Issue 5 - Dates of the Decade

The Horace Mann Review: Issue 5

Documenting the Decade Features Economics

Domestic

4 An American Hatred

28 A Monster of

by Jacob gladysz-Morowski

Obama’s Design

6 A New Reality in TV

by Alexander Daniel

by Jordan Berman

30 DOT-COMing Back

by Justin Burris

31 Regulation or Not?

by Samir Nedzamar

8 Constitutional Crisis

by Nathan Raab

10 Corruption in the

Empire State

by Andre Manuel

16 Dates of the Decade: A number of

writers detail important events in the decade.

Introduction By harrison manin Dates by stephen paduano and susannah cohen

Science and Technology

34 Welcome to the

Factory Farm

by Jessica bernheim

36 Tomorrow

Never Knows

12 Life Without Scripps

by Alex Falk

by Emily Feldstein

International

14 The Price of Life

by Rebecca Segall

22 Change? The 1990’s vs. The 2000’s.

A comparison between two decades.

By Samantha rahmin

2

38 Going Mobile

by Charles Scherr

HM Review Vol. XIX

Letter from the Editor The Horace Mann Review Volume XIX , Issue 5

Letter from the Editor

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief

Nicholas Herzeca

Jason Sunshine Executive Editor

Henry Hoglund Nancy DaSilva Spencer Penn Dan Shapiro Features Editor James Yaro Dan Temel Aradhna Agarwal Starlyte Harris Will Dubbs Editorial Director Production Manager

Alex Falk

Managing Editor

Jordan Federer Freddie Adler Antonia Woodford Ben Marks Mario Alvarez Eric Schwartz Business Manager Hill Wyrough Senior Columnists

Camille Knop Aylin Gucalp Photo Editor

Board of Trustees Maximilian D.C. Thompson, Zachary Freyer-Biggs, Charles Stam, Kunal Malkani, Venkat Kausik, Zachary Malter Associate Editors Aaron Goldman, Andrew Demas, Daniel Grafstein, Danielle Ellison, Deependra Mookim, Justin Katiraei, Victor Ladd Production Assistants Seth Arar, Elisabeth Stam Staff Writers Adela Kim, Alexander Familant, Alex Ma, Andre Manuel, Avital Morris, Christine Kim, Dorin Azerad, Emily Feldstein, Jacob Moscona-Skolnik, Jessica Chi, Justin Burris, Katie Cacouris, Matt Fox, Rebecca Segall, Wallace Cotton, Zander Daniel, Zoe Rubin Contributing Writers Hannah Jun, Nathan Raab, Stephen Paduano, Alex Posner, Greg Barancik, Jessica Bernheim Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio 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 on advertisements at thereview@horacemann.org.

Visit The Review website at: web.horacemann.org/review/

February 2010 HM Review

Dear Reader, When we begun work on this issue, the decade had just ended, and the year of 2010 had just begun. But amid all the tumult that surrounded the start of the decade, with the earthquake that rattled Haiti and the loss of the Democratic loss in Massachusetts that endangered the health care legislation, we have fewer opportunities as a whole to also take the time to look behind, to absorb the change that had occurred in the past ten years. After all, so much had moved us, made us vote, made us stare in disbelief or made us cry.

Therefore, for the sake of putting our actions as a nation and as a world in scrutiny, we have decided to document the decade that had just gone by, with a features section covering the important events of the years and an article comparing two different past decades - the 2000’s and the 1990’s.

Complementing the features section are articles in other

sections, among them a science and technology article focusing on the technological advances of the last decade by Alex Falk, an economics piece on the dot-com industry and crash by Justin Burris and a domestic article on tennis in the last decade by Philip Lin. I hope that you have an informative perusal of this issue of the Horace Mann Review, and I want to thank all the staff, both the writers and the editors, for working so hard to bring you this issue of the Review. Hopefully, you will bring away a lesson, or some new fact or piece of knowledge that you never knew before. But whatever you may end up taking away going through the articles of the Review, I wish you a happy reading nonetheless.

Kevin Lin Editor-in-Chief Volume XIX 3

Domestic

Domestic

4

An American Hatred HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic by jacob gladysz-morawski

F

or the past decade, the United States has been suffering from unprecedented unpopularity. 9/11 served as a shocking symbol of the hatred others have for us. The United States has been traditionally viewed as an international beacon of reliability and strength. It was a country in which an autoworker could own a house and two cars, pay his medical bills, send kids to college, and still have two bottles of Coca-Cola in the fridge at the end of the day. Because of this, foreigners, even those whose countries were led by antiAmerican regimes, saw the United States in a positive light. Today’s reality is much harsher. An increasing number of people in foreign countries have a negative perception of the US; not only our enemies, but to our supposed allies as well.

Americans were once looked upon as supermen and masters of the universe. For the inhabitants of eastern bloc countries, the U.S. was seen as a utopia that might be as far away as Pluto. The rest of the world did not mind occasional coups d’état in Chile, Iran, or El Salvador because of the highly polarizing nature of the Cold War. The rest of the world felt like it needed protection from a kindly big brother, a position we were all too happy to assume, acting as defenders of the free world and vanquishers of communism. There are many parallels to the Cold War

strategy today: we still use vague slurs to label and other the enemy, and we constantly fear attack. But the terms are not the same. We, while not viewed as completely evil, are looked upon as aggressors.

There is no longer a clear-cut distinction between the wicked and the righteous. Yet although the world has ended its love affair with United States, we ourselves have not. The continuous media portrayal of us as good guys has led us to believe it.

The Middle East (with the exception of Israel) holds a very negative view of the U.S. Countries like Turkey, an important NATO ally, lead the way in disapprobation for the U.S. Turkey’s approval ratings for the USA have dropped from 52% in 2000 to 9% in 2007. Other major powers’ opinions of the U.S. have followed suit. France, Argentina, Brazil, Spain and Germany expressed disapproval ratings of the American style of democracy ranging from 76% to 65%.

The world’s hatred for the United States is at least partially justified.

“Not So President” Bush’s “bring it on” machismo was not what the world deserved from a leading player on the international stage. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan opened the world’s eyes to America’s method of “colonialism”. The international

Justified or Not? A poll conducted within the Horace Mann community asked 37 students whether they thought foreign hatred of America was legitimately justifiable.

February 2010 HM Review

community was stunned when the United States invaded a foreign country under blatantly false pretenses under the veil of preemptive strike and bringing unwanted democracy. So far, that war has brought only the flow of Afghan poppy seeds, Iraqi oil, and civilian blood. This was all excused by theories like WMDs, al-Qaeda, and terror meant to instill fear among the American people. Many Americans bought into this fear and looked upon civilian deaths as tragic but necessary.

The unfortunate truth is that the United States no longer is viewed as the bastion of freedom and honor it once was.

However, many in Western Europe have a more favorable view of the American people than of American foreign policy, showing that there is still hope for the American way of life. America’s revival demands we take a long and difficult path. We must change not only our foreign but also our domestic policy in order to establish the United States as a major world power. We must improve the state of our manufacture, health care, and education in order to create a new generation of globally aware people and support our economic system with a sound concrete base instead of one composed of arcane financial transactions. In addition, we must earn back favor with other countries by helping poor countries build their infrastructure and by kicking the American bad habit of forced democracy. These steps will be embraced by the community of nations and put America back in favor. HMR

5

A New Reality in TV

W

by jordan berman

hat has happened to television? When one hears about the downfall of American television in the last decade, most ask, “What could have caused this colossal shift?” The wordpress

6

answer might, to some, seem shocking.

Money and women, two things that act as the stereotypical gauge of male success, are the culprits responsible for changing TV from a sophisticated business bent on coming up with the next great sitcom or smart drama into one that makes a profit through exploiting the allure of cheap women and

easy cookie-cutter TV shows.

At the beginning of the decade, television was a place where great actors and interesting dramas thrived, such as Smallville or Law and Order, for which teams of skilled writers worked hard to think of new, exciting situations for talented directors and actors to bring to life on the small screen. This kind of programming—thought out, scripted works of art complete with dramatic moments and comic relief—represents the true golden age of TV. In the years leading up to 2010, career competition shows such as Top Chef or Shear Genius rose to prominence.

They showcase twenty to thirty competitors with a wide range of backgrounds, all of whom are proficient in a certain field.

The contestants compete in a series of incredible challenges to determine which one of them most deserves the prize.

These prizes essentially amount to a boost in their young careers. These shows are fairly cheap to produce and do well HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic ratings-wise. They also have something that later shows do not: talent. The competitors in these shows are there because they are interesting people with a common talent.

Another kind of competition show has emerged; shows like The Bachelor feature a number of contestants competing for the love of a single bachelor (or bachelorette in sister show The Bachelorette). These shows can be said to have a certain quality to them that seems almost sincere, in that they track a man’s or a woman’s crusade to find a devoted partner. Some of the relationships created by these shows last a few months or even a year after the show ends, which lends the show a certain amount of realism as it exists on- and off-screen.

This format saw great success over the past decade due to the extraordinarily low costs of production. One of the first shows in this genre, The Flavor of Love, cut costs by recruiting non-union actresses, chosen not for their acting abilities but good looks and personality—but the kind of personality The Flavor of Love was looking for was not the kind that most men look for in a partner.

The women were chosen for their instability and propensity to rage and fight. In one episode, two girls get into an argument that ends with one spitting on the other and being thrown into a cameraman. This episode was the highest rated of the season.

Unfortunately for TV, this kind of success spawned such shows as The Flavor of Love 2, A Shot at Love with Tila Tequila, I Love New York, and shows that have even twisted the concept so far as to remove the love interest entirely. The shows have come to be about a bunch of women being paid to drink and party on interesting sets and complete the occasional challenge. This proportion of partying to challenges on the shows makes it easy for producers to find clips of these women doing outrageous things while intoxicated. It seems these shows will soon completely drop the façade of being a challenge-oriented show and consist entirely of clips of drunken contestants getting into fights.

These shows have created a class of February 2010 HM Review

cheap, pretty female actors who have achieved an illegitimate level of fame.

These women are known only by their nicknames, such as “New York,” “Pumpkin,” “that crazy chick with the red hair,” or even “that girl that spat on New York.”

The humiliating names they are willing to be called on TV and likely for the rest of their careers say something about the (poor) quality of the acting and the actors. They are willing to do ridiculous things on camera for fame, proving them one of the main parties responsible for why TV is where it is today.

The fact that these women are nonunion actors also contributes to their improper behavior on TV. Because they are non-union, they are easily pushed by producers and made to do things that they may not agree with. They also must be willing to act for low costs, which, combined with the low show budgets (spent mostly on cool living arrangements for the actors and actresses), are pushing the more intelligent but more expensive snappy sitcoms and scripted dramas away from mainstream TV programming and onto HBO and other pay-per view channels.

It appears that pretty women and easy money shows are winning the battle for ratings and airtime at the expense of thoughtfully scripted shows, but fear not. There are still a few surviving dramas and sitcoms that represent the desire for sophisticated TV in America and the resistance against unscripted

monstrosities like Jersey Shore, in which participants are encouraged to act like exaggerated stereotypes of their races or upbringing, just to entertain people from other parts of the country. Shows such as House, Bones, and even The Office and Scrubs, which at a glance do not seem terribly sophisticated, are fighting to survive as the last remnants of smart television. They would not have been considered sophisticated ten years ago, but the times have changed in TV Land, and now that playing videos of women pulling one another’s hair in drunken fits is wildly popular, the scripted shenanigans of a couple of cynical doctors in Sacred Heart Hospital seems to most to be one of the more witty and thoughtful topics out there on TV. So where does this leave our beloved television at the start of this new decade?

Is this just a fad that will fade away, or is this the ushering in of a new age of TV in which the best show is the one with the trashiest women? We will not know until it happens, but one thing is certain: these new shows make money, and they are not going anywhere for another few seasons. To thoughtful television, we wish you Godspeed! HMR

legalgeekery

7

Domestic

Constitutional Crisis: The Passing of the Health Care Mandate

by nathan raab

J

ohn Adams once remarked that the United States had “a government of laws and not of men”. He was right. The fundamental guiding principle of American government is and has always been the rule of law, and courts can and do invalidate statute because it contradicts the Constitution.

Parts of the Obama Administration’s health care reform plan—specifically, the insurance mandate—do so contradict the Constitution and so cannot remain law. The power to mandate health insurance is found nowhere in those powers of the Federal Government enumerated in the constitution, the only lawful powers Washington has, nor in the voluminous amounts of case law surrounding them; it would instead represent an entirely new and illegal Federal police power. Such willful disregard for the law should disturb all who value their civil liberties: once the Federal Govern-

8

ment unbinds itself partially from the Constitution, it will be able to free itself entirely and trample over Americans’ most basic freedoms.

Congress in this case attempts to justify a mandate via the Interstate Commerce Clause, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, which reads “Congress shall have the power…to regulate commerce…among the several states”. In the past, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause expansively, but a mandate exceeds even the broad authority the clause grants Congress.

To understand why, we must examine the four archetypical Commerce Clause cases that have come before the Supreme Court: Wickard v. Filburn, United States v. Lopez, United States v. Morrison, and Gonzalez v. Raich.

In 1942, farmer Roscoe Filburn sued the Secretary of Agriculture Claude Wickard claiming that the Agricultural Adjustment Act, which imposed a quota on the amount of wheat he could plant—

even if that wheat was not sold in interstate commerce—was unconstitutional because it regulated non-commercial intrastate conduct. The Court, however, disagreed. In its ruling, it claimed that the commerce clause extended to allow the Federal Government to regulate all types of activity that “substantially affected” interstate commerce; as a result of this monumental decision, the Court did not overturn a federal statute based on the Commerce Clause for over 50 years.

Not until United States v. Lopez, 53 years later, did the Supreme Court finally find an instance in which Congress had overstepped its bounds. Fernando Lopez, a senior in high school, was arrested for carrying a gun in a school zone; he was then charged with and convicted of violating §922(q) of the federal Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990. In appeal to the Supreme Court he claimed that §922(q) was unconstitutional, as it regulated “the possession of a gun in a local school zone [which] is in no sense an ecoHM Review Vol. XIX

:

Domestic nomic activity that might…substantially affect any sort of interstate commerce”.

The Court agreed. In its opinion, it laid out criteria for future statutes: to be justified under the Commerce Clause statute should fundamentally regulate economic activity, rarely touch upon non economic intrastate activity, and not encroach upon areas of traditional state authority.

In United States v. Morrison, the court affirmed and extended Lopez, ruling that portions of the Violence against Women Act were unconstitutional because they regulated intrastate, non economic activity, even though such activity was shown to have a substantial affect on interstate commerce.

Finally, in Gonzalez v. Raich, the court rejected medical marijuana user Angel Raich’s claim that Congress could not prohibit the intrastate production and consumption of medical marijuana.

Following its decision in Wickard, the Court said that Congress could regulate intrastate, non economic activity only as “an essential part of a larger regulation of economic activity, in which the regulatory scheme could be undercut unless the intrastate activity was regulated” because the two classes of activity—intra and interstate activities—were so intermingled with one another as to rule out regulation of one without the other.

Knowing that case law, a mandate seems fishy from the start. All of the decisions above involved regulations of activity of some sort, economic or not: an insurance mandate is instead a regulation of inactivity, a condition of simply existing in America. Under the precedent of Lopez and Morrison, moreover, a mandate—a regulation of non economic activity—must pass the Lopez test. A mandate is not an intrastate economic activity and there is no jurisdictional element to make it so. Its only hope, then, is Raich: it must prove to be a regulation of a class of activity so intermingled with the activity regulated by a broader regulatory scheme—the class of activity questioned must not be separate and distinct from the class of activity the statute regulates—that the scheme is useless without it.

But that is not so. Instead, and unFebruary 2010 HM Review

like the precedent, the mandate regulates a type of activity separate and distinct from the other types of activity that the heath care bill regulates: providing health insurance. Wickard, by contrast, allowed the Agricultural Adjustment Act to regulate farmers in interstate commerce by regulating farmers; in Raich, the CSA regulated interstate drug use by regulating drug users. Both these cases decided that activity not directly linked to interstate commerce—farmers, drug users— could be regulated in statutes regulating intimately related activities, in those cases farmers selling their wares in interstate commerce and drug dealers.

Lopez and Morrison, on the other hand, did involve activities regulated that were separate and distinct from the commerce clause justification: in Lopez, essentially, the court said that the type of activity of carrying a gun in school was outside the scope of the commerce clause because it was not directly tied to anything involving interstate commerce, similarly, Morrison affirmed that because there was no class linking violent criminals towards women to interstate commerce, Congress had no power to regulate the former class. The mandate fits into the set of Lopez and Morrison.

There is no activity that links Americans who choose not to purchase health insurance to insurance companies; those Americans have actually chosen not to join such a class.

The individual mandate also flunks the final Lopez criterion, as it dramatically extends the Commerce Clause to effectively remove any difference between the limited powers of the Federal Government and the general police power of the states. If Washington can mandate purchasing health insurance, it can, as “part of a broader regulatory scheme”, force Americans to buy anything; clothes, dishwashers, or cars: combined with its regulatory authority over the interstate purchase of such items, this would enable it to essentially determine what clothes Americans would wear, what appliances they would use, and what cars they would drive. Currently, only the states have that power, the reason why states can mandate car insurance but the federal government cannot.

Even more egregiously, the principle underlying the mandate that Congress can regulate a type of activity separate and distinct from the one it is permitted to regulate under the commerce clause would allow a federal police power explicitly rejected in Lopez and Morrison: validly reasoning that substandard policing and justice systems intrastate could undercut federal regulation of interstate crime, it could then take over intrastate criminal justice as part of a comprehensive plan to regulate crime interstate. An amazing stretchable Commerce Clause like that is clearly absurd; such reasoning is invalid for the reasons above as it would involve two separate and distinct activities—perpetrating interstate crime and judging and policing intrastate criminals. As a result, we must conclude that the Commerce Clause does not stretch that far. Thus it must exclude a mandate.

Nor does the General Welfare clause permit the individual mandate.

The General Welfare clause has always been interpreted as a taxing clause, not a regulatory one: Congress may lay taxes for the general welfare, but it may not regulate merely for it. Nor would a “regulatory tax”, as described in the current health care bill, pass muster. In Bailey v.

Drexel Furniture, the court actually explicitly rejected that approach, ruling that Congress could not backhandedly impose a regulation via “taxation designed to exterminate a certain practice” unless it was permitted by some other clause to do so; later, the court affirmed this in U.S. v. Constantine.

Each and every Congressman that sits below the great white dome of our Capitol Building has sworn to uphold our Constitution; obviously, some have failed at that solemn duty. Voters, as Mr. Brown’s recent electoral victory has shown, can and will depose them if they fail too often. In 2010, 2012, and beyond, ObamaCare will have proven to be a litmus test for our Senators and Representatives: it will have shown which have voted to shred our Constitution, and which have voted to preserve it. HMR

9

Domestic FARM4

Corruption in the Empire State by andre manuel

N

ew York State, struggling to deal with increasing debt, now must deal with another problem in 2010: ethics reform. In his State of the State address earlier this month, Governor Patterson presented a series of laws in order to combat corruption in the New York State Government, including campaign finance reform, term limits, and a revamped ethics commission. These plans come in the aftermath of an attempted coup in the State Senate, the conviction of former Senate Majority leader Joseph Bruno, and the bypassing of loose ethics laws in all aspects of state

10

government. The massive corruption has led to an inability to run the state government and fix its numerous problems.

Patterson, facing many critics of his handling of the budget deficit, and a difficult election in 2010, hopes to catch a lucky break with new corruption legislation.

When New Yorkers think of corruption, the first thing that often comes to mind may be New Jersey, our occasionally dishonorable neighbor. Whether it is the recent investigations into and arrests of New Jersey officials or the Sopranos that have generated this reputation, New Yorkers have gained confidence in their own government simply by comparing it

to New Jersey’s. But the Empire State is no stronghold of virtue. Numerous scandals in 2009 have lead to the realization that something must be done before the State drowns in corruption and incompetence.

The first was the Senate leadership crisis.

In June, Republicans and two Democrats unsuccessfully attempted to replace the Majority Leader, leading to a 31-31 tie.

There was no appointed Lieutenant Governor to break the tie, and a deadlock ensued. When Republicans and Democrats refused to meet, no quorum was attained, and nothing could be done in the Senate.

Patterson called special Senate sections and even refused to withhold the Sena HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic tors’ pay, but the deadlock only ended when both Democrats switched back and voted with their caucus. Both Democrats who had joined the Republicans are currently involved in ethics scandals of their own. Representative Pedro Espada Jr. is currently being investigated by state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo for illegally using funds from an HMO for political reasons, and for violating a series of state election laws. The other renegade Democrat, Hiram Monserrate, a state senator from Queens, is being asked to resign by his colleagues after being convicted of violently beating his girlfriend last year.

More recently, this past December, former Republican Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno was found guilty on numerous counts of corruption and fraud, some involving millions of dollars. This case only scratches the surface of New York’s corruption. Thanks to New York’s loose ethics laws and the ease of covering up illicit payments, it is possible and quite likely than an overwhelming majority of members of the State legislature have been involved in similar activites. In October, Raymand B. Harding, the former vice chairman of New York’s Liberal Party, admitted that he had accepted over $800,000 from former state comptroller Alan G. Hevesi for political favors, including vacating a state assembly seat for Mr. Hevesi’s son. In June, Anthony S. Seminerio, a state assemblyman from Queens pleaded guilty to numerous charges, including taking bribes for political favors totaling $1 million.

Many other ethics violations have occurred over the last several years, and still more have most likely gone unnoticed. This threatens to hurt both New York’s reputation and ability to self-govern. New York State’s budget deficit is currently estimated at over $16 million, and for the first time, in 2009, New York ended a year in the red. While this problem is not unique to New York (it is hard to find a state that does not have fiscal problems) New York seems among the least able to remedy its problems. Any attempts by the legislature to reduce the deficit will surely be seen as pure hypocrisy, as the legislators themselves have helped to dig New York into this hole.

February 2010 HM Review

In its handling of the budget crisis, the state government has failed to understand the problems plaguing New Yorkers. $750 million in school payments have been delayed, a terrible new addition to numerous other budget cuts in education that look to put New York’s future generations at a severe disadvantage. Another cut affecting students is the $140 million cut from the MTA’s funding. This adds on to the MTA’s mounting deficit nearing $500 million. Among the many measures to reduce this number is the recent announcement that by 2011, Student MetroCards will cease to exist.

This could cost families in New York an additional $800-1000 a year, an unacceptably large amount of money considering the widespread economic instability.

Perhaps even more appalling than this is what the state is spending money on. The New York Yankees continue to receive a generous portion of the state’s funding. Earlier in 2009, an additional $370 million was given to the Yankees.

This adds on to the $1 billion in tax-free bonds the Yankees have received. Despite this, the Yankees have shown no sighs of spending money less extravagantly, and continue to pay players the most money in the MLB, including an eight-year, $108 million contract.

It is clearly time for some massive alterations in New York’s government, and Governor Patterson’s proposed legislation could bring some necessary change.

One of his proposed provisions is an amendment to the state constitution to set term limits. The limits include a maximum of two four-year terms for state offices such as governor, and a maximum of six two-year terms for state senators and assemblymen. While incredibly controversial, these limits could serve to limit the spread of corruption.

Yet Patterson cannot fight corruption on his own. A corrupt legislature will surely fight anti-corruption legislation, and slow any attempts at ethics reform. New Yorkers need to help fight corruption and vote against fraudulent and unethical incumbents. Reform in Albany is absolutely necessary to help New York face its biggest deficit yet. HMR

Corruption by the Numbers • The former vice chairman of New York’s Liberal Party accepted over $800,000 from state comptrollers for political favors.

• $140 million dollars have recently been cut from MTA funding.

• MTA’s deficit is nearing $500 million.

• $370 million were given to the Yankees, adding on to the $1 billion dollars in tax free bonds the Yankees have received, the $575 to build the stadium and parking garages, and $350 million saved by the Yankees in interest rate subsidies and not paying sales taxes.

• New York State’s budget deficit is currently estimated to be over $16 million dollars • $750 million in payments are owed to New York public schools

11

Domestic

Life Without Scripps by emily feldstein

I

magine no 24, no American Idol, no House, M.D., and maybe even no Superbowl. This seemed like an imminent reality on December 31, 2009, when Fox’s contract with Time Warner Cable expired and Fox threatened Time Warner Cable that it would remove the Fox broadcast signal from fourteen stations and six cable channels. Fox wanted to receive one dollar per cable subscribe per month. The cable companies wanted to keep costs down. Luckily for television viewers, the cable company and Fox were able to reach an agreement. “We’re pleased that, after months of negotiations, we were able to reach a fair agreement with Time Warner Cable — one that recognizes the value of our programming,” said Chase Carey, deputy chairman at News Corp., which owns Fox. Both John Kerry, the chairman of Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Communication, Technology, and the Internet, and Julius Genachowski, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, were happy and

12

satisfied with the reconciliation.

Despite the tense negotiations, Fox decided not to deny its programming to TWC throughout the discussions. Scripps Networks Interactive Inc. took a different tack in its negotiations with cable operator Cablevision Systems Corp. As of January 1, 2010, Food Network and HGTV were no longer available to Cablevision viewers. Contract negotiation had broken down at the end of 2009, and neither side seemed willing to compromise until Thursday, January 21, when they reached an agreement in which Scripps allowed HGTV and Food Network back on cablevision.

The issue was this: Scripps Network wanted to earn more for its programming than Cablevision was willing to pay. Both sides had several rationales for their demands. The disagreement became a bitter battle with full-page advertisements in the New York Times and commercials on the radio.

According to Cablevision, “This dispute is about huge fee increases that

Scripps is seeking for HGTV and Food Network. They are looking for more than a 200 percent increase for their channels. In effect, Scripps Networks is asking Cablevision customers to bail them out through a $20 million annual increase in fees. If every programming service demanded such increases, your cable bill would be astronomical.”

Cablevision claimed that they are fighting for their customers. According to Cablevision, Scripps’ removal of its programming was “effectively holding their own viewers hostage in order to pursue dramatically higher fees… It was irresponsible for Scripps to take the channels off, and it is irresponsible for them not to put the channels back on.”

Cablevision attempted to portray itself as the champion of its customers, their knight in shining armor, protecting them from the overly greedy and mercenary Scripps. Cablevision ran a looped announcement on both Food Network and

HM Review Vol. XIX

Domestic paraorkut

Posing The staff of Food Network comes together for a photograph.

HGTV blaming Scripps for wanting to make every cable user spend more on cable just to increase Scripps own profit.

Cablevision painted Scripps as manipulative. “Scripps knows that we care about our customers, and that is why they abruptly removed their channels.

They want you to believe that Cablevision took these channels off. We did not.”

Meanwhile, Scripps adamantly refuted Cablevision’s version of the story. In its words, “Cablevision simply is not telling the truth.” Although Scripps may have pulled its channels, “Scripps Networks Interactive has been trying to have productive negotiations with Cablevision for more than six months, but to no avail.” Scripps portrayed itself as the victim and underdog. “Cablevision pays us about 25 cents per subscriber for the combination of Food Network and HGTV. That combined rate is substantially lower than rates earned by other, individual Top 10 cable networks.” Cablevision’s offer would make “Food Network – a Top 10 network – one of the lowest paid channels on its lineup.” Contesting Cablevision, the spunky fighter, Scripps, retorted “It’s Cablevision that’s holding its customer hostage.”

Each party used the media to attempt to persuade the consumer to take its side and influence the outcome of a commercial dispute. Cablevision asked customers to send a message to Scripps’ CEO: “Dear Ken Lowe: Now is not the time to demand a $20 million annual rate increase - that’s not pennies to me!

Put Food Network and HGTV back on Cablevision and negotiate a deal that is fair for everyone!” Scripps created two websites to rally support: iloveFOODNETWORK.com and iloveHGTV.com.

Although both entities wanted consumers to help them, consumers were actually the ones who needed help. Cablevision subscribers want and deserve refunds for three weeks without two channels. Subscribers were not given notice of the change, and they unwittingly paid for channels that were not February 2010 HM Review

available. “The economy being what it is, people are much more counting their pennis and looking at their bills,” said Chuck Lesnick, who is president of the Yonkers City Council. The council recently sent a letter to Cablevision seeking reimbursment. As of now, Cablevision says it is not planning on issuing rebates.

This seems outrageous. While they were fighting in the name of the consumer, both Scripps and Cablevision were actually acting unjustly to Cablevision subscribers. The fact that the companies were not operating in a fair manner is frustrating, but their hypocrisy is most aggravating of all.

Both companies claimed to understand the reality of the average people’s lives. They assured their customers that they were only doing what was right.

Undoubtedly, the consumers should support them. However, when one looks at the issue more closely, the companies seem to act more with thoughtlessness

to their customers’ wants. How could these organizations assert that they were fighting for the common good when they were being high handed and playing corporate games?

Reform is necessary. The Public Service Commission theoretically regulates New York State’s cable industry, but the PSC cannot regulate problems about rate or programming. There has been much discussion about regulation in light of the financial crisis the country faces. The most important argument for regulation, at least in the case of the cable industry, is ensuring fairness and honesty for consumers. HMR

13

International

The Price Of Life by rebecca segall

I

n the summer of 2006, the kidnapping of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants sparked a passionate movement among Israelis people longing for his return. Three and a half years later, Israeli civilians, the Jewish community, and sympathizers around the world remain riveted with his fate. The Israeli government is finally on the verge of reaching an agreement for Shalit’s release with the terrorist group Hamas, willing to make almost any compromises necessary to rescue the fallen soldier, dead or alive. The price Hamas demands in return, which some deem too high, poses the question: what is the value of one human life? How far will the State of Israel go to bring back one man?

The conflict is multi-faceted and emotionally charged. Israel has historically maintained a policy of doing whatever it takes to rescue its soldiers and citizens. In 2008, Israel finally struck a deal with Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist organization that was holding Israeli soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev

14

captive. The Israeli government agreed to free five Lebanese convicted prisoners in exchange for the privates, who had been attacked and abducted while patrolling the Israel-Lebanese border, sparking a war between the two nations in 2006. Regev and Goldwasser were returned to the Jewish state in coffins, to the shock and despair of the Israeli people. The Israeli government did not hesitate to honor the trade, despite the asymmetrical equation of five potentially dangerous terrorists to two dead, guiltless soldiers. Even though the agreement could have put more Israeli civilians at risk by freeing Lebanese criminals with blood on their hands, the Israeli people called for the return of their fallen brothers by any means necessary. Though fair prisoner trade is a standard protocol in conflict resolution, it did not bring the anticipated peace between Israel and its northern neighbor.

Since the Lebanese-Israeli war in 2006, Lebanese extremists have fired many missiles into Israel, violating the peace treaty it had agreed to. To a rational observer or political analyst, it would seem the trade for Goldwasser and Regev was

unreasonable, unfair, and did more harm than good by forcing the Israeli government to contradict its policy of not negotiating with terrorists. However, it was the only option for an Israel desperate to save each and every one of its members.

The pending agreement between Israel and Hamas for the life of Gilad Shalit is infinitely more taxing on Israel. Hamas demands that over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners be freed from Israeli cells; of whom at least 200 are convicted of orchestrating devastating terrorist attacks.

Though the terms require that a small percentage of these prisoners be exiled from the West Bank, the mass release of these many dangerous criminals threatens to put more Israelis at risk. Is Shalit, who may be dead or alive, worth all of this danger?

Beyond opening the door to future terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, the tentative prisoner trade agreement sets a dangerous precedent for Israeli soldier ransom. It shows terror groups that they can get virtually any amount of prisoners back in return for one Israeli body.

This encourages future kidnappings and HM Review Vol. XIX

International exploitations of the State of Israel. The Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal continues to threaten that the organization is “capable of capturing [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit and [another] Shalit, until not a single prisoner will remain in the enemy’s jails.” Even in recent weeks, missiles from the West Bank continue to assault Israel. This prisoner trade allows Hamas to test how much they can gain from Israel. Hamas has stated that kidnapping hostages is the most effective strategy in getting Israeli cooperation. It advocates the abduction of more soldiers to gain even further leverage. Despite the self-evident manipulation of the Israeli people, the movement to free Gilad Shalit is a strong one.

Israel’s firm policy to do “everything in its power to secure the release of POWs and MIAs…and to bring them home” tends to seem impractical and irrational in many cases. Still, the emotional element of kidnapped soldiers hits a sensitive nerve that resonates with the entire Israeli population. The Israeli Defense Force depends on the national draft, which requires almost all men and women to serve at least two to three years.

Because of this, the government and the people place tremendous importance on the life of each individual soldier. This trust between the government and the people- the assurance that one’s life will

February 2010 HM Review

SOLIDARITY: The hebrew in this sign translates into “Gilad still lives.” be valued above all else- is crucial to the functionality of the Jewish State; especially when considering its small size.

Beyond maintaining political stability though, there is a human element to the fervent desire for Gilad Shalit’s return. In the three and a half years that have passed since the soldier’s abduction, Shalit’s face has become a common sight for Israelis and Jews everywhere. Countless protests have been held since Shalit’s abduction, expressing faith that Shalit is still alive and rebuking the government for not having rescued him yet. The tale of a young, innocent soldier suddenly captured by enemies and held for years, reverberates with anyone who has served in the military, which in Israel, is everybody.

Shalit’s story has played out heavily over the Israeli media in the years following his disappearance, with his father, Noam Shalit, leading a campaign to have his son freed from the militants who captured him. The loss of Gilad Shalit is personal for Israelis; suffered by everyone who understands the danger of serving one’s country. It seems that in Israeli policy, it is difficult to separate out calculated, rational action that would ensure reciprocity with Hamas and security for Israelis, from humanistic, emotional action that would serve the will of the majority of the Israeli people. Though there is division among Israelis as to whether or not the

pending agreement is a wise choice, the vast bulk of Israelis empathize with Shalit and his family and feel strongly that the government should retrieve him, even if it puts the country at greater risk. The role of government blurs when protecting the people comes into direct conflict with honoring values and moral standards.

Many significant pieces of the puzzle promise to further complicate issues in the coming weeks, when the terms of the trade will be ironed out and then either agreed upon or abandoned. In a distressed attempt to expedite Shalit’s return, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has even hinted a willingness to discuss issues as sensitive as check points in the West Bank, the boundaries of Israeli settlements, and even the occupation of Jerusalem. While stretching to make such difficult compromises may seem unreasonable to the Western eye, it remains vitally important to the Israeli people that Shalit be returned safely and soon. Acting out of emotion and compassion to retrieve a fallen soldier, though perhaps not the wisest choice, may prove to be an extremely successful move on the part of the Israeli government, bringing consolation to Shalit’s family and empathizers and temporary relief to the perpetual tension in the Jewish State.HMR

15

Features

Features Plunging into Afghanistan Dates of the Decade

FREETHOUGHTS

Is the surge a tonic for peace or a recipe for disaster?

It is unlikely that the past decade will be remembered as America’s finest hour.

We begin with the Bush-Gore election debacle. For the fourth time in history, the Electoral College did not jibe with the popular vote. Turmoil ensued as we learned about “hanging chads” and wondered how a presidential election could be in the hands of a hitherto unknown albeit meticulously-coiffed Florida Attorney General named Katherine Harris.

The country was split following the Supreme Court’s partisan decision in Bush’s favor. Concerns about the economy rose.

Americans’ satisfaction with its government fell from 69% in 2000 to 48% in 2001.

But then came the game changer. On September 11, 2001, AA Flight 11, piloted not by its captain but by Muslim extremists, hurtled into the World Trade Center.

Four commercial jets were hijacked and redirected that day. By day’s end, nearly 3000 were dead. This unprecedented attack on our “homeland” created a “rally around the flag effect,” and our satisfac-

16

tion rebounded to 70%, while President Bush’s approval rating soared to 90%.

Americans, unified in their need for retribution, gave our untested president a long leash in confronting the “evil doers.” In 2002, “Operation Anaconda” launched, sending 2,000 U.S. soldiers to Afghanistan. The mission’s objective was to kill or capture Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in the area and to subdue “High Value” targets in the region. Though the mission succeeded in eliminating many extremists, many more remained at large, including one -Osama Bin Laden.

Several years later, back in the homeland, we were reminded, yet again, that violence and extremism are not just foreign threats. In April of 2007, a student who opened fire with unregistered firearms traumatized the Virginia Tech campus.

By 10 am, 32 were dead. The tragedy led to yet another attempt to fix our gun laws, this time by refining the “National Instant Criminal Background Check” system.

But our gun laws were not the only

things that needed fixing. In September of 2008, the seemingly impenetrable Wall Street firm, Lehman Brothers, went bankrupt due to its avaricious overexposure to so-called “Sub Prime” mortgages. Other financial behemoths deemed “too big to fail” began to teeter. To save our financial system from collapse, the Bush administration opted to bailout the banks which, ironically, were the cause of the problem in the first place.

But, for many, hope was on the horizon. On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama took the presidential oath of office and called for “a new era of responsibility.” Americans, 8.5% of whom were jobless, wondered if this man would usher in the change that was desperately needed, and his approval rate stood in the 60% range until the summer. By December of 2009, almost a year after he took office, his approval rating dropped to 47%; perhaps denoting the end of a most irregular decade. HMR

-By Harrison Manin

HM Review Vol. XIX

#

Features

September 11, 2001

#1

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, nineteen members of Al-Qaeda boarded four domestic flights.

Their mission was to take control of the planes and hit four high-profile buildings. This first attack on U.S soil since the bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941 would spark a series of events that would forever change the nation.

Two of the hijacked flights, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, first into the North Tower, then into the South Tower. .

Al-Qaeda member and trained pilot Mohammed Atta redirected the Los Angeles-bound AA Flight 11 from Boston to New York City, crashing the plane into the North Tower, killing nearly 1,400 including all 92 passengers aboard the plane. At this point, many people still believed that the crash was merely a tragic accident.

The time was approximately 8:46 A.M.

February 2010 HM Review

WINDSOFCHANGE

Seventeen minutes later, UA Flight 175 soared into the South Tower. AlQaeda operative Marwan al-Shehhi also redirected the Los Angeles-bound flight to New York City with intent to crash. Despite the Federal Aviation Administration’s attempts to contact those aboard, the 65-person flight crashed into the South Tower at approximately 9:03 A.M, killing all the passengers and 600 more people who were in the Tower.

By this time everyone was acutely aware that the United States was under attack.

Then, in the midst of the devastation, citizens learned that there were two more hijacked planes, AA Flight 77 and UA Flight 93. At 9:37 A.M, AA Flight 77 smashed into the side of the Pentagon. After seizing the cockpit, AlQaeda operative Hani Hanjour took control and crashed the plane into the building, killing all 58 passengers upon impact. The explosion caused by the plane leveled the Western Wing of the Pentagon, killing another 125 people.

wordpress

One plane remained. United Airlines Flight 93 and the lives of its 44 passengers were under the control of four hijackers led by Ziad Jarrah. The San Franciscobound flight coming from Newark Airport was believed to have been heading towards the White House. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the passengers, extraordinarily heroic in a moment of certain death, revolted. After Jarrah made his first announcement at 9:57 A.M, passengers began to swarm the cockpit. Upon realizing that the passengers would soon gain control of the flight, Jarrah crashed the plane. He sent the plane into a nosedive, crashing in a field in Stonycreek, Pennsylvania. Despite their attempts to gain control of the flight, all 44 passengers died. Nonetheless, their extraordinary sacrifices will never be forgotten. HMR

-By Stephen Paduano

17

Features

January 20, 2009

#2

On January, 20th, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. The young junior Senator from Illinois changed history as the first African-American to be elected President of the United States. Running on a platform of hope and change, the newly elected President pledged to alter “old Washington politics,” and vowed to honor his campaign promises in his inauguration speech.

Barack Hussein Obama was born on August 4th, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Stanley Ann Dunham, white and of English decent, and Barack Obama Sr., born in Kenya. Being multi-racial made Obama very sensitive to racism as a child. When Obama was three years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya and his mother soon remarried, to an Indonesian student she met in Hawaii. In 1967 young Obama, his mother, and his stepfather Lolo Soetoro moved to Indonesia, where Obama attended school from until he was ten.

Four years later, Obama returned to Honolulu to live with his mother’s parents, living and studying there until he graduated from high school in 1979. Obama then studied at the Occidental College in Los Angeles and transferred two years later to Columbia University, completing his undergraduate studies. Following his studies of political science at Columbia, Obama enrolled in Harvard Law School.

After Obama completed his studies in law, he became a community activist and civil rights attorney in Chicago. In 1992, Obama married a fellow lawyer, Michelle Robinson.

Four years after their marriage, Obama ran for Illinois State Senate, and won. From 1997 to 2004, the young Democrat served Illinois’ 13th District in the State Senate, gaining major support for ethics and health care reform. In 2004, Obama was elected to the United States Senate.

Despite Obama’s relatively short career in politics, he was able to replace an incumbent Republican and capture the Senate seat, thanks in part to the stunning keynote address he had delivered at the Democratic National Convention that year.

Four years later, Barack Obama was elected the President of the United States of America.

18

#

life

# life

life

life

life

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

December 12, 2000

#3

NEWSWEEK

determine whether or not Bush won the election. By ruling that Bush was correct in stating that the recount was unconstitutional, the Supreme Court declared Bush the winner of the state of Florida, thereby electing him the next President of the United States. HMR

-By Stephen Paduano

August 29, 2005 scrapetv

February 2010 HM Review

crats. When engaging in the recount, the Florida Secretary of State ordered that the recounts be submitted to her within seven days. The counties doing the recount manually were unable to meet the deadline. Prior to the manual recounts being submitted, Bush challenged its constitutionality. This verdict of the question “Can they do this?” would effectively

semp

#4

In August of 2005, a tropical storm formed over the Bahamas that would soon escalate into one of the most deadly natural disasters seen on American soil. After moving to Florida and becoming a Category 1 Hurricane, Katrina made its way to the Gulf of Mexico, where it caused unimaginable damage and grief. By the time it reached the Gulf of Mexico, Katrina had already become a Category 5 Hurricane. Katrina caused crippling damage throughout the region, taking as many as 1,900 lives. The city hit hardest was New Orleans. After

NEWSWEEK

On December 12th, 2000, the United States Supreme Court voted on Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court ruled that the Florida Supreme Court’s method for recounting ballots was unconstitutional. The verdict halted the recount occurring in Florida. Thus was elected George W. Bush the 43rd President of the United States of America. The case was brought to the Supreme Court after the Florida Division of Elections reported that Bush had won 48.8% of the vote. Due to the fact that the victory margin was so small, an automatic recount was in order. After all but one county had taken place in the recount, Bush’s victory margin had decreased to only 327 votes, allowing Democratic Presidential candidate Al Gore to request a manual recount. However, when requesting the manual recount, Gore asked for only four counties to participate, all of which historically vote in favor of Demo-

winds up to 140 mph ravaged their way through the old city, the anti-flood levees, first constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers operating under the Flood Control Aft of 1965, were breached. After the levees broke, the city of New Orleans was entirely flooded, damaging the vast majority of roads and structures throughout the city. Other than inundating the city of New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina did considerable damage to cities in Florida and Mississippi. With reported 80 mph winds in the southern portion of the state, Hurricane Katrina struck cities around and including Miami, killing several and costing the U.S. government

nearly $2 billion worth of damage. In Mississippi, Hurricane Katrina destroyed several coastal cities and spawned 11 tornadoes, which caused extraordinary chaos and ruin in Hancock County, Harrison County, Jackson County, and others.

It was reported that nearly one million people in the state were affected by the hurricane, causing many of them to seek support from the government and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). HMR

-By Stephen Paduano

19

Features

NEWSWEEK

September 15, 2008

#5

On September 15th, 2008, Lehman Brothers filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy.

Lehman Brothers had historically been one of the strongest investment banks in the United States dealing with investment banking, equity and fixed-income sales, research and trading, investment management, private equity, and private banking. In the midst of the subprime mortgage crisis, Lehman reported losses of nearly $2.8 billion, causing its stock to decreases in value by 73%. After this devastating loss, Lehman Chairman and CEO, Richard Fuld, filed the company for bankruptcy. In doing so, the entire company and its holdings were broken up. The Head Quarters of Lehman Brothers in New York City was sold for $96 Million.

During the process of filing for bankruptcy, the British bank, Barclays, acquired the ailing investment bank by paying a mere $1.35 billion. The fall of this colossal bank is just one example of the Financial Crisis of 2008. After their liquidation, the Dow Jones Industrial closed at just over 500 points. This drop of 4.4% was the largest drop in a single day since the days following the attacks on September 11th.

Although Lehman had been strug-

20

gling and saw no escape from their debt in the near future, the fall soon became controversial. The reason for the controversy was because Fuld had allegedly received $480 million in bonuses throughout his reign as CEO. Despite the fact that bonuses like these were very common for Wall Street executives, many people questioned his right to receive the money. Among these people was Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), who asked the CEO, “Your company is now bankrupt, our economy is in crisis, but you get to keep $480 million in pay and bonuses over the past eight years?” Another controversial aspect of their bankruptcy was that the Government let this occur. Prior to their bankruptcy, the United States Treasury had created the Troubled Assets Relief Program (T.A.R.P), which supported the “troubled” banks. However, the Treasury did not rush to aid Lehman as it did for other banks. Although assisting banks is not the role of the U.S. Treasury, by creating T.A.R.P, they did assume the role of providing stability for the banks.

It was the day when everyone realized that the financial world was so much more connected than we thought. This event was the beginning of “too big to fail.” This was the day that created new expectations of what the financial in-

dustry would look like, the new normal, which is lower leverage, less debt, a smaller industry with a smaller balance sheet.

Countless economic downfalls and devastations would emerge from this event, which defined the economic crisis of 2009. Indeed , shame was brought upon both the company and our country as we tumbled into economic turmoil. HMR

-By Stephen Paduano

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

March 1, 2002

#6

Operation Anaconda was the first American battle of the 21st century.

Fought in Afghanistan, a place unknown to most Americans at the time, the goal of the battle was to annihilate our newfound enemies, al-Qaeda and the Taliban. The government, in collaboration with the CIA, decided to land in the Shah-i-kot Valley, towering at nine thousand feet in altitude. Even the terrain was unforgiving and difficult.

The bloody battle ran into trouble almost immediately. There was a failure of intelligence. The Americans accidentally landed in the “kill-zone” of the Taliban, in the middle of the valley, instead of its sides. The terrorist groups were much more organized than the U.S. troops expected and of course more familiar with the complex terrain. There were four times as many enemy soldiers as we had prepared ourselves for. Because of American arrogance, we naïvely thought of the two separate allied terrorist groups (the Taliban and al-Qaeda) as a single entity, which left us unprepared for the different military tactics. A lack of communication isolated the air and ground forces. The American government squandered the last opportunity

we had to defeat al-Qaeda, and all attempts to capture Osama Bin Laden failed. Because they did not establish definitive combat leaders, when it came to making decisions, there was dissension among the commanders of the army.

Lastly, the Afghans who were willing to fight for America were not deployed correctly, leaving the U.S. troops to fend for themselves. Trained for just three short weeks, they proved incapable of completing the assigned mission. In short, Operation Anaconda was not only unsuccessful, but mocked America’s reputation as a military superpower.

With eight killed and seventy-two wounded, America left Afghanistan feeling defeated. This battle foreshadowed some of what would come between America, the Taliban and al-Qaeda. This operation was also the major linchpin of the still-ongoing preoccupation with the Middle East. It reminded America that we are not invincible and showed us the difficulty we would face defeating terrorists.

The war in Afghanistan is still being fought. Over five thousand soldiers are dead, and more than thirty-five thousand have been wounded. HMR

-By Susannah Cohen

wikimedia

February 5, 2003

#7

When the Bush Administration wanted public support for the war against Iraq, they decided to use their most powerful, influential weapon: Secretary of State Colin Powell.

On February 6th, 2003, Powell made an alarming speech at the United Nations.

He constantly used the phrase “weapons of mass destruction” to scare America and the UN into believing that the United States must launch a war against Iraq to prevent their attacking us with biological

February 2010 HM Review

or nuclear weapons.

In hindsight, Colin Powell’s speech was a milestone event in which the United States government misled the public at home and the rest of the world, manipulating their trust and playing on their fears. It showed us that even in America, home of the free and, the government still resorts to subterfuge. HMR

-By Susannah Cohen

keewswen

21

Features

April 16, 2007

#8

The Virginia Tech massacre is one of the most shocking student shootings in United States history. Thirtytwo young Americans were shot to death on a school campus and many others were wounded. The shooter committed suicide.

Many questions sprung from this gory incident. How can we send an army to wage an irrelevant war

NEWSWEEK

in a distant land when things in our own country need attention? The tragedy demands we never forget the problems that exist within our own borders.

A bigger problem still exists: the mentally ill and criminals can avoid gun background checks by attending gun shows. That’s why our country experiences a massacre every day: 34 Americans are murdered with guns daily, according to Michael Bloomberg. Fami-

calstatela

December 26, 2004

22

lies of the Virginia Tech victims have become powerful voices in the effort to seal the gun show loophole, reminding Congress that keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill has nothing to do with the Second Amendment. Will Congress listen? Only time will tell. But in death, the Virginia Tech victims have breathed new life into legislation that can save thousands. HMR

-By Susannah Cohen

While we fought in many different wars on many different fronts, the tsunami in December of 2004 reminded us that there is always an enemy uncontrollable and undefeated: nature. The earthquake that occurred in the Indian Ocean led to over two hundred thousand deaths in fourteen different countries. It hit hardest in Thailand, India, Indonesia, and Sri Lanka.

#9

The earthquake was the second largest earthquake ever recorded in the history of the world, with a magnitude between 9.1 and 9.3. It caused the entire earth to shake.

Although our world is filled with conflicts, the devastation that followed the tsunami forced nations to unite in an effort to aid in reconstruction. We set our differences aside and worked together, each nation participating as an active member of the global community. The United States joined forces HM Review Vol. XIX

wit Wo peo tsu at t ide fac

fec fro rec of ove

NEWSWEEK

#10

The rights of gays and lesbians took center stage in California in 2004. San Francisco made a historic decision by granting a samesex marriage license to a lesbian couple.

Gavin Newsom, a trailblazing mayor, shook America to its core by openly opposing California state law. This was a backlash against the conservative policies of the Bush Administration. Bush’s State of the Union address in 2004 was the catalyst for Mayor Newsom’s radical decision. This decision broadcasted that gay marriage was legal in San Francisco. By that afternoon, fifteen same sex couples had been married.

Prior to this, the decade had been filled with America’s focusing mostly on international affairs. This brought American civil rights politics back into the spotlight. In the eyes of some, it redeemed America and showed that we were taking international steps forward in terms of gay rights, but it also caused dissension among Americans. Some said that we must “defend the sanctity of marriage” and not allow same sex marriage, and that same sex marriage goes against the Defense of Marriage Act. But, as was made apparent by Mayor Newsom, America is still a country of liberty and justice for all. It showed the rest of the world that with all that

with Australia, the United Nations, The World Bank, and others to rescue the people and countries affected by the tsunami. No matter who was fighting at the time, over what land or political ideology, all of us had to join hands and face this problem together.

Five years later, the countries affected by the tsunami are still reeling from the decimation while they try to recover and rebuild. The significance of this horrendous disaster cannot be overlooked. The global community February 2010 HM Review

had been going on in America, we still had the resilience and strength to make progress. It began to restore America’s reputation as fair, liberal, and supporting equality for all, taking us back to our core values.

Even though gay marital rights were overturned, and gay marriage is only legal in five of the fifty states, this

initiative had a worldwide ripple effect.

“We broke through that psychological barrier of separate but equal that had been set in front of the Lesbian-GayBisexual-Transgender community, and in a sense, we made civil unions a mainstream position,” said Mayor Newsom. HMR

-By Susannah Cohen

came together, donating over seven billion dollars in humanitarian aid. Relief efforts proved that basic necessities like food, clean water, shelter, and cleanliness were met through the work of several organizations. Researchers continue studying what causes a tsunami, developing early warning systems, and making sure disaster-relief agencies are even better prepared in the future. HMR

-By Susannah Cohen

unescap

with wed in We ked as mces

February 12, 2004

NEWSWEEK

gest ory een h to

Features

23

Features wordpress

time newsweek

time

1990s UNC

americannonsense

topnews

cnn

ew

backstreetboys

24

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

Change?

The 1990s vs the 2000s

By Samantha Rahmin

time

UNC

opnews

T

he new millennium brought many changes for our country. Control of the Oval Office shifted from Democrat, to Republican, back to Democrat, iTunes revolutionized the music industry, and DVD players ushered in a new era of entertainment. Even in the face of change, key American values have remained the same. Despite the fact that both Democrats and Republicans led the country over the last two decades, America’s military policy has continued promoting human rights internationally.

In both the 1990’s and the 2000’s, America has proven to be a war-like nation—not surprising considering our history of forceful foreign intervention to uphold democracy and human rights.

In the 1990’s, America was known as the

In both the 1990’s and the 2000’s, America has proven to be a war-like nation, known as the “world’s policeman. world policeman. This description has remained true for this past decade, as America continues to be involved with other nations’ issues. The 1990’s began with Saddam Hussein invading Kuwait, leading to the Gulf War and American troops being sent to Saudi Arabia. In 1993, American troops were sent to Somalia to overthrow an evil warlord. In 1994, American troops worked to topple military dictatorship in Haiti. At the end of the decade, troops were sent as NATO’s peacekeeping force first to Bosnia and then to Yugoslavia to stop government policies in Kosovo.

A decade later, America is still fighting other nations’ wars. In 2001, troops invaded Afghanistan to hunt down alQaeda and reduce the Taliban’s power.

Two years later, Colin Powell made a case for war in Iraq. Impossibly, with thousands of soldiers stationed in Iraq, the February 2010 HM Review

United States very soon admitted that there was not and had never been any threat of weapons of mass destruction from Iraq. America is still tangled up in both of these conflicts. Even though the times change, America continues to try to serve as a peacekeeper of the world and promoter of humanitarian values.

Although the United States has taken similar actions in international affairs throughout the centuries, domestic policies changed throughout the two decades.

Policy regarding issues such as taxes, education, gun ownership, and health care has dramatically changed from the 1990’s to the 2000’s. Despite changes in policy, America’s basic principles remain similar.

For example, most of America continues to value education. Despite different political parties in power and changing education policies, public opinion over the years has continued to support improvement to public education. Tax policy has shifted dramatically, especially with the economic crisis. Clinton ran in the early 1990’s on a platform of tax increases, while Bush ran in the early 2000’s on a platform for tax cuts. The causes funded by taxes also changed over the two decades; the military began to receive tons of resources at the expense of things like public works and education, a move that

Even in the face of change, key American values have remained the same. saw opposition and public outcry. Furthermore, health care and gun ownership laws both changed through the decades.

Many gun ownership laws that were initiated in the 90’s were revoked soon after.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution concerns the right to bear arms. For centuries our government has worked to uphold it. The change in law from the 1990’s to the 2000’s simply reflects the American people’s changing interpreta-

tions of the amendment. Health care has been and still remains a hot issue. Although health care laws are undergoing a transformation, the simple values behind them have lasted: most people believe that everyone deserves health care. The question that keeps coming up is how to fund it. Though government policy has changed, the public opinion regarding fundamental American rights and values has held strong.

Gay marriage is another hot topic that has been debated throughout the

By legalizing gay marriage, America is finally following its core value by promoting equality of everyone. two decades. Some states in America have been consistently taking steps toward legalizing gay marriage. Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage, and some states, including New Hampshire, Iowa, Connecticut, and Vermont, are following this trend. The United States was founded on the idea that everyone is created equal. By legalizing gay marriage, America is embodying its core value by promoting equality.

Like the reform following the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, the change is slow now, but it will pick up speed in the years to come.

On a cultural note, the 1990’s and 2000’s will always be associated with pop music’s increasing popularity. In the 90’s, New Kids on the Block kept their fame, and groups such as the Spice Girls and the Backstreet Boys controlled the industry. Hip-hop and rap became increasingly popular genres of music, and surprisingly, rock fell off the music charts for the first time in recent history. Pop, rap, and hip-hop music continued to be crowd pleasers throughout the 2000’s. Children’s music sales also became higher than ever

25

Features before. Singers such as Hannah Montana and the Jonas Brothers would not have made major headlines the previous century.

While popular music genres in the 1990’s and 2000’s did not change dramatically, the livelihoods of musicians did. Since the end of records and the rise of CDs in the 1990’s, the concept of the single as a profitable aspect of music was considered dead; consumers would need to buy an entire CD to have any song. In 2001, this all changed when iTunes instituted a policy making it legal for consumers to buy a song for 99 cents a track, effectively reviving the single with even greater force. In order to continue to turn a profit, musicians turned their attention to going on more live tours in more places, both nationally and internationally.

The greatest change from the 90’s

in the new millennium is the unprecedented exponential growth in technology. Technology revolutionized not only the music industry but also the movie industry. The 1990’s were the first time that many films cost a sizable amount of money to produce. There was a belief that high budget films with special effects were of higher quality. Movie attendance soared in the 90’s and still remain high in the 21st century. Movies still were high budget and filled with special effects. In the 2000’s, the mindset of the film industry changed because directors realized special effects are not the most important part of a movie.

Like music, similar movie genres were popular over the two decades, but the popular medium of viewing movies changed. 1997 was the beginning of DVD players. In 2001, DVD sales matched the

amount of VHS sales. Only two years later, DVD players topped video sales. Additionally in the 90’s most of the movies’ revenue came from movie theatres. By 2003, film studios’ revenue from home entertainment formats was much greater.

People working in both the movie and music industries had to change their careers to keep up with changing technology. This is only one example of technology revolutionizing the world and people adapting to survive.

Our new president, Barack Obama, ran on a platform advocating for Change.

As the years pass, many laws and customs in our country are changing. But despite the new technology and arguments about the best way to adapt to the quickly changing world, core values of our country have not wavered. HMR

cnn

nytimes

Picturing the Decade The 2000’s have seen countless transformations in culture, business, fear, and fads. Despite all these superficial changes, American values have remained constant.

digital

26

HM Review Vol. XIX

Features

time

cnn

2000s

itunes

cnn

nyt

digitaljournal

February 2010 HM Review

the cute kid

unlockmovies

27

Economics A Monster of Obama’s Design

Worh

An Analysis of the Stimulus

J

by alexander daniel

ust days after entering office, President Obama called for an injection of billions of dollars into the economy to spur job creation and consumer spending. As lawmakers in Congress ruminated over the pork-barrel spending bill, the White House and its economic advisors relentlessly pushed the measure, considering it paramount for warding off job losses. Amongst the perceived benefits of the bill: unemployment would not rise above 8.5% in 2009 and 3.5 million jobs by the end of 2010. Yet, a year later unemployment topped 10.2% in October 2009

28

and still stands at a ghastly 10.0%. The $787 billion of frivolous spending did not alleviate our economic predicament or generate enough jobs to justify its cost.

The stimulus package and its handling are quite possibly the greatest travesty in a long train of irrational progressive fiscal policies bankrupting America.

Although the 2009 stimulus package was one of the largest efforts of its kind, a history of failed stimulus packages had already disproved Keynesian economic thought. Most notably, in the early 1990’s Japan sought to jump-start its tanking economy with infrastructure

driven public works projects, instead of a tax-cuts to augment consumer spending and create jobs. Japan’s “Lost Decade” resulted in $6.3 trillion in wasteful projects and a ballooning national debt—now amounting to an astounding 160% of Japan’s GDP. President Obama chose not to heed to this historical context and instead vouched for a similar stimulus package.

Due to Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and fifty-eightseat surplus in the House of Representatives, the President drafted the bill with little Republican collaboration. Instead of stimulating the economy with income HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics

February 2010 HM Review

education are merely being saved. This develops an unsustainable job market, as jobs will be shed when the programs run out.

Furthermore, skeptics in the private sector, especially small business owners have been reluctant to hire because of skyrocketing government spending. “I don’t really see the private sector hiring much in the next few months,” says Brian Bethune, an economist at Global Insight.

“For the small-business sector there is just too much uncertainty about what happens beyond 2010.” That uncertainty stems from the devaluation of the U.S. dollar as the Treasury is forced to print more money to pay for ballooning deficits. In addition, small businesses and all American taxpayers will begin to feel the burden of the long-term ramifications of the stimulus package and increased spending. The U.S.’s gross debt in billions as a percent of GDP has risen from 57.4% in 2001 to an estimated 98.1%, as our debt reaches more than $14 trillion.

Although the increased debt cannot be directly attributed to the stimulus package, this imprudent addition exacerbates the situation. Consequently, as President Obama and Democrats attempt to balance the deficit, they have coined the idea of tax increases on small businesses to raise revenue. Instead of spurring job growth in a time of economic duress, due to the stimulus package and the inevitable tax increase it caused, President Obama is deterring individuals from hiring.

Rather than focusing initiatives on wasteful infrastructure-based stimulative spending, lawmakers should have encouraged small businesses to hire by slashing taxes and reducing spending.

Firms with fewer than 500 employees were responsible for 64% of job growth between 1993 and 2008. Real sustainable job creation rests in small business owners expanding their operations and investing in their enterprises. In the first quarter of 2009 small businesses were hemorrhaging jobs when the recession was cutting deep into the economy. In order to mitigate the source of jobs losses, Congress should have scrapped plans for increased spending. Despite calls from President Obama’s Director of the

National Economic Council, Larry Summers, the bill only included $288 billion in tax relief to small businesses.

If Milton Friedman’s life work and Reaganomics fall short of disproving John Keynes’ theory on government intervention in the economy, America’s increasing unemployment rate should afford sufficient evidence. However, President Obama continues to be disillusioned by the ability of the stimulus package to reverse our struggling economy. Instead of revising his failed approach, which 51% of Americans oppose, House Democrats and the Whites House are exploring the idea of another stimulus package. A second stimulus packaged, already passed by the House, would cost another $154 billion. Instead of abandoning the polices that failed to meet the administration’s expectations on job creation, progressives seek a continuation of failed tactics.

The major ramifications of taxpayer’s paying for excessive government spending outweigh the minimal benefits of another stimulus package. Eventually, as the American economy completely recovers from its deep recession, businesses and consumers are going to be forced to absorb inevitable tax increases. As home values and the market have recovered, the American economy has regained strength— despite, not because of the stimulus package. HMR

MDBPartners

tax cuts and a suspension on capital gains taxes to spur investment in the private sector, the President and his enablers in Congress flooded the bill with pork-barrel spending projects. The bill allocated $308 billion to discretionary spending programs, often wasteful proposals without merit. The extent of extravagance in the bill astounds most Americans.

Amongst the wasteful projects are $2 million for swine odor research, $11 million to connect the adjacent portions of Microsoft’s headquarters, and $1 million to remove Mormon crickets in Montana.

This proposal will hardly strengthen our country’s deteriorating infrastructure or encourage small businesses to hire new employees. Instead, they are aimed at saturating Democrat’s thirst for earmarks in their districts, under the guise of augmenting growth.

The nature of the stimulus package is not conducive to an immediate stimulus of the economy. Any stimulus package is intended to encourage spending, lending, and job creation by an immediate injection of capital into the economy. Theoretically, any major spending proposal succeeds by allocating money to projects immediately and causing temporary job growth, which could potentially allow for a recovery as investors regain confidence and consumer spending increases. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act failed to achieve this end. Only 11% of the $308 billion in discretionary programs were spent by FY 2010. Therefore, substantial portions of the programs take effect in a few years, after the economy is likely to have rebounded.

When House Speaker touted the bill, she noted ground-ready infrastructure projects, which could create jobs in the construction sector and simultaneous create valuable refurbishing of roads and bridges, assisting local economies. Yet, even according to the White House, only 80,000 jobs have been created or saved in the construction sector. In total, by December 2009 the White House estimated 625,000 jobs have been saved, using a total of $340 billion from the package. That amounts to $248,000 per job—hardly a reasonable sum in today’s economic climate. Moreover, very few jobs are being created; instead jobs in government and

29

Economics

DOT-COMing Back

The Internet Startup Industry in the 2000s

H

by justin burris

indsight is 20/20. In March of 2000, the technologyheavy NASDAQ Composite Index peaked at 5,048.62 points (more than 2700 points above where it stands today), before crashing to less than 2,300 points less than a year later. The reason for this collapse is the combination of many aligned forces coalescing to produce a wake-up call to investors and venture capitalists. The massive institutional sell-off of tech-giant stocks, the court’s ruling that Microsoft was a monopoly, lukewarm 1999 holiday season spending, and the market saturation of hardware (due to businesses’ purchasing new hardware to prepare for the Y2K bug) all alerted investors that perhaps there was not in fact room for the thousands of newborn internet startups to thrive.

The thousands of newly public internet companies, many of which were run by amateur twenty-somethings armed with computer science degrees and half-baked business plans, burned through their remaining venture capital quickly and were unable to receive more funding as their liabilities swelled, came due, and overwhelmed them.

But not all was lost for the technology wunderkinds. The select few companies that did survive the crash, the likes of Google, Amazon, and Ebay, managed to meet and even exceed the extremely

30

high expectations of investors. The companies that remained focused on profits rather than solely expansion managed to stay afloat. Building your name was no longer enough; you also had to build a revenue stream. These profit-oriented companies proved to investors that internet-based businesses could indeed be profitable, although these scarce winners are surrounded by eager and greedy upstarts with big dreams and small chances at profitability. And so in 2003, wary of the excess of the dot-com bubble, investors ventured forth to the tech industry once more to seek out the diamonds in the rough.

Since 2003, the flow of venture capital to tech startups has been building pace once more. As Google CEO Eric Schmidt said, “technology is always evolving, and companies…. not just search companies… can’t be afraid to take advantage of change.” Innovation invites entrepreneurship, and web innovation is no different. Since 2003, the web has become more ubiquitous, more powerful, and more dynamic, and savvy entrepreneurs have been able to capitalize on these developments and drive the web’s further evolution every step of the way. One of today’s hottest startups, Foursquare, provides a location-based social networking service that is only made possible by webenabled phones, a feature that was scarcely available before two years ago. Other

websites like YouTube and Last.fm take advantage of the rising speed of computers to provide services that require bandwidths that were unimaginable as little as five years ago.

As the last decade has drawn to a close, we have watched as the dot-com bubble peaked, crashed, and rebounded to a state where heedful investors are selective in their investment criteria. Investors have finally applied the traditional valuation measures like Price to Earnings and Price to Sales ratios to internet companies as they shift their focus away from growth potential to earning potential.

Investment has poured forth to flesh out new technologies as they arise and new ideas as they materialize, but only when a return on investment is within sight.

Author and technology researcher Daryl Conner encapsulated the driving forces of the web startup industry and any other high-growth tech-based industry when he said “The capacity of the human mind for invention far outstrips its ability to assimilate the changes that inventions produce.” Opportunistic entrepreneurs are always chasing after these changes.

Innovation will invariably occur and the entrepreneurship and financing will invariably emerge to keep pace with it. The 2000s have shown that bad memories and regrettable actions will yield to better technologies and new opportunities.

HMR

HM Review Vol. XIX

R

Economics

Regulation or Not? by samir nedzamar

E

conomic deregulation, the practice of removing government control and supervision over business and industry, has gained increasing momentum within the developed world since the conception of the idea.

Many prominent Republican politicians and presidents have supported deregulation, with Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush being deregulation’s most prominent supporters.

Although almost all of the world’s developed countries possess economic systems influenced by the ideals of the free market economy system, these ideas seem to be the cause of many of the most pressing international economic and social problems. For example, the U.S. financial crisis caused widespread unemployment, leading to increased poverty and lower household wealth. Several bills, acts and February 2010 HM Review

repeals prompted the financial crisis; many other shockwaves from past legislature are still felt today. Aside from the financial sector, the agricultural industry is one of the industries most affected by deregulation.

The banking industry is the most notorious example of the pitfalls of economic deregulation. Although many supporters of deregulation cite the Com-

The banking industry is the most notorious example of the pitfalls of economic deregulation. munity Reinvestment Act of 1977 as a key contributor to the financial crisis, their case does not hold up under scrutiny.

Their main accusation is that it encouraged lending towards customers with

no means available to repay. Contrary to this, Federal Reserve Governor Randall Kroszner has raised several interesting points. “First, only a small portion of subprime mortgage originations is related to the CRA. Second, CRA-related loans appear to perform comparably to other types of subprime loans. Only 6% of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas, the local geographies that are the primary focus for CRA evaluation purposes.” The Community Reinvestment Act showcased the benefits of government regulation, as it disavowed lending discrimination, allowing for lower class citizens to borrow money. Some economists cite the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act in 1999 as a contributing factor to the subprime mortgage crisis. The Glass Steagall Act separated commercial

31

Economics and investment banks to isolate the varying duties of the two. However, a 300 million dollar lobbying effort dismantled any division between the two entities and their individual functions. Another example of the many drawbacks of deregulation is the Financial Derivative Regulation/ Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, which removed derivatives from federal regulation and supervision.

It should be noted that derivatives where referred to by Warren Buffet as being “financial weapons of mass destruction”.

Alan Greenspan was the chairman of the Federal Reserve for almost twenty years, and was a staunch opponent of government regulation, especially when it involved financial derivatives. In a congressional testimony, Greenspan conceded his views on the deregulation, saying he was “partially wrong”. On August 11th, 2009, the Treasury Department under Ben Bernanke proposed new legislation that would call for the regulation of derivative markets, dealing a crucial blow to deregulation in the United States.

One of the most important American industries is agriculture, and al-

32

though it is not usually associated with economic deregulation, the changing economic landscape of America has exerted profound changes on agriculture.

Economic deregulation has changed not only the business of agriculture, but also the foods grown and the process in which they are grown. For better or for worse, deregulation has cultivated an economy greatly susceptible to radical change and innovation. Genetically Modified (GM)

Currently over 85% of all soybeans produced in the United States are genetically modified, and most of these seeds are produced by Monsanto. foods emerged in the U.S. in the 1980’s, and the first field tests were conducted in 1987. Many have realized the potential advantages that GM food can offer, advantages that include higher yield seeds and increased nutritional content via the addition of extra vitamins into plant genomes. However, there are many disadvantages to the widespread use of GM

crops. Although there have been many great advances in the field of genetics, it is still a science that has yet to be developed to maturity. This ambiguity poses a problem in itself, because the lack of knowledge results in poor safety laws and requirements. Currently over 85% of all soybeans produced in the United States are genetically modified, and most of these seeds are produced by Monsanto. Monsanto is also the world’s leading supplier of herbicides and pesticides.

There have been many allegations made against Monsanto, ranging from child labor in its foreign production facilities to the environmental damage caused by its products. Most disturbing is the fact that many former Monsanto executives now hold positions within the FDA, and viceversa. Many laws have been passed restricting government supervision of GM foods, and the genomes of the altered plants have now become the intellectual property of their owners. If the government wants to ensure the safety of America’s food supply, it needs to take a more active role in the development of genetically modified food. Many European

HM Review Vol. XIX

Economics countries boast government commissions operating for the single purpose of investigating and researching genetically modified organisms. Years of relaxed food safety laws have allowed companies like Monsanto to thrive, a company accused with everything from “customer abuse” to toxic waste dumping. While strict regulation will stifle advances in the industry, too little of it allows monopolies by companies like Monsanto. The government needs to watch over the agricultural industry to ensure that the food is safely produced without being overbearing. In its current state, the FDA does disturbingly little to ensure the safety of foods, especially the safety of newer genetically modified food. However, no matter what laws are put into place, they cannot be enforced properly when companies such as Monsanto have so much influence over the FDA. Should the banking industry operate independent from government moderation? What are the consequences of letting businesses manage our food supply? Both of these industries demonstrate some of the worst effects of deregulation. Furthermore, most of the troubles faced by these industries today have roots stretching back to the earliest days of deregulation. Business is governed by monetary profit, and it is very risky to trust corporations to handle themselves responsibly without adequate regulation.

HMR

Vegetable Growth On the right, soybean, top and canola, below, are two key crops that Monsanto grows.

Research and Development On the left, scientists from Monsanto work with hyperspectral imaging after Sandia National Laboratories and Monsanto Company begin cooperative research.

February 2010 HM Review

Monsanto’s History of Controversy Some headlines and books that have detailed the controversy surrounding Monsanto is as follows: (Jan. 1, 2002) “Monsanto Hid Decades of Pollution - PCBs Drenched Ala. Town, But No One was Ever Told” (July 2000) “The Legacy of Agent Orange” - An article describing the abuse of Agent Orange, an herbicide originally created by Monsanto.

(1999) Monsanto creates VGURTs (Varietal Genetic Use Restriction Technologies), in which seeds resulting from the first year’s planting would be sterile, thereby forcing farmers to buy their seed from Monsanto, rather than saving their best seeds to plant the next year. There is a public outcry in response to this news.

(1994) Monsanto uses “Roundup Ready” crops, which are engineered to withstand Monsanto herbicide glyphosate. The public’s negative reaction to the technology comes from a combination of both increased herbicidal resistance in weeds, and the dependence of farmers on purchasing Monsanto herbicides and seeds. HMR

33

Science and Technology

Welcome to the Factory Farm

M

by alexander posner

ost of us understand the difference between healthy and unhealthy foods. We understand the nutritional difference between french fries and salad. But what about the food industry itself? When you open a bag of chips or take a bite out of a burger, do you truly know where your food came from or all the effort it took to bring it to your plate? As Eric Schlosser, the author of Fast Food Nation, puts it, “There is this deliberate veil that is dropped between us and where our food is coming from. The industry doesn’t want you to know the truth about what you’re eating because if you knew, you might not want to eat it.”

In 1993, four children died and hundreds more were sickened after eating at the fast food restaurant Jack in the Box. The source: hamburgers tainted with Escherichia coli O157:H7 (E. coli).

The chain lost millions of dollars in the ensuing lawsuits, having to pay settlements in wrongful death cases. E. coli itself does not always pose a danger to

34

human life since it is commonly found in the lower intestines of warm-blooded organisms, including humans. However, the strain O157:H7 is a serious threat that often leads to kidney failure in humans.

During the past two decades, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of recalls of meat and other products contaminated with E. coli. You would think that with new technologies available, including UV light sanitation and the improved beef carcass washing systems, the safety of our food would increase, but this has not been the case.

Cows by nature are biologically intended to subsist off a diet of grass, but over the last 40 years the diet of bred cows has become a mixture of corn, growth hormones, and antibiotics. The U.S. government subsidizes corn, which is being planted on about 30% of our land base.

Because corn is so readily available and at such a cheap price, factory farms use it as the primary feed for cattle. Corn increases the amount of E. coli in the liver; if a cow were to suddenly switch from a corn diet to a grass diet for five days, 80%

of the E. coli in its body would disappear.

Corn is fed to not only cattle, but also to pigs, chickens, and even farmed fish. Environmentally, this creates a serious problem because the world’s livestock generate close to 20% of all carbon dioxide emissions annually – more than all forms of transportation combined.

Cattle release methane as a waste product of digestion, a gas 20 more effective in trapping heat in our atmosphere than CO2. So even though grass-feeding cows would significantly improve the safety of our beef and help the environment, the low cost, as a result of government subsidies, makes it more economical for beef producers to choose corn.

Meat producers recognize the danger corn feed poses and they attempt to fix the problem with antibiotics. In a typical CAFO, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, more animal feces are produced than by humans in New York City.

Animals stand ankle deep in their own manure and in an attempt to prevent the spread of disease, antibiotics are utilized.

Today, the majority of all antibiotics are HM Review Vol. XIX

Science and Technology going to animals in feedlots and the problem is that overuse of antibiotic leads to resistance. Animals are becoming increasingly resistant to previously effective antibiotics and we as the consumers are as well. This gives doctors fewer options to treat various diseases in the future, so in reality, feeding animals antibiotics is a band-aid solution to a larger problem and one that may also cause harm.

In 1970 the top five beef producers controlled 25% of the market. Today the top four producers control more than 80%, and a similar pattern of consolidation is occurring with poultry and pork production. As Eric Schlosser puts it, “Even if you are not eating at a fast food restaurant, you are eating meat that is being produced by this system. You look at the labels and you see farmer this farmer that. It’s really just three or four companies that are controlling the meat. We have never had companies this big and this powerful in our history.”

Since a few large companies have gained control of the market, the number of slaughterhouses has dramatically decreased. 30 years ago there were thousands of slaughterhouses in the United States, but today just 13 slaughterhouses process the majority of our meat. Since an individual hamburger can have pieces of meat from thousands of different cattle, if one cow is infected with E.

February February2010 2010 HM HMReview Review

coli, it can spread to many thousands of pounds of meat being shipped all over the country. That’s why today, single recalls can affect thousands or even millions of pounds of meat as beef producers have no way of knowing where that strain of E. coli could end up. Not only does this E. coli affect the meat itself, but the runoff from the feedlots where cattle stand ankle deep in their manure leads to outbreaks of the disease in vegetables we eat such as spinach.

Even though eliminating corn from the diet of cows is the best solution to this problem, the cattle industry doesn’t see it this way. As Michael Pollan, author of the Omnivore’s Dilemma, puts it, “The industry’s approach is when it has a systematic problem like that, is not to go back and see what’s wrong with the system. It’s to come up with some hi-tech fixes that allow the system to survive.” Therefore today, the meat industry relies heavily upon companies like Beef Products Inc. to create a meat filler that is now in 70% of all hamburgers in the country. Their filler is composed of meat scraps that have been cleansed with ammonia to kill E. coli.

While this process does kill the bacteria in the filler, it is questionable how effective the filler is at killing bacteria when mixed with other meat. There also are concerns about the safety of ammonia when consumed by humans and there

is some evidence that suggests it may be carcinogenic. Although this meat filler does help to address the problem of E. coli, it is not a sustainable solution.

And what about the Food and Drug Administration? In 1972, the FDA conducted 50,000 food safety inspections yet in 2006 they only conducted 9,164.

Worse, even if problems are found, the government does not have the right to shut down a slaughterhouse by law. This means that if meat from a particular factory consistently tested positive for E.Coli, they can decide to do nothing about it and not recall the meat.

During the Bush administration, the chief of staff at the USDA was the former chief lobbyist for the beef industry. At the same time, the head of the FDA was the former executive vice president of the National Food Processors Association.

As Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, says, “These regulatory agencies are being controlled by the very companies that they are supposed to be scrutinizing.” People are concerned about the government having too much control, but it is these giant corporations that we must watch out for. We trust our government to protect us, but when more people die yearly from food related illnesses than from terrorism, they continue to fail to do so at the most basic level. HMR

35

Tomorrow Never Knows

Where we were in the ‘00s, and where we’re going to go.

zunal

I

by alexandra falk

t’s 11:59 PM on December 31, 1999. There’s snow in New York but it’s always warm in California, and as a computerized clock in Silicon Valley strikes twelve a thousand engineers breathe out in relief.

Y2K bug notwithstanding, the new decade has begun.

February 1, 2003. Skies over Texas fill with smoke and shards of metal as space shuttle Columbia disintegrates upon its return from the ISS, killing all seven of its crew members. America remembers Challenger and is forced once again to acknowledge how dangerous the final frontier continues to be. Humbled, NASA will wait two years before it launches Discovery.

It’s a sticky August day in 2006 that

36

marks the end of Pluto’s 76-year long tenure as the coldest and tiniest planet in the Solar system. Some scientists howl with indignation, while the rest of the world shrugs its shoulders and continues to remember most very excellent mothers judiciously serving many nice pizzas, or whatever P completed their mnemonic of choice. It will be two more years before the little star-crossed hunk of rock is given the undignified classification of “plutoid.”

Nearly a century after the Great Influenza ravaged America with a ferocity not seen before or since, the WHO steps up on June 11, 2009, and declares that the most recent strain of influenza A virus (subtype H1N1) has achieved pandemic status, driving the uninformed to panic and the epidemiologists to exasperation.

Every twenty years, influenza comes back

with a vengeance, reminding us that we’re only human. * Ten years. It’s been ten years since the beginning of 2000. Ten years is a long time in the world of science, where things change hourly and last week’s dogma is next week’s nonsense. What do you remember of that tumultuous decade?

Were you paying attention? Did you care?

Too many people didn’t. Other people did, but for all the wrong reasons.

Eighty years after the Scopes trial and almost a hundred and fifty years after Darwin’s Origin of Species, Kitzmiller v.

Dover Area School District proves once again that science is always at the mercy of those who would demean it or compare its existence born of fact to tenets of faith.

Over the fall of 2005, eleven brave parents led by Tammy Kitzmiller argued against HM Review Vol. XIX

the Dover School Board’s decision to include intelligent design literature in its science curriculum. Allied with the teachers, men and women of principle who refused to tell students (to lie to students, in their words) that intelligent design was of the same scientific rigor as evolution, Fitzgerald and the others were able to claim a victory and expose intelligent design as a ploy by creationism at achieving any kind of legitimacy. The fraud persists, but the battle for truth is fought one day at a time.

Geneticists think of themselves as successors to the work begun by Darwin and Mendel, contemporaries who never met yet unintentionally simultaneously launched the greatest undertaking of all time. Biology is now understood in terms of their great work, at the evolutionary and molecular levels, though those lines blur further with each passing day.

Craig Venter is a jerk. He’s the CEO of Celera (a privately owned research company), a millionaire and a total egomaniac. He likes to compare himself to Darwin: he went on a private trip to The Galapagos to look for new species. But we cut him some slack, because you can do a lot when you’re partially responsible for the existence of the completed sequence of the human genome.

The race between Celera and the National Institute of Health’s Human Genome Project to release a complete sequence of the human genome is one of the more dramatic competitions in recent scientific history. It lacks the international bite of the 1960s’ space race, but it has already proved itself vital in shaping the future of mankind. The NIH’s HGP was lumbering, expensive and inefficient, but it had done quite a lot of work. Celera came into the game during the second half, and by utilizing a different sequencing strategy (see sidebar) it transformed the field of play. The NIH was forced to adopt Celera’s rapid-fire technique to avoid the shame of finishing ‘second place’. In the end, Celera and the NIH HGP both published their completed work in February of 2001, Celera in Science and the HGP in Nature, concluding the race with an unlikely draw.

All genetic sequence is now public and shared, available to anyone from a number of online databases.

The private sector is becoming increasingly involved in scientific adFebruary 2010 HM Review

vance. Privately owned companies like 23andMe promise to sequence your genome for a modest sum, somehow omitting the inexactitude, disingenuousness, and absurdity of such a result. Commercial space flight raises concerns about the worth of the tremendous gravity of space.

Does private space flight devalue the hard work and struggles of astronauts and their Russian counterparts, cosmonauts? Now anyone with enough money (and it is quite a lot of money) can sign up to be (after some months of training and briefing) a passenger on a commercial space flight.

There’s no denying the profitability of such an enterprise, and it’s true that scientific institutions are always in need of more funds. Some would argue that research institutions fritter away a lot of money on projects with no immediate import for mankind, like the LHC. The Large Hadron Collider is a subterranean device of Brobdingnagian proportions. Situated in Europe, its purpose is to help physicists find the answer to their Life, Universe, and Everything by superaccelerating protons, creating the conditions under which the existence or lack thereof of certain subatomic particles (one of which is the Higgs boson, known colloquially as the ‘God particle’ for the groundshaking ramifications of its existence) can be determined. Though fantastically important to physics, the weighty cost of operating the LHC has brought it under a lot of criticism. It probably didn’t help that just ten days after its first run on September 10 2008, a problem with a magnet caused the whole thing to stop working. Despite the jokes, the LHC is a true symbol of Big Science for the muchmaligned field of theoretical physics.

“Big Science.” It’s the term celebrity scientists use with a wink and a nod when they talk to soundbite-hungry reporters, trying to find terminology gripping enough to capture the public minds without boring or alienating them. It’s been more than sixty years since the Manhattan Project, and as the space race fades from recent memory, the world once again seeks a vivid scientific story that will get their pulse racing and their knees weak.

There are heroes of science even within the last ten years. Through swift thinking and swifter action, Dr. Carlo Urbani was almost singlehandedly responsible for

As the years go coursing by....

Here is a look at the scientific and technological high points of the previous decade: 2000 Y2K Glitch averted Start of residency in the International Space Station 2001 Wikipedia is launched Windows XP and Mac OSX released Human Genome Sequence published First commercial space flight 2002 Earth Summit 2002 Odyssey probe finds water on Mars iMac G4 introduced by Apple 2003 SARS outbreak Homo floresiensis fossils found Crash of Columbia Space Shuttle 2004 Firefox browser launched First privately funded human spaceflight Mach 9.6 achieved Taipei 101 opens 2005 Deep Impact launched Kyoto Protocol reinstated First face transplant 2006 Human Papillomavirus vaccine released Pluto demoted to dwarf planet status Blu-Ray released Google buys Youtube 2007 Red Cross adopts the Red Crystal Windows Vista launched iPhone released 2008 Petroleum hits $100 a barrel First bionic eye implants LHC switched on First privately funded space vehicle in orbit 2009 Influenza A H1N1 outbreak Ardipithecus ramidus analysis published Water found on the Moon Neanderthal genome draft published Spleen discovered to hold monocytes

37

Science and Technology the fastest and most efficient epidemic response in recent memory—that to the 2003 SARS outbreak. When he realized that one patient had something that could affect the whole world, he instantly contacted all the right people in all the right ways. He devoted his care and attention to treating and preventing the spread of SARS, eventually succumbing to the disease himself. In his last wish, he asked that his lung tissue be donated to research. He was a true scientist. He is an example for generations to come.

I have only scratched the surface of the work of the decade, but the years behind us pale in comparison to the future ahead. It’s terrifying, looking out at the years that fall away before us. What will you do? With science, that pure and fearless pursuit of knowledge, we transcend the boundaries of space and time. We can stare into the abyss and emerge unscathed because we know just how little we know and truly strive to understand, constantly pushing ourselves to the limits of our technology and conceptualization until we break through and shift the paradigm. We, with our computers like nervous systems and oceans of data to be analyzed, are truly fortunate. There are so many questions to ask that the words catch in my throat: human travel to Mars, dark matter lurking in the corners of the universe, the true nature of sublime God particles, the untapped power (and terrible ethical dangers) of prenatal gene replacement therapy… we are so young, and there is so much left to discover.

We have emerged from the first decade of the third millennium like victors from a race, covered in sweat, triumphant. What will you do? What will you do as we enter the second, skin rippling in goose bumps, unable to hide our incredible anticipation? We have only just begun to scratch the surface. The fate of the world is in our hands. HMR

38

Going Mobile While the iPhone has captured the fancy of thousands of people, Blackberry remains the king of the smartphone.

Blackberry Stock Prices Are Up North of 3250% by charles scherr

S

eventeen years ago, two Canadians, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis, founded Research in Motion Limited (RIM); the company that changed the way we communicate forever. They had an insight that would make them billions. Balsillie and Lazaridis observed the growing popularity of email and realized that designing a communication device around it would prove successful. The move to place email onto a mobile device gave rise to the first Blackberry. With the first Blackberry came addiction. People are constantly connected to work, school, and friends. Whether it is a vital e-mail on the device tethered to the belt of Obama, or a BBM saying “meet me in the caf,” billions of emails and texts ride the RIM network everyday.

The Blackberry is a remarkable tool. It is essential to business people throughout the world. It is utilized by people just like the many at Horace Mann who use the device to check email, call, text, organize, play games, BBM, research, check Facebook, and tweet.

From the small scale at HM to the largest corporations in search of a secure network, the Blackberry is now an essential fruit in our everyday diet. The Blackberry is as im-

portant to business people as the office itself.

Most people are addicted to the immediate access of unlimited information obtained from the Blackberry, giving way to what some call the “crackberry.”

The smart phone market is growing faster than ever. Blackberries and iPhones are filling the pockets of people around the globe. In 2008, there were 155 million smart phones sold worldwide. Experts predict that by 2013, 280 million smart phones will be sold. The crave to be connected at all times is a desire that is rapidly growing.

In a market filled with competitors such as Apple’s iPhone and the newly developed Google Android, RIM, with its Blackberry creation, has a sustainable lead over its main rivals. RIM appeals to the mass market, has engaged wireless carriers worldwide in a strategy of “constructive engagement,” and has built a secure and extensive network of global partners and application developers.

Once considered a business tool, Blackberry has made huge inroads into the consumer market. Blackberry, built on its “Blackberry-Messenger” (BBM) to target teens. “BBMing” has taken the world by storm, including the halls of Horace Mann.

In addition, RIM released the Blackberry HM Review Vol. XIX

lf. ate ed hat

ng es he art hat be is

ch ed ry in as a nd of s. knits get by n. ry

Science and Technology Curve for the “media maniacs,” complete with buttons that allow users to upload information to Twitter and Facebook.

Then there is the impact of the President using his Blackberry. “President Obama carrying a Blackberry was a tremendously sexy marketing tool,” said analyst Phillip Cusick. The Blackberry has also managed to remain the top choice for corporations as RIM boasts an incredibly secure emailing system. No other smartphone is as equally present in the boardroom, the classroom, or the Lincoln Bedroom as the Blackberry.

RIM’s strategy in creating their phones is one that is different and unique from their competitors. Although Apple only develops their IPhone with one carrier (AT&T), RIM’s strategy of “constructive engagement” further pushes RIM ahead of its rivals. The strategy refers to RIM’s efforts to partner with carriers to customize individual products, unlike Apple, which creates its devices separately and according to what Apple alone wants. Apple is basically a “take it or leave it” deal, while RIM modifies its Blackberry for the consumer. While Apple may be constantly losing customers on people who are reluctant to switch services, RIM ensures that consumers can buy a Blackberry no matter where their plan resides.

“Constructive engagement” opens up the Blackberry to almost everyone; while Apple is limited to AT&T clients.

Foreign consumers are only beginning to embrace the smart phone market.

With that in mind, RIM formed partnerships with 475 carriers in 160 countries over the past years. These partnerships will be sure to give RIM the upper hand when the smart phone market expands globally. Its view is once a Blackberry is in your hand or on the network of a corporation, the likelihood of it being dropped is low. The biggest potential growth may lie outside of the U.S., and RIM’s positioning in the global market gives it a huge advantage.

In addition to partnering with global carries, RIM built on the growing ‘App’ market by partnering and working with large enterprise developer communities.

The market for mobile applications is one that is rapidly growing. By 2014, Juniper Research estimates that the sale of moFebruary 2010 HM Review

Who Runs All This; RIM co-CEO Mike Lazaridis credited for putting blackberry on the forefront of success. bile applications could surpass $25 billion.

RIM offers its 1,700 partners: teams of developers, technical and marketing support, and an event with a chance to show their work to the company’s engineers. In addition, RIM keeps its partnerships strong with their “app creators” by letting them keep 80% of what they charge for their program, as opposed to Apple offering only 70%. RIM has a commanding knowledge of what will come in the future, and partnering with the engineers behind the quickly growing application market en-

sures Blackberry’s prominence for years to come.

Research in Motion began with the idea to put email on a mobile phone, and from there, grew to the phone that you check more often than you drink water.

We are obsessed with them; through the connections we have, the games we play, the endless amount of information in our hands. HMR

39

The Horace Mann Review Horace Mann School 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, New York 10471

40

HM Review Vol. XIX