hand, only had two. In total, the American car companies had 110 car models on the market in 2007. This unnecessary inefficiency was the very epitome of the Big Three’s problems. Another area where American car companies seriously fell behind foreign competitors was in labor contracts. Factory workers for the Big Three are all unionized under the UAW, the United Auto Workers Union. The UAW negotiated-contracts that covered all 100,000+ Ford, GM, and Chrysler workers paid

health care plans. On top of that, employees who were fired were allowed to keep 95% of their pay and benefits unless they decline two other job offers in the surrounding area. For example, while GM employees cost approximately $70 per hour, including

benefits, the nonunionized Toyota employees were around 33% less at $48. Although the difference in salary was minimal, GM’s extremely expensive benefits packages, along with equally costly retiree packages, caused this drastic gap. The final problem for American automakers was the decrease in sales in the period around the recession. While auto sales

overall were significantly down, with even companies such as Toyota, Honda, Volkswagen, Mercedes, and BMW having substantial drops in sales figures, sales at the Big Three decreased by over 30% (compared to less than 12% at the companies mentioned above). The extreme downturn in sales was probably a consequence of the poor cars the American car companies were producing. In the 2007 Consumer Reports Auto Issue, the Big Three and their subsidiaries, Chrysler, GM, Ford, and Volvo (owned by Ford), occupied the 1, 2, 4, and 5 spots, in that order, on the list of worst overall cars, only separated by Mitsubishi. Furthermore, only 25% of these cars received a CR recommendation, the most basic measure of satisfactory safety and reliability, and at GM the average fuel economy was just over 17 mpg. In fact, every one of Consumer Reports’ top picks was Japanese. With gas prices well over $3 per gallon, and rising up to $4 within the year, and the economy spiraling into a recession, fuel efficient, reliable, cost efficient (low maintenance), and inexpensive cars that were still well made were becoming more and more important The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

to Americans. This was exactly what the American companies weren’t offering, and precisely what foreign competitors had been for many years. Just four years later though, after the major bailout of the auto industry and much restructuring, it looks like the Big Three might be on the road to recovery. First, as part of the bailout, they agreed to

models with the help of Fiat, meaning only three models are currently on sale, or Ford or GM’s multitude of renewed models, it is clear that the American car companies are trying to rebuild their reputation and seriously compete with their Japanese, Korean, and German competitors. While increased sales in the U.S. have given the Big Three a 30% market share, compared to 16% for Toyota, in the U.S, the international markets have given the American carmakers a big boost. Shockingly, Buick currently makes the best selling car in China, the Excelle (known as the Verano in North

However, the Big Three still have plenty of room for improvement. While their cars are improving in efficiency, both in terms of production and usage, style, appeal, and reliability, their cars, especially according to Consumer Reports, have room for improvement and aren’t yet on par with foreign competition. But that in no way should detract from one of the most impressive recoveries in history. The most important thing to learn from this is how to avoid such meltdowns in the future. The Big Three had control of the auto industry but slowly let it slip

“Just four years later though, after the major bailout of the auto industry and much restructuring, it looks like the Big Three might be on the road to recovery.” sell many of their subsidiaries and discontinued many repetitive and unprofitable brands. Now, GM has four, down from nine, Ford has two, down from seven, and Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, has four, down from five. Second, the Big Three were able to renegotiate their costly labor contracts; many of the excessive benefit and retirement contracts were reduced. Furthermore, they’ve replaced many jobs previously done by humans with robots, fired unneeded employees, and overall adopted the efficient Japanese and German method of production. Most importantly though, the Big Three are redefining their model lineups and their priorities in designing new cars. The focus has been on downsizing - making all cars more fuel efficient, and smaller, in addition to producing better quality cars that are more technologically advanced and can compete with foreign models. Although trucks and large SUV’s do account for a large portion of sales at the American companies, the American brands weren’t loosing to foreign competitors in this category as they were in terms of smaller passenger cars, and the market for these vehicles isn’t as concerned with what foreign brands have to offer. Proof of the new strategy is evident in models such as the Jeep Cherokee, which has won numerous awards, and the Ford Fusion, which has made headlines as not only a well-rounded car but also as the first affordable, electric, full-size sedan. Across the board, whether it’s Chrysler complete redesign of all its The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

America, and the Opel Astra in Europe), and Ford and GM account for four of the nine best selling cars in the world, all of which are small cars and were redesigned or introduced after the bailout. Along with capturing a much greater portion of the foreign market, Ford and GM have four of both the six best selling cars in Europe, and the ten best selling cars in China, the American auto makers are designing and using universal platforms that allow them to sell very similar cars in different markets and cutting down on a lot of costs. All in all, these changes have allowed the Big Three to return to being highly profitable. Ford, impressively, was the fourteenth most profitable company in the world last year (2011), and the second of all car and truck companies, loosing only to Volkswagen by 6%. GM came in third among carmakers and Chrysler’s owner, Fiat, came in fifteenth. Most impressive though, is that Ford had the largest profit margin of the twenty-seven largest automobile and truck manufactures (which includes but is not limited to all of the notable auto companies), beating out its closest competitors by just under 50%. The recovery for all three companies has been truly phenomenal. Despite that Chrysler hasn’t fully recovered to what it once was, or isn’t close to as profitable as its big brothers, its recovery is no less amazing than theirs: four or five years ago virtually nobody thought Chrysler would exist today nevertheless make a profit.

away until they started loosing money and eventually required a bailout. No company should take their position for granted and assume it will continue to dominate the market. To stay competitive and on top, it’s extremely important to keep innovating and rethinking your products. In the 1950’s and 60’s Detroit was not too different from Silicon Valley in the last decade: leading the world in its field and constantly innovating. But, just like the auto companies fell, technology companies are at the same risk. In fact today, as laws in Europe start to change about information and data collection on the internet, which could easily cause a domino effect through many parts of the world, leading American tech-

nology companies, whose business structures surround personal data collection and selling (of which there are many), have to be extremely careful as other companies try to pull ahead before the Americans can restructure their business. In essence, although recoveries are possible (especially with a lot of assets and government backing), after the demise of the Big Three, no company should ever rest on its laurels. HMR

Economics

Just Another Good Company

mitchell troyanovsky

pple. The second you hear that name you automatically know what it is. It is the worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s largest company with a market cap of just under 600 billion dollars and a share price of slightly more then $600. The question is just how high can it go. There are analysts with price targets of over a $1000 meaning itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s market cap would be around a trillion dollars; however others are asking if it is reasonable that it will it ever reach that mark.. I strongly doubt it. Apple is not going to be able to continue this ridiculous level of growth Apple happens to be the most widely owned stock in America. Even people who have never invested before own it. Hedge and mutual funds that normally would never invest in a tech stock own it. The reason this is an

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics issue is that these funds own it to avoid missing out. The second Apple starts a small losing streak, they will all sell and the downward spiral will bring Apple back to reality. I don’t think that Apple will become a bad company: far from it. I think it will go from being a great company to simply a good company. Apple’s rate of growth can’t maintain itself. Despite the fantastic results in the second quarter of this year, a lot of other factors went unnoticed. First of all, the Iphone sales in the U.S were disappointing, as Verizon and AT@T reports indicated. Further, Mac and Ipod sales were disappointing. To top it off, Iphone sales make up almost half of Apple’s revenue. This is a huge problem because it is only one product line. All fads pass and while owning an Iphone is cool now we have no idea what the Smartphone field will look like in three to four years. The Ipad product line as well may go stale in that time. Apple’s two main revenueproducing product lines won’t continue to produce this revenue. This means that Apple would have to consistently innovate and move into newer markets to keep it’s business growth booming. In several years, they will still sell Iphones, but those sales cannot double every year. Apple will turn from being a great company to a good company just like many others before. Just look at Microsoft, Disney, and Sony. These were all great companies that slowed down because long-run rapid growth in the technology field is difficult to maintain; Microsoft still sells its windows and office lines, but those sales aren’t doubling every year. Besides Apple’s small amount of product lines, there are other problems. The core of it is that Steve Jobs is dead. When Steve Jobs left Apple in the 1980’s, it was the worst thing that happened to the company and Jobs coming back later was the best thing that ever happened to it. His instinct for the consumer appetite was second to none and while he probably has planned out the next 2 years for Apple, things after that will go stale. Tim Cook might be good in his field of supply

chains, but he’s not Steve Jobs. He doesn’t have that sense for customer needs to turn down a product from his developers. He will have to rely on his men to make the calls on products, over himself. We’ve already seen Tim Cook do something that Steve Jobs would never do. Steve Jobs vowed to never introduce a dividend for apple and especially not share buyback program. Tim Cook initiated both of these measures. This will take Apple cash and slowly give it up to shareholders instead of using it to improve the business. Apple’s stock didn’t take a huge hit from Steve Job’s death because of Cook’s reassurance that nothing would be different. Apparently nobody has noticed that things are starting to look very different with these new these new initiatives.

per unit to get the rights to sell it. Even in the last quarter American carriers have shown their annoyance with the price they have to pay for the Iphone. Eventually, Apple’s profit margin will slip causing even more of a slide in Apple shares. Now lets look at some bullish arguments. Firstly, Apple has already got the most out of the American market in it’s current product lines so it’s extremely difficult to expand at home. Many bulls argue that expanding markets like China will pick up the American market slack for Apple. This was displayed at it’s fullest in the last report where American sales slackened and Chinese sales went from being 2% of revenue to 20%. Especially with the highly anticipated agreement to allow China Mobile to sell it’s Iphones, China will become a huge piece in Apple’s revenue puzzle, as will international sales in general. However there are also problems there. We all know of the infamous court battles going on between Apple and other tech giants. It is highly probable that Apple might lose some of these and either be forbidden to sell its products in some countries or forced to pay royalties. Either way, it will hurt earnings. Further, countries like China which can be erratic at times could force Apple to do something it doesn’t want to or forbid it from selling something (just look at how the Chinese government doesn’t allow Google in china). To summarize, the greatest CEO of the last half century is gone and without him Apple will not be able to keep beating expectations. Apple’s stock is based on unrealistic expectations of future growth. When Apple finally comes back to earth, as all companies do, it’s stock will take a major hit as the selling spree starts. As an analyst, I would give Apple two more years of rapid growth and set a price target of $500 for the long term. When Apple’s main product lines go stale and when owning Apple products stops becoming such a fad, the company and its shareholders will realize why Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs and that Apple is simply another good company. HMR

“When Apple’s main product lines go stale and when owning Apple products stops becoming such a fad, the company and its shareholders will realize why Tim Cook is not Steve Jobs and that Apple is simply another good company.”

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Lately we’ve seen slight tweaks to products like the Iphone and the Ipad just to get them to sell. While this was effective, it won’t keep working. Once Apple ends this insane growth period and starts reporting mild or disappointing numbers there will be consequences. The effect on the share price will be immense because a lot of future expectations for the company are factored into the price and because funds will start selling at the first instance of weakness. By just looking at a couple valuation measures Apple’s stock is priced in to the market on a lot of expectrations. First off all it’s stock price is 6 times it’s book value. Meaning that taking all of apple’s assets and cash etc and dividing it by the amount of shares will only amount to around a 100 dollars a share. Apple’s actual business will also take a huge hit. Currently, Apple has huge profit margins on each sold Iphone to carriers. The reason carriers pay this much is that they think carrying the all-popular Iphone will attract customers. Right now this is a correct mindset and Apple is making plenty of money; however when the Iphone stops being so insanely popular, carriers won’t pay as much money

Economics

Oil Dependency

jacob haberman

ixty percent of the United States’ oil was imported from overseas suppliers in 2005. Ever since, American dependence and use of the foreign-based commodity has decreased due to a variety of factors including the economic downturn after the international fiscal crisis of 2008, improvements in efficiency, changes in consumer behavior, and changes in the patterns of economic growth. Concurrently, the increased uses of domestic biofuels, and the strong gains in the domestic production of crude oil and natural gas reflect the expansion of our nation’s ability to produce for internal consumption. Even though the United States is less dependent on foreign oil imports and closer to reaching self-sufficiency in the energy sector, the American reliance on oil as a product is not only facilitating the downturn of our fluctuating economy, but also undermining our capacity to defend and better our nation. The increase in oil prices has been a topic of major discussion over the past few years. At the individual level, higher oil prices mean that each of us will pay more at the gas pump, leaving less money to spend on other goods. Consequently, they will affect more than just our mood when the credit card bill comes; they will have a devastating impact on the nation’s businesses. There are countless ways in which American companies utilize oil for both

production and operational purposes. Transportation fuels (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel), asphalt, fertilizer, heating, feedstock, petrochemicals, plastics, polyethanes, solvents, and electrical generation are just a few of the manners in which oil is harnessed. An increase in the price of oil (per barrel) would certainly hurt the balance sheet of all oil using companies, and even affect the organizations that depend on their services and products. Take the average producer of plastic bags for example. As oil prices climb higher, the company is forced to cutback on operations and output. Many people are fired in the process of trying to break even, and distribution efforts become suspended. As a result, the company’s main customers, supermarkets and retailers alike, do not receive their orders and are forced to pay a premium for a product that once did not constitute a crucial part of their budget. Predictably, further layoffs and cutbacks ensue. Thus it can be said that if this growth in price persists, we could potentially see a major decrease in production, higher unemployment rates, reduced spending, and increasing foreclosures. Higher gas prices also present a huge setback for the American GDP. It is said that every $1 increase in the price of the average oil barrel decreases the United States’ GDP by $100 billion per year. Clearly problematic, this decrease in the GDP only contributes to our slumping economy. Our dependence on oil also obstructs

our capability to protect our nation. “The nearly $700 million a day we send to unstable or hostile nations also funds both sides of the war on terror, paying for everything from the madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds to the bombs that go off in Baghdad and Kabul,” said President Barack Obama. In addition, as political stability and relations remain volatile in the Islamic world, it is difficult to know who for certain will be willing to supply the US with oil in the future. America’s appetite for oil continues to contribute to another growing national security concern: climate change. Burning oil is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions, which is cited as a major cause of climate change. Recent studies have found that the consequences of climate change (such as rising sea levels and more frequent natural disasters) could threaten to displace and disrupt the lives of thousands of people and animals. With the increasing price of crude oil, the temperamental relations in the Middle East, the ambiguous affiliations that extremist groups have with Muslim oil suppliers, and the looming threat of climate change, Americans must place a greater emphasis on developing renewable, efficient, and clean fuels. The process will be a long and financially painful one, but finding a fitting alternative to oil and scaling it up to the size of the American economy is a highly desired long-term goal. HMR The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Economics

Science and Technology

Only They Know?

Jonah Wexler

n February 26, 2012, George Zimmerman shot and killed Trayvon Martin – and the press had a field day. Two months after the tragic events of that cold, rainy evening we know very little. We know Trayvon Martin was not armed. We know George Zimmerman called 911. We know Zimmerman shot Martin. We don’t know much more. Not letting the facts get into the way of a juicy story, the press got to work. A boy suspended from school and a tragic mistake is not news. However, a racially charged murder of an innocent boy by a racist is big news. So, Trayvon Martin was painted as a Saint by the media. Even People Magazine ran a sympathetic story about him and his family. All the pictures printed of George Zimmerman looked like mug shots. Maybe Martin was a model citizen and Zimmerman guilty, but we have no way of knowing that. A Pew Center study reported that between March 19 and March 28, MSNBC devoted almost half its airtime discussing the case. CNN spent 40 percent and Fox News spent 15 percent of their airtime on the story. With so few facts available, the discussion often centered around Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, the second amendment and race relations. Nobody knows what Zimmerman was truly thinking that night, so the racial component brought into many headlines was pure speculation on based off of little evidence. The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

When the right-leaning Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center and the left leaning Alan Dershowitz agree, it is worth noticing. Bozell accused the media while Dershowitz accused the prosecutor of suppressing information favorable to George Zimmerman. Both the media and the prosecutor did not report on Zimmerman’s

injuries, which including police reports of Zimmerman being bloody and wet as if he had been lying on the ground. These injuries were treated and photographed the night of the killing. NBC’s actions in the days following the killing were shocking. NBC took a copy of the taped 911 conversation between Zimmerman and the police and edited it to

make Zimmerman look like a racist. At first they did not apologize. Staffers were fired and NBC retracted its story only after cable news channels reported NBC’s blatant tampering of the tape. Brent Bozell directly accused the MSNBC’s editing of the George Zimmerman clip, calling it “an all-out falsehood… what they did was in the first clip, when you hear him say ‘he looks black,’ anybody believes there are racial overtones to what this man did.” But, to George Zimmerman, the damage was done. He was introduced to the world as a gun-toting racist vigilante. Maybe he was. Only a few news outlets showed pictures of Zimmerman’s injuries. Fewer still reported about the high crime in his community necessitating the creation of a neighborhood watch. Friends spoke about his volunteer work and painted a much more stable and positive picture of Zimmerman. Maybe he was defending himself – we just do not know enough. A highly competitive press and a 24-hour news cycle encourage the media to cut investigative corners and report the most interesting story possible. The media did not do its job. The media tainted everybody’s judgment by selectively airing edited facts. We should all hope George Zimmerman gets a fair trial and all the facts are brought out. If he is guilty, he should be punished. If he is innocent, his name should be cleared. Aside from the results of the case, it is a shame that the press could not report an unbiased take on the Martin/ Zimmerman case. HMR

Science and Technology

Make Him Infamous I

Ikaasa Suri

magine boys and girls being abducted from their homes in the middle of the night only to find themselves forced into war and sex trade. A mother crying after seeing her son murdered right in front of her, the father by her side, worried about supporting their four other kids. Half-way across in the world, in countries like Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and South Sudan, Joseph Kony is leading a resistance army to do just this. The only thing connecting us to them? Social media. “If that happened one night in America, it would be on the cover of Newsweek,” argued Jason Russell, the creator of the KONY 2012 video released to raise awareness of the social injustices in Africa.

Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and YouTube: the social media seems to be taking over the 21st century. And while this is most definitely not a bad thing, networking has caused more than it has asked for. Facebook has more people on its website than there were on this planet 200 years ago. In 2011, it was through Twitter the revolutions of the Arab Spring were heard. And now, YouTube has created its own spark, calling for justice through the recent KONY 2012 video. It’s fair to say that through the use of public streaming, photos, and videos, the media has altered people’s attitudes towards international media icons and socialites. However, I see the social media as a channel that is constantly used to maneuver society’s political views as well.

One of the greatest examples of these actions is the KONY video itself. Before the releasing of this video, barely anyone knew of Joseph Kony and the crimes he committed against humanity. Although he is number one on the international prosecution list for committing genocide, upholding sex trade, and performing rape on a mass level among other crimes, the majority of the international community doesn’t recognize him as a threat as they don’t know who he is. Likely one of the most mysterious men on this planet, Kony is now the most hated man. In a matter of a couple weeks after the video was released, it showed extraordinary results. Now at over 89 million views, KONY 2012 has pushed Joseph Kony far from the tittle of least-known man on the planet. Based The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science and Technology off of this use of videos, newsfeeds and photos, social media in many ways is the potential future of international justice. With the human desire to connect and learn about everything around us, the social media seems to be our access to the external world, the world outside of the Western perspective. A freedom Americans, arguably, are able to proudly takeright of and grasp is the notion of universal

mere series of images portraying the African state as weak and corrupt. While promoting international justice is most definitely not a bad thing, especially through the simple yet effective methods of media, the deluge of attention that has been brought to Uganda’s poor military and political forces may lead to more than just a small upheaval. Anxious that this video could not only damage politi-

“Now at over 89 million views, KONY 2012 has pushed Joseph Kony far from the tittle of least-known man on the planet. Based off of this use of videos, newsfeeds and photos, social media in many ways is the potential future of international justice.”

cal images, but deteriorate investment climates, Ugandan diplomats are in a hurry to fix things. While I do understand the current concerns of the Ugandan government, the social media has supplied more for the cause than just knowledge and concern of the issue, but has also donated money and provided an army of one hundred American soldiers to fight in the areas being affected by Kony’s resistance army. Modern innovation of networking to promote insight convenes as a top priority, with good reason, to stimulate international justice, but finding a midpoint between this advocacy and diplomacy is even more important. HMR

impartiality in court and the legal system. This notion of liberty can be spread by bring international issues to cellphones and computer screens around the world. In an essence, Invisible Inc. has brought Uganda straight to American doorsteps. With the public eye now focused on social exploitation in African-third world countries, the concept of wide-scale awareness comes into play. The humanitarian analysis that comes with the press’ focus has not only on some scale provided a simple approach to solving a complex problem, but has also fostered the idea of linking the media with international justice. Through the creation of one YouTube video gone viral, masses of people have joined together to fight the causes of inhumanity, injustice and social evil. Now that Joseph Kony and his resistance army have everyone’s attention, spotlight has finally been brought to the genocide and violence in east Africa. Social media has furthered the idea of a spark: there are instances when a small group of people has the ability to influence those in power. Now with the influence of media surrounding us, flying sparks will be bursting trying to cohere the oppressed people of unfortunate states with eager Westerners of the technological states. Although commenced with beneficial intentions, the media glare caused by KONY 2012, on the other hand, has upset the Ugandan government due to the image portrayed of the country. Ugandan officials do not see the video as a welcomThe Horace Mann Review | Issue 8

Science and Technology

An Invasion

Privacy

Our

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science and Technology

nathaniel tillinghast-raby

ow many people truly know what privacy means anymore? Our online selves are under a constant barrage of companies desperately trying to sell their one thing that we can’t live without, internet scam artists, politicians who need your vote and governments so concerned with national security that they never stop to consider the rights of their own citizens. Social networking sites and search engines provide us every opportunity to give up our personal information, and data mining services can build a more comprehensive picture of you than ever before, right down to your social security number. This is worrying on a fundamental level; with people putting more of themselves online, there is also more of you for companies to sell to, politicians to woo, criminals to scam and governments to “protect.” There are numerous examples of infringements on people’s online privacy (Google’s alone would take up several pages). One recent scandal was about how apps for mobile devices would collect information, such as your phone number and friend list, and then sell that information to companies that wanted to target consumers. This harvesting of information is not only legally questionable, but a blatant assault on personal information; these apps basically hacked users’ phones for personal gain. Google illicited an outcry when it recently announced that it would be sharing information across all of its services to create a more detailed customer to target ads at. It’s currently embroiled in a legal battle over this, and rightly so. Though its action may seem benign on its face, the reality of the matter is that you have even less online privacy than ever before, with everything that you log into being used to take and profit from your information. Facebook, with its ever-expanding privacy policy and increasingly brazen advertising, is becoming a new test case about what is and isn’t allowed for internet web sites to do. It recently was made to submit to biennual inspections from the FTC over whether it was exploiting the information that people give to social

The Horace Mann Review | Issue 58

media sites. Identity thieves have a whole new bag of tricks to gain access to private information, such as dummy sites (where they can collect the personal information that you enter) and password-guessing software

“Social networking sites and search engines provide us every opportunity to give up our personal information, and data mining services can build a more comprehensive picture of you than ever before, right down to your social security number.” (which tries the most commonly used passwords to see if there’s a match). Internet service providers generally will make information on their users available to a government upon its request rather than because of a warrant. This is a terrifying prospect; much the same as with warrantless searches, warrantless information gathering essentially allows the government to invade the privacy of any citizen without reason or justification. Politicians are out for your information as well, so they can tailor their ads to what you want to hear. One of the most prominent examples is Barack Obama’s campaign, which is busily amassing a massive database of voters across the country that the Obama staff can use to raise money, spread their message and get out the vote come November. Though less harmful than other examples on this list, this is still worrying, since many politicians are working to create more centralized voter databases, and their techniques are being used by other companies with less good intentions. Many governments have been trying to increase privacy on the Internet. Unfortunately, due to the international nature of the Internet, that means any solution to this problem will also have to involve trans-national cooperation over how this will be done, and to what extent, something rarely known to happen. If by some miracle a deal is reached, there will be

fierce pushback from Internet companies. All of this, of course, assumes that less privacy is a bad thing. Indeed, some people might say that although these companies’ practices do endanger the idea of right to privacy, that ultimately this process will be a good thing. Who, after all, doesn’t want to live in a world where everything they see is perfectly tailored to fit their own needs, their own wants, their own styles. When your own preferences have been figured out by an algorithm, privacy seems almost like an afterthought. Perhaps everything is merely being blown out of proportion by an overzealous media and public. This is wrong for several reasons. First of all is that this approach gets rid of choice. The idea your decisions have been made for you in advance, and that ultimately you are just choosing between a few possibilities that a computer has picked, is one that is simply incompatible with the rapidly evolving human brain. Peoples’ tastes change, and the fact of the matter is that without freedom to non-biased information it would become incredibly difficult to discover and explore new things, as the internet was built to do. Secondly, it will become increasingly easier to commit identify theft. When people’s information is more open and less secure, criminals such as they will be able to take advantage of that. In essence, lack of privacy for individuals will mean more is exposed to the public. In addition to revealing more to your friend circles, this new lack of privacy will show more of your previously personal information to companies. Aside from the fact that giving private information to large companies (currently the only ones who can properly process the information) seems inherently like a bad idea, there is also that companies can use your information to your detriment, and have little reason not to. It’s time to realize that our privacy is under attack. Both citizens and governments should work to make sure that the concept still exists for the next generation. HMR

Science and Technology

Google [x] Minds at play Not much is known about the technology playground known as Google [x]. Located somewhere in the Bay Area in northern California, the Google [x] lab gives experts and professors around the world the resources of Google to innovate and explore. Google cofounder Sergey Brin is known to be involved in the most cutting-edge Google [x] projects, but the lab is so secretive that many Google employees may not even know it exists. Take a look at a few of the projects the lab has leaked in the past few years.

Project Glass Google [x]’s reality augmenting glasses were only a topic of speculation until the lab recently released a conceptual video, indicating that Project Glass is on its way to becoming a reality. The glasses would innovate modern photography by allowing the wearer to photograph or share a live stream of what he or she is looking at. Hypothetically, the glasses would also be able to send email and connect to Google+. Head of Google [x] Sebastian Thrun, who wore the glasses for the first time in a recent interview with Charlie Rose, confirmed that the engineers are experimenting with the capacity for making phone calls and receiving reminders of calendar events through the headset.

“We see Glass as an evolution of cell phone photography, so this means it’s the next step of the camera that’s always with you.” --Max Braun, tech. leader on Project Glass ibtimes

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXI

Science and Technology

Autonomous Cars

“Human error is the cause of almost every accident on the road today. If autonomous technology can reduce the number of accidents, then we also reduce the number of injuries and fatalities on California’s roads.” --CA State Senator Alex Padilla (D)

A recent unanimous vote in California State Senate authorized self-driving cars on certain roads with a licensed driver. Google [x] pioneered the autonomous car with its self-driving Prius, launched in 2010. Nevada is the only other state that currently allows autonomous cars on the road, but Florida, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Hawaii have announced plans to explore similar legislation. Google [x] recently recorded a demonstration of its car driving a blind man to a supermarket, demonstrating the potential rise in quality of life that the self-driving automobile could usher in.

houseofjapan

The car uses radars, video cameras, lasers, and navigation information to sense and avoid other cars on the road.

Space Elevator While the Space Elevator is a very far off concept, the minds at Google [x] are almost certainly looking into the technology. The Space Elevator would provide access to outer space through a set of cables rather than using rockets or expensive fuel.

“Google is collecting the world’s data, so now it could be collecting the solar system’s data.” --Rodney Brooks, founder of Heartland Robotics The Horace Mann Review | Issue 8