Review THE HORACE MANN
Volume XXIII - September 2013
N.S.A.
Privacy Unlocked
Alumni Issue
Issue
1
Letter From the Editor
Review THE HORACE MANN
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief
Samuel Henick Executive Editor
Welcome back! I hope you are all well-rested from relaxing and fulfilling summers, and I am excited and optimistic for what the 2013-2014 year will bring. Now that August has come to a close, I am thrilled to present The Alumni Issue of Volume XXIII of The Review to the Horace Mann community. This first issue of the year is a special one for us in a multitude of ways. First and foremost, all of our writers for Issue 1 are either seniors or alumni - editors and writers on The Review staff from years past. A few years removed from Horace Mann’s Upper Division, our alumni writers have taken the unique opportunity to share their views from a somewhat later stage in their lives, diving into the social, political, and international issues that shape our world and the complexities that shake it. I hope you find their perspectives as recent graduates, college students, and workers both intellectually stimulating and refreshing. After all, what better way to learn about public policy issues than from this generation’s newest experts? Next, starting with this Review volume, I am proud to introduce a new cover and table of contents, a sleek look that our senior design team has worked hard to achieve. The efforts of Mihika, Jenny, Isaiah, and Sam are particularly commendable; without them, this issue would not be possible. As always, The Review also offers our monthly features topic, and for Issue 1, we’ve selected the National Security Agency as our theme. Without a doubt, N.S.A. has affected all of us this summer, challenging us to view our privacy, information, and surveillance with a more critical eye. The uncovering of the agency’s programs have called into question the role of government and have prompted us to assess, as Americans, what we value and what we fear. Turn to page 24 for a thoughtful piece by Nathan Raab ‘13 exploring PRISM’s justifications and criticisms. Many thanks to the alumni who so willingly disrupted their everyday lives to rejoin The Review’s table of contents. The network this magazine holds even beyond Horace Mann is truly remarkable, and I could not be more grateful. I’d like to thank Rebecca Segall ‘12 and Daniel Elkind ‘13 in particular, past EIC’s who gave me exceptional support and guidance. And of course, I’m appreciative of Mr. Donadio, our faculty advisor, for all the work he’s done behind the scenes to ensure The Review’s success. It is the dedication of our writers, editors, and staff, past and present, that make The Review what it is today: a magazine that stands for critical questioning, rational intellect, and opinionated, fact-driven discourse, forged through collaborative mentoring and friendship. What we’ve accomplished as both a current Review staff, and larger community, is absolutely incredible. I hope you’re fascinated by what we have to say.
Will Ellison David Hackel Sahej Suri
Jenny Heon* Mihika Kapoor Isaiah Newman
Managing Content Editors
Managing Design Editors
*Chair of the Senior Board
Catherine Engelmann Senior Editor - Features
Ben Greene
Senior Editor - Domestic
Hana Krijestorac
Senior Editor - International
Jonah Wexler
Senior Editor - Economics
Jacob Haberman
Senior Editor - Science and Technology
Daniel Baudoin Hannah Davidoff Henry Luo Mohit Mookim Kelvin Rhee Namit Satara Lenn Uchima Jacob Zurita Senior Contibutors
Neil Ahlawat James Megibow Edmund Bannister Adam Resheff Jenna Barancik Harry Seavey Lauren Futter Brett Silverstein Matthew Harpe Ikaasa Suri Laszlo Herwitz Nathan Tillinghast-Raby Emily Kramer Mitchell Troyanovsky James McCarthy Elizabeth Xiong Junior Editors
Charles Cotton Samuel Fisch Robert Hefter Sam Stern Associate Editors
Gregory Donadio
2
Caroline Kuritzkes Editor-in-Chief Volume XXIII
Faculty Advisor 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 more information at www.cjkwebdesign.com/review.
Table of Contents
Daniel Elkind ‘13
page 4
24 FEATURES
Bad Medicine for Republicans The successes of Obamacare and the problem of Republican obstructionism.
Mental Darkness page 8
An analysis of human-trafficking and modern slavery and what can be done to combat its current form.
30
Re-evaluating the Second Amendment Treshauxn Dennis-Brown ‘13
ECONOMICS
DOMESTIC
Rebecca Segall ‘12
page 10
Why the United States should follow in Britain’s footsteps and reform its gun protection rights of the colonial era.
Gay Marriage: The Fight is Not Over Isaiah Newman
page 14
Evaluating recent history of gay marriage cases in the supreme court.
INTERNATIONAL
16
32
Unfit for Democracy Samuel Henick
Nathan Raab ‘13
page 24
NSA Metadata collection is lawful. It should be.
A Defense of Corporate Raiders Deependra Mookim ‘11
page 30
A rebuttal of misconceptions about activist investing; why the practice is justified and necessary for society.
The Chinese Pollution Problem Lenn Uchima
page 32
The GOP’s War on Science page 16
Egypt’s contemporary history under scrutiny; why the country is still not ready for democratic change.
The TIPNIS Road: Complexities of Development Infrastructure Caroline Kuritzkes
PRISM: Legal and Beneficial
A consequence of economic success and government negligence.
page 22
The controversy over development policy can be traced to self-interested perspectives.
www.content.animalnewyork.com
SCI-TECH
4
Alexander Posner ‘13
page 34
The Republican party’s blatant rejection of scientific scholarship is corrupting our political discourse.
Cloud Computing: Revolutionizing the IT Landscape Mihika Kapoor
page 36
The value of the standardization and comoditization of cloud technology.
3
Domestic
BAD MEDICINE FOR REPUBLICANS
THE SUCCESSES OF OBAMACARE AND THE PROBLEM OF REPUBLICAN OBSRUCTIONISM Daniel Elkind ‘13
I
n the three years since President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the law has generated dramatic improvements in healthcare coverage. Already, insurance rates are plummeting for individuals and small businesses in many of the states which are implementing new insurance exchanges; millions of Americans who were without healthcare insurance will now have it; and individuals with preexisting medical conditions can no longer be denied coverage. But as Americans begin to experience
Obamacare’s many successes, Republicans continue to try to gut the new law with a chorus of misrepresentations. More concerned about politics than the welfare of the American people, House Republicans recently voted for the fortieth time to repeal the Affordable Care Act and have threatened to hold up a budget deal unless the new law is defunded. The rhetoric with which Republicans have drummed up opposition to Obamacare has proven to have little basis in reality. For example, in strong contrast
4
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
to Republican claims that the Affordable Care Act will raise insurance premiums, some states have already reported that premiums for individuals and small businesses will decline by huge amounts as a result of newly created insurance exchanges. While Republicans have assailed the law as an “assault on small business” and a sure “job-killer,” the law actually affects less than 1 percent of small businesses. Moreover, though Republicans have characterized the new act as a “government takeover” of healthcare, Americans re-
Domestic main free to use the same doctors and providers as before. Republicans seem to care little that millions of uninsured Americans either cannot get healthcare at all or obtain it through hospitals which pass along the costs to other Americans in the form of higher charges. A key component of the Affordable Care Act is the requirement that each state establish an exchange by which health insurance companies must compete against each other for business. By forcing competition, exchanges bring down insurance premiums, enabling both individuals who purchase their own insurance and small businesses which purchase insurance for their employees to obtain lower rates. Already, this provision has proven to be a striking success; state insurance regulators in New York have estimated that premiums for New Yorkers purchasing their own insurance will decline by 50 to 66 percent next year as a result of the new exchanges. Other states which have set up exchanges, including California and Oregon, have also reported drastic reductions in premiums. The experience of these states would seem to put a dagger into the argument that Obamacare will raise insurance costs. One would think that Republicans might now embrace the concept of exchanges, an idea once advocated by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Instead, Republicans have remained fixated on protecting insurance companies and opposing every aspect of the Affordable Care Act, regardless of its merits. Twenty-six states have declined to establish exchanges; twenty-four of those states are controlled by
A: www.sweetclipart.com B: www.npr.org
Republican governors who fear the political consequences of “abetting the law,” and the other two (Montana and Missouri) are run by Republican-dominated legislatures. Ironically, though Republicans claim to be defending the country against a “federal takeover” of healthcare, their refusal to establish state-level exchanges has required that the federal government do so in their place, resulting in more – not less – con-
or force local hospitals to absorb the costs of their treatment, then passing those costs along to other patients in the form of higher prices. Under Obamacare, the federal government would pick up the vast majority of these costs. The federal government currently pays the vast majority of states’ Medicaid expenses; Obamacare would cover 100 percent of the additional cost of Medicaid expansion for the years
“THE RHETORIC WITH WHICH REPUBLICANS HAVE DRUMMED UP OPPOSITION TO OBAMACARE HAS PROVEN TO HAVE LITTLE BASIS IN REALITY.” trol from Washington and burdening the Department of Health and Human Services with even higher expenses. Another key provision of Obamacare rewards states which expand Medicaid coverage for the poor. Medicaid provides healthcare for more than 60 million low income individuals, including children of impoverished families, the elderly, and people with disabilities. Obamacare provides large subsidies to states which agree to enlarge their Medicaid programs to cover all individuals with incomes of up to 133% of the poverty level, currently about $15,282. This Medicaid expansion would provide coverage to an additional 21 million individuals who are currently too poor to afford health insurance and who account for approximately half of the nation’s uninsured. Currently, these individuals either go without medical treatment
September 2013
2014 through 2016 and 90 percent of the additional cost for years after that. One would think all states would embrace the provision; millions of poor would be provided with healthcare, hospitals would be relieved from having to absorb and pass along the costs of treating millions who lack coverage, and the federal government would assume the cost of expanded coverage. Once again, however, Republicans have refused to go along. Nearly half of the states have refused to expand Medicaid coverage, and nearly all of them are controlled by Republicans. Republicans also strenuously oppose the universal healthcare mandate of the Affordable Care Act. Here, Republicans ignore the fact that the uninsured either go without medical care or incur costs which hospitals must then pass along to paying patients in the form of higher
5
Domestic
WHEN MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE PPACA GO INTO EFFECT:
2010
Children cannot be denied healthcare coverage due to a preexisting condition
Expansion of eligibility and funding for Medicaid
Dependant health insurance coverage available for dependents up to the age of 26
35% health insurance tax credit available for small businesses
2011
Minimum medical loss ratio for health care plans
Nondiscrimination rules apply to insured plans
charges. If individuals can be required to buy insurance as a condition for driving, why should they not be expected to purchase coverage to ensure that they can pay for their healthcare? For those who cannot afford coverage on their own, the new law provides large subsidies which enable them to pay the cost. In another example, Republicans continue to oppose the employer mandate in the new law, which requires that companies with at least 50 full-time employees offer qualifying healthcare insurance to their employees or else, if they fail to do so, pay a fine of $2-3,000 for each uninsured full-time employee beyond the first 35. Republicans have claimed that this provision will increase unemployment. However, Republican objections appear to be vastly overstated, not unlike their predictions that new taxes introduced during the Clinton administration would kill employment (in fact, employment soared un-
der Clinton). First, most large employers already offer health insurance coverage to their employees. Approximately 96 percent of all businesses in the United States, or about 5.8 million out of 6 million total businesses, have under 50 employees and are not affected by the act. Because the vast majority of those businesses affected by the law already provide healthcare insurance to full-time employees, it is estimated that the Affordable Care Act will actually impact less than 1 percent of all small businesses. Furthermore, while the new law will add cost for some businesses, the cost will be limited; companies which do not provide insurance for all full-time employees pay a fine of only $2-3,000 for each such employee, and pay fines only for uninsured full-time employees after the first 35. Finally, those businesses which provide insurance coverage share the costs of that insurance with their employees, receive substantial new tax credits, and
benefit from lowered costs on the new insurance exchanges. The Affordable Care Act promises many additional benefits about which Republicans are notably silent. The act will prevent insurance companies from refusing to provide insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions, preventing insurance companies from providing coverage only as long as individuals remain healthy; the act will allow young adults to gain access to insurance coverage by remaining on their parents’ insurance until they turn 26; the act will assure that women are not subjected to higher insurance rates than men and will provide seniors with added coverage for prescription drugs. One of the other important provisions of the Affordable Care Act requires insurance companies to spend more of Americans’ insurance premiums on actually providing healthcare. Insurance companies
6
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Healthcare facts from www.barackobama.com Timeline from www.rollerconsulting.com
Domestic
“IT IS REGRETTABLE THAT REPUBLICAN LAWMAKERS AND PUNDITS CONTINUE TO ENGAGE IN A COURSE OF DENIAL EVEN AS THE BENEFITS OF THE NEW LAW BECOME MORE AND MORE APPARENT TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC.”
2012
2013
Hospitals with high rates of preventable readmissions face reduced Medicare payments
have imposed enormous costs on healthcare for individuals while at the same time limiting what they pay out to doctors and hospitals. Under the so-called “80/20 Rule,” Obamacare requires that insurance companies spend at least 80 percent of premiums on healthcare and limits insurance company profits and overhead to 20 percent. Insurance companies that don’t meet this requirement must send refunds to their customers. In 2012, insurance companies sent out premium rebates to approximately 13 million Americans; this summer alone, some 8.5 million Americans are expected to receive premium rebate checks averaging about $100 each. Even though government insurance exchanges have not yet been fully implemented, health care costs have already begun to abate. Government data released in July shows that personal expenditures for healthcare goods and services during the year ending in May, 2013 rose at the lowest rate in some 50 years. Republican criticism of the Affordable Healthcare Act is also undermined by the experience in Massachusetts, where the legislature implemented similar healthcare reform under then-governor Mitt Romney. The Massachusetts law, like the Affordable Healthcare Act, contains a mandate requiring all citizens to have health insurance, although Obamacare contains many additional provisions designed to reduce healthcare costs. Recent polls taken seven years after the Massachusetts reform program was implemented indicate
2014 Annual limits on coverage prohibited
Employers are required to report the cost of employees’ health insurance on W2 forms
State health insurance exchanges must be established
No pre-existing conditions exclusions for adults
2015 & ON Tax on high cost insurance plans
Interstate health care choice compacts
September 2013
that as much as 84 percent of Massachusetts citizens are happy with healthcare reform in their state. Like many new laws effecting broad change, some provisions of Obamacare have required modification or delays in implementation. The Obama administration has agreed to delay by one year implementation of the new employer mandate because companies complained that they could not yet comply with the new provision. A limit in the law on deductibles and co-payments to $6,350 for an individual and $12,700 for a family has been delayed for one year to 2015 at the request of the insurance companies, which were not able to implement compliance in 2014. These delays are not unreasonable. Many major pieces of legislation, including the hugely successful Social Security Act signed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, have required similar modifications or delays. Although the Affordable Care Act has not been fully implemented, it holds tremendous promise. It is regrettable that Republican lawmakers and pundits continue to engage in a course of denial even as the benefits of the new law become more and more apparent to the American public. One wonders whether Republicans are stepping up their efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act because they are fearful that it may prove a success. HMR
7
Domestic
MENTAL DARKNESS Recognizing and Combating Modern-Day Human Trafficking REBECCA SEGALL ‘12
P
lantation life. A slave-owner’s cruel whip. The Underground Railroad. These are the images the word slavery may evoke in the modern American mind. But the truth is that slavery is very much alive, on every continent and even in our own communities. Modern-day human trafficking is one of the most pressing threats to civil liberty, and indeed to human dignity, that we face today. While we should be proud of the legislative action our government has taken to end the forced migration, sale, and labor of individuals, a much more comprehensive policy is needed to protect the modern-day slaves living among us. For such an egregious violation of basic human rights, human trafficking does not hold the attention it deserves in the media or contemporary civil discourse. And it is a lack of appreciation for the nuanced set of issues trafficking victims face that makes it such a difficult wrong to right. But according to the American Bar Association, in the United States, “more than 100,000 citizens are estimated to be victims of trafficking - although, because data are scarce, many experts say the number is actually much higher.” In the same vein as the institutionalized chattel slavery of America’s youth, modern human trafficking entails the “recruiting, harboring, transporting, providing, or obtaining” a person for the purposes of compelled labor or commercial sex acts, according to the U.S. Department of State. Traffickers may use
fraud, force, or coercion to gain and maintain such power over victims. While the most common cases of human trafficking involve the exploitation of girls and young women for the sake of prostitution, diverse victims are forced into myriad forms of labor—even a considerable number of males. It is quite possible that in New York City, you have passed by victims of human trafficking shackled in major industries such as hospitality, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, healthcare, massage parlors, and janitorial or domestic services. As the FBI chillingly points out, sex slavery happens “locally in cities and towns, both large and small, throughout the United States, right in citizens’ backyards.” Though the U.S. acts as a world leader in the battle against human trafficking, it remains a major source, transit, and destination country for forced laborers. U.S. citizens are no less vulnerable to traffickers’ deception and force than foreign nationals. We should celebrate the institutional strides we have made over the past century and a half to end trafficking in persons. However, the fact that we no longer officially tolerate slavery necessarily spells out problems in recognizing and preventing it. Traffickers must now find ways to conduct their business as quietly as possible, using all sorts of methods to keep their victims out of the public eye. Domestic service and prostitution, for instance—common destinations for trafficked women—are worlds apart from the domain of a labor inspector. Beatings and threats of vio-
8
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
lence towards a victim or the victim’s family are a common means of control used to keep individuals away from precisely those capable of helping them. It may seem there is only so much a police force can do when the exploited are conditioned to avoid the authorities at all costs. The paradox of the milestone antislavery policy of the nineteenth century is that it has forced slavery to take on a more insidious form. Indeed, fear is one of the most effective tools used not only to keep individuals in forced servitude but also to prevent them from reaching out to those who may help them. It may seem that in contemporary Western civilization, no American could allow himself or herself to be deprived of such basic freedom. If we see victims of human trafficking in storefronts and on public transportation, how can they be said to be imprisoned? Why don’t they just run away? But human trafficking, perhaps more than any other social evil practiced today, cruelly demonstrates that the phenomenon Frederick Douglass once described as “mental darkness”—a condition of moral degradation and psychological pain inflicted on an abused individual—still holds traction in the human spirit. The lack of understanding for this mental darkness hinders an effective social and legal response. The mechanisms that ensnare individuals in slavery are complex and seldom evident. Debt bondage is a prime example of such fraud and coercion; traffickers convince
Domestic their victims that they owe money or labor in exchange for their transportation or maintenance. To withhold a foreigner’s passport or to addict a victim to drugs also serve to limit mobility or independence. The prospect of coming to America to find employment is a typical ploy for foreign traffickers to get hold of their prey, but U.S. citizens are just as easily pulled into forced servitude through deception from online predators or even through being prostituted by their own families. It is difficult to unchain the exploited when the chains are invisible. While human trafficking clearly must be combated on the policy level, a widespread failure to consider the finer points of the issue has rendered many approaches ineffective. It was only until recently that the concept of what activists call the “victim-centered approach” became part of the discourse. Previous strategy focused primarily on uncovering and prosecuting traffickers. In 2012, the Department of Justice initiated 128 human trafficking prosecutions, a meager sum when taking into account the hundreds of thousands of victims trafficked in the U.S. annually. Most of these cases exclusively involved sexual exploitation of children; NGOs have opined that such governmental efforts neglect other vulnerable populations or forms of trafficking. Perhaps it is a natural consequence of such a subtle legal and civil issue that anti-trafficking laws tend to lack consistency and uniformity across different state and federal jurisdictions. Regardless of how strongly criminalized human trafficking has become in recent years, to prioritize seeking and convicting traffickers and pimps is clearly insufficient. Here is what else is wrong with a prosecution-centric approach: as counterintuitive as it may seem, when law enforcement intervenes in human trafficking rings, more often than not the very victims of this evil are treated as criminals. The fear of being convicted as a prostitute for having committed illegal sex acts, for instance—a tragic reality for many women forced into prostitution—is a deterrent from seeking help. Even foreign-born children, unprotected by our nation’s protocol for child offenders, may be tried and convicted of laboror immigration-related crimes. Our judicial system must continue to refine its sensitivity toward those who broke the law under force or coercion, or we will continue to prosecute and punish the very people we seek to liberate. A basic lack of cultural awareness for what human trafficking is and how it devastates our fellow human beings also hinders law enforcement, good Samaritans, and even victims themselves from moving towards prog-
ress. For instance, while police officers, industrial inspectors, or immigration administrators may have a vague sense of the indicators of trafficking, most are not equipped to address the situation appropriately. Many fail to appreciate the psychological effects slavery may have
even they may not perceive themselves as such. As much as the exploited may wish to break free, addiction, perceived indebtedness, promises of a better life from their abusers, or “trauma bonding”—an exploitative emotional relationship between the abuser and the
on victims—a sense of fear, shame, confusion, and guilt that may make it near impossible to speak out. Indeed, it often takes months or even years for lawyers or social workers to build a bond strong enough with victims to encourage the sharing of their experiences. “They believe they can’t trust anyone,” psychologist and trafficking victim-specialist Siliva Saravia explains; “they know that people are not playing around, they know that the assailant will carry out their threats.” Subsequently, the laudable initiatives various NGOs and law enforcement units have taken to train specialists to work effectively with suspected trafficking victims must be expanded and refined. The Department of State notes the need to guide “government-supported front-line responders” with systemic procedures to identify victims; healthcare providers, educators and other professionals should be taught the right questions to ask to gain information on workers’ living and payment situation without scaring them off. The immigration relief programs that the Department of Homeland Security is in the process of fine-tuning to assist foreign-born victims could also expand its trauma exception to provide support to traumatized victims facing deportation. Public awareness campaigns can go a long way in educating the public on the reality and locality of modern-day slavery. More distressingly, another acknowledged barrier towards rescuing victims is that
abused—prevent those most vulnerable from recognizing the need to seek freedom. Here too, programming and publicity campaigns on a local level may be the most effective tool for empowering victims to speak out. Uncertainty over the ability to support oneself upon being freed from bondage is a considerable factor to weigh in deciding whether to reach out. While federally-funded victim assistance programs and grant programs for vulnerable youth do exist, many NGOs express concern that they do not go far enough in providing adequate shelter, healthcare, counseling, or legal guidance for victims. We cannot feasibly hope to free the hundreds of thousands of slaves exploited in this country if we do not work towards providing hundreds of thousands of beds. But coordination between law-enforcement, NGOs, social workers, and advocates may hold the key to a sensitive and effective means of supporting those in need. Our communities can fight human trafficking if we keep an eye toward identifying, protecting, and rehabilitating the exploited. And the first step towards refining our tools for understanding and helping victims is to recognize modern-day slavery as such. Obvious as it may seem, each of us must agree with President Obama that “it is barbaric, and it is evil, and it has no place in the civilized world.” HMR
www.newslivetv.com
September 2013
9
Domestic
Re-evaluating the Second Amendment
The United Kingdom as a Model for American Firearm Liberation Treshauxn Dennis-Brown ‘13
O
n the July 21, 2011 rendition of the since retired Cafferty File segment on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” an online participant humorously derided the American Public’s attention span as having “a life span shorter than a fruit fly.” While this comment found its inception in the debate surrounding the Tea Party’s “rigid line” on the Debt ceiling crisis, a national setback which ironically remains
fresh in our minds, these words remain insightful as to the American public’s stance on what should be the dominating news story of today: Gun Laws and the Second Amendment. Invariably, current events continually shift our attention towards new, groundbreaking arenas of tidings, such as SCOTUS’s massive week of legislative rulings and the succeeding George Zimmerman ruling, but are not
10
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
to derail the other important issues of the day; for example, the so called “discussion on gun rights” that was supposed to have occurred a year ago. Even as recently as April, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a majority of Americans support individual gun control proposals, finding that 56 percent support bans on the sale of unspecified “assault” weapons, while 56 percent support bans on ammunition www.deerfield.edu
Domestic clips larger than 10 bullets, and 86 percent support mandatory background checks for people “buying guns at gun shows or online.” Yet, we are nearly a year removed from Aurora and almost as much removed from Sandy Hook, and while the gun rights backlash was intense then, it is virtually nonexistent now. Even to recall the Trayvon Martin case, the imminent danger of possessing a gun has taken a virtual backseat to racial tension. The reasons for this are straightforward. Due to gun lobbying ranging from large scale interest groups such as the looming National Rifle Association to the more individual right wing appeal for protection of Second Amendment rights, unfortunately it appears that the discussion on gun laws has and will be tabled until another devastating tragedy occurs. However, the model for reformation of the nation’s gun laws does not reside in the American Public. Most historians would rightfully affirm that American history is but a subset of European History, as the New World was shaped largely by Western thought. Today, this rule of thumb still remains, that America exists as the brainchild of European enterprise, and no amount of either American Nationalism or Exceptionalism can change that. The evidence of European influence resides in classic American “trademarks”—in our very own national anthem, the tune for which dates from a mid-1770’s British drinking song, in the hallmark tenets of our Declaration of Independence, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, which find their inception in the enlightenment ideals of Rousseau and Locke, and most importantly, in our Bill of Rights, modeled in almost exact likeness to its British counterpart. It is the last similarity that’s most striking, because although the American and British Bills of Rights are identical, they also represent the biggest breach from the parallelism just modeled. This breach is illustrated in one summation: The British Bill of Rights guarantees the right to arms, yet the United Kingdom has virtually eliminated the presence of guns within its borders. This paradox is unfathomable to the modern American, but yet it is exactly what the United States needs to replicate. It is imperative that America continue as a subset of European History, and like the United Kingdom, lay to rest its outdated mandates from the colonial era. And how best to continue European tradition than to return to what
we learned in European History? The British Bill of Rights found its nativity in the aftermath stemming from the Glorious Revolution of 1688, informally referred to as the Bloodless Revolution, as a measure to curb the powers of the monarch while simultaneously guaranteeing the rights of all British citizens, especially those of the Non-Conformist Protestants (James I having waged war on the rights of Protestants, while showing excessive favorability towards Catholics). The conflict began as a result of English Parliamentarians becoming increasingly concerned with the likely prospect of James I’s installing of a Roman Catholic regime, due to the birth of James’ son as heir apparent, displacing Mary, the spouse of William of Orange. This imminent reality soon lead to a coalition of Parliamentarians (influential Tories siding with the Whigs) to seek intervention from the Dutch William of Orange who had also feared an Anglo French Alliance. The ensuing conflict is ironically referred to as “bloodless” as James’ regime simply collapsed due to his abdication following but a few skirmishes between the armies and a handful of Catholic riots—a far cry from the belligerent bloodshed that could have occurred. The term bloodless is yet still ironic, because the Revolution created
monarch be permanently curtailed so as to ensure the legislative power of Parliament, and that the individual rights of English citizens be protected. Pertaining to the document’s third achievement, the most applicable provision to this essay would be the statement: “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defense suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.” Therefore, in a country where the right to possess arms is guaranteed by one of the most central documents of its constitution, how did the eventual near absence of firearms come to fruition? Upon closer inspection of English history, the process was not immediate, but rather a nigh century-long series of flashpoint legislation, some of which being the reasonable response to firearm tragedies such as seen in America today. In 1900 England, Prime Minster Robert Gascoyne-Cecil went on record stating that he would “laud the day when there was a rifle in every cottage in England.” Yet, three years later England underwent an abrupt near about-face with the passage of its first ever gun control law, thus requiring a permit to carry a handgun and restricting the age of purchasers. Skip ahead thirty years to 1936, short barreled shotguns and fully automatic firearms were
"The British Bill of Rights guarantees the right to arms, yet the United Kingdom has virtually eliminated the presence of guns within its borders. " reverberations with lasting consequences which manifested themselves in the form of smaller conflicts such as the Williamite War in Ireland and government/business changes in the American colonies. However, in perspective, these consequences were rather short-lived, at least in juxtaposition to the most influential development of the Glorious Revolution—the English Bill of Rights. The provisions as detailed in the document were groundbreaking for the time because they accomplished three goals; that the monarch could never be Catholic or be espoused to a Catholic (until the English Succession to the Crown Act of 2013 is signed), that the powers of said
September 2013
outlawed as the government legislated that civilians had “no legitimate reason” for owning them. Finally, in 1988 all semiautomatic rifles were banned, including pump action rifles. It is important for one not to misunderstand and think that the aforementioned laws constitute the entirety of English anti-firearm legislation, but rather to understand that these are the major flashpoints of legislation passed solely on government oversight. The truly groundbreaking legislation came as a response to national tragedies, a sort of reaction virtually non-existent in American Congress, as Congress has yet to display one iota of responsiveness to recent
11
Domestic occurrences. The 1967 Shepard’s Bush Murders, perpetrated by lifelong criminal Harry Roberts and his accomplice, were the ruthless killings of three plainclothes police officers who only sought to question the suspicious looking duo. Succeeding a national manhunt for the killers and public outcry, the government seized the opportunity to restrict shotguns in 1968 and outlaw the carrying of guns by private citizens. Yet still, the momentum for total gun confiscation stemmed from the Hungerford Mass shooting, when Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting random innocent people on sight. Angered by the deaths of seventeen people, the British public, much like the American public dwelling on the aftermath of Aurora’s 12 people dead and 70 injured, demanded even tougher legislation on firearms than had been previously seen in the preceding 80 years. The proverbial “straw that broke the camel’s back” came nine years later with the UK’s very own Sandy Hook Massacre (from an American perspective), as a Thomas Hamilton employed a semiautomatic weapon to murder one teacher and 16 children at a public school. The following field day from the public and British media eventually resulted in the Dunblane Inquiry, sealing the fate of all privately owned firearms in the Firearms Amendment of 1996. Returning to the Land of the Free, three thousand miles across the Atlantic, America’s climate is growing increasingly dangerous as long as its inhabitants and legislative bodies continue metaphorically sitting on their hands when it comes to gun legislation. The shanty justifications for ineptitude? The unrelenting clinging to the language of a 200 year old document, as pertaining to the Second Amendment, the appeal of weapon possession as an instrument of self-defense and safety, and the pervasive argument that regardless of whatever gun legislation is passed, the criminal will, without fail, be armed, by whatever illegal means necessary. While these arguments are admittedly quite formidable, they can be deftly bypassed by a coalition of pure reason and statistical data. The Second Amendment is truly the most formidable aspect of pro-firearm debate, as it is a member of one of the most central documents of the country, the Constitution, the instrument by which all
law is defined and manufactured. Whereas the political theory of the Declaration of Independence is celebrated (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) the instrument by which those ideals are guaranteed (i.e. the Bill of Rights) is equally, if not more celebrated. However, one must never forget that political climates and public opinion are always in a constant state of flux, thus requiring that the laws fit into the current framework of the day. It is for this reason that the amendment process for the Constitution was introduced, so that the pursuit of happiness for the American public would never be restrained by an aging, irrelevant document. This aging factor is unfortunately one that is applicable to the Second Amendment, a statute framed in a political climate that constantly feared the looming prospect of government turned dictatorship. Therefore, so as to combat that reality of an overarching monarch, the citizens were afforded the right to self-arms so as to protect against tyranny and its distasteful practices, such as a standing army in peacetime. In 2013, in the land of the self-proclaimed “leader of the free world,” democracy is ingrained to such a point where fears of monarchy and tyranny are obsolete, thus rendering any provisions to protect against it obsolete as well. If this country were indeed to look to the UK as a model for liberation from firearms, it should take the words of Sir William Blackstone to heart in his Commentaries on the Laws of England:
12
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
“Now is the time for humility: for us to look across the oceans and reap the knowledge of others in an arena where we have failed on guns.”
“The fifth and last auxiliary RIGHT of the subject… is that of having arms for their defense, suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law… is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.” Allegedly, America is a great place and concurrently regarded as “the home of the free.” Are its laws “found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression?” On the other hand, the argument
Domestic prostrating guns as the supreme instrument of safety and self-defense is readily dissolved with reason and cold, hard facts. Firstly, there is the outspoken argument that if all persons exercised his or her rights to arms, the prospects of future mass shootings would be severely counteracted. Honestly, if that were the case, why aren’t media outlets flooded with accounts of chivalrous John and Jane Does who, in the heat of the moment, heroically dispatched would-be mass murderers, in comparable amounts to the litany of times one hears about mass shootings? Simple. Possession of firearms does not translate to increased safety, or righteous vigilantism for that matter. In fact, more often than not, guns are the perpetrators of danger as opposed to safety, especially in the home. With one in three American homes in possession of a firearm, the amount of accidental deaths is becoming more staggering every year. According to a report filed by the Washington State Department of Social Health Services, a child or teen is killed once every seven and a half hours with a gun, either by accident or by suicide. In 72 percent of these cases, the firearm used was found in the home. The American Academy of Pediatrics urges Americans not to keep guns in their homes because of growing, but obvious statistical data that homes with guns are more likely to also be homes with suicides, murders (two-thirds of all murders are committed with guns), and gun-related accidents. With all these accidents and crimes, it is by far a refreshing thought that gun infractions in this country have never escalated to mass shooting status. Right? The profession of self-defense is also a flop. For the homeowner who buys a gun with the intention to protect against home break-ins, the statistics say that only five percent of all home invasions by a stranger occur with the occupants in the residence. Therefore, statistically, having a gun neither protects against, nor reduces the risk of injury during an intrusion. Finally, the crying of self-defense has statistically never been favorable in American courts. In fact, in a study in which criminal court
“As the direct result of the sweeping anti-firearm legislation passed 16 years ago, 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off the streets.”
September 2013
judges from across the United States read 35 descriptions of reported self-defense firearm uses from two national surveys, these judges found that in most of the cases, the self-defense gun use was illegal as many were domestic disputes that had simply escalated into firearm usage. It is clear that the dangers that guns pose far outweigh whatever possible benefits gun rights advocates profess. Finally, as for the generalization that criminals will always obtain weapons by circumventing whatever laws are enforced, perhaps one final look across the ocean is necessary. As the direct result of the sweeping anti-firearm legislation passed 16 years ago, 200,000 guns and 700 tons of ammunition were taken off the streets that year alone, the founding step in gun legislation culminating in the fact that the solitary few gun crimes committed in the UK are carried out with rebuilt antique weapons and homemade bullets. Ballistics data in the UK indicate that all of its gun crimes can be traced back to a mere thousand firearms. This almost utopian reality in comparison to the American status quo was achieved by en masse registrations, buybacks (by the millions), and police raids. Is this a working model? The proof is in the pudding as the UK suffers from on average solidly fewer than 200 deaths a year by firearm as opposed to America’s staggering 30,000. American exceptionalism has always dictated that America has surpassed all other nations in morality, political ideology, and power. However, now is the time for humility: for us to look across the oceans and reap the knowledge of others in an arena where we have failed – on guns. To do otherwise is to endanger the livelihoods of America’s innocent people, as collateral damage of abominable party politics and anti-partisanship. Mother England has recognized the imminent danger its people once faced and legislated so as to put them at risk no longer. It is time for America to follow in Britain’s footsteps, again. HMR
13
Domestic
GAY MARRIAGE
THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER.
www.goodreads.com
O
By Isaiah Newman
n July 26, 2013, the Supreme Court issued two of its most heavily anticipated decisions in years. While the Court rarely takes action on important and controversial social issues (such as abortion, in Roe v. Wade), generally wanting to engage in as little social policy-making as possible, the nine justices chose to hear these two cases, United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry, both dealing with the incredibly contentious issue of gay marriage. United States v. Windsor was primarily concerned with the Defense of Marriage Act (often abbreviated as DOMA), signed into law in 1996 by President Bill Clinton. The portion
of the law which has come under fire in recent years, and with which Windsor was primarily concerned, was Section 3, which explicitly defined marriage on the federal level as between a man and a woman, effectively making it impossible for homosexual marriages to be federally recognized, and thus receive any of the federal benefits that come with marriage. Under the provisions of the law, it did not matter if an individual state legalized gay marriage; as far as the federal government was concerned, such a marriage effectively “never happened”; in other words, it was not actually a marriage. It is unfortunate, even shameful, that such an absurd and discriminatory piece of
14
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
legislation as DOMA was ever enacted and enforced in this country. Not only did it deny many Americans of the rights and legal privileges that they fully deserved, but also in doing so, it violated the 14th Amendment entirely. The 14th Amendment grants all citizens of the United States the “equal protection of the law.” Section 3 of DOMA, however, excludes an entire class of American citizens from this protection, by denying their right to the protections that marriage affords, simply because they were born with a sexual orientation that is not considered “normal” by traditional Christian standards. It was almost akin to the federal government covering its ears like
Domestic a small child does, and shouting that it did not believe in homosexuality. Not only is such a law a constitutional violation, but it is also simply poorly constructed and horribly unequal policy. Thankfully, in February of 2011, the Obama Administration announced that it would cease to defend the constitutionality of Section 3 in court, because, in the words of Attorney General Eric Holder, the law contains “precisely the kind of stereotype-based thinking and animus that the [14th Amendment’s] Equal Protection Clause is designed to guard against.” Then, in 2013, a full and official challenge to DOMA finally made it to the Supreme Court, and Section 3 was ruled unconstitutional and struck down by a 5-to-4 majority, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing the majority opinion. While Kennedy’s primary concerns were affording states full autonomy to determine what can and cannot be recognized as a marriage within their borders and federally granting same-sex couples the same “dignity” that states which have legalized gay marriage have granted them, the result is the same; an unjust
and fundamentally unconstitutional law has been struck down. This still does not mean, of course, that all states must recognize homosexual marriages; Kennedy was careful to leave such decisions up to the states, no matter how much an individual state may, out of ignorance and prejudice, discriminate against its own citizens solely on the basis of whom they love. The implications of the Court’s ruling in Hollingsworth v. Perry are even less far-reaching. The case was concerned with the constitutionality of Proposition 8, California’s public referendum that had placed a ban on same-sex marriages within the state. Rather than making a definitive ruling on the matter, however, the Court used a procedural technicality to allow the decision of the California Supreme Court to stand, causing Proposition 8 to be ruled as unconstitutional in California, but leaving similar measures around the country entirely intact. Not surprisingly, the Court used an excessively convoluted technical feature of the appeals process to remove itself from having to make broad social policy for the nation.
Same Sex Marriage in the US AS OF JUNE 26, 2013
September 2013
It is important to recognize these decisions as victories for the rights of homosexual individuals. Any same-sex couple that decides to get married under the laws of their state now has the full ability to do so, and will receive the same protection as heterosexual couples. And, in the wake of the Court’s decision in Hollingsworth v. Perry, one more state now allows same-sex marriage within its borders. Both of these decisions demonstrate
“There is still much work to be done in America before we can safely say that every citizen is guaranteed the basic right to love.” the changing mindset of the nation when it comes to individuals with senses of sexuality outside the established norm and represent important steps toward gaining equality for these individuals. But we must realize that the fight for equality is not over. While these results were greeted with praise by activists and ordinary citizens alike across the country, there is still much work to be done in America before we can safely say that every citizen is guaranteed the basic right to love and has that love recognized by others. It’s not over until every American can celebrate his or her relationship with a significant other publicly and without fear of hatred or discrimination. It’s not over until every non-heterosexual individual in America is afforded the same basic rights and freedoms as heterosexual citizens. And it is absolutely not over until every state, not just 13 of them, recognizes same-sex marriages as completely and totally legitimate, and recognizes the right of its citizens to love whomever they want. It is absurd for the government to have the power to dictate what does and does not constitute love between two individuals; everyone should be allowed to feel the same emotions toward another person, without prejudice or discrimination from their government. Obviously, the changes that are necessary to our current system are not going to be easy ones to make; no sweeping change in national social policy is. But nonetheless, if we wish to remain a nation that promotes “liberty and justice for all,” they are changes that must be made, and as swiftly as possible. HMR
15
International
www.almonitor.com
UNFIT FOR DEMOCRACY A “New” Egypt Stuck in the Political Traditions of the Past Samuel Henick January 25, 2011 started 17 days of political upheaval in Egypt. But Egypt’s problems did not stop with the 846 people killed or the over 6000 people injured. Nothing has been solved, though one thing is for certain now more than ever: Egypt is not ready for democracy.
B
MUBARAK’S REIGN
efore the Arab Spring reached Tahrir Square in Cairo, the epicenter of the Egyptian revolutions since 2011, Hosni Mubarak had been the long-stand-
16
ing ruler of Egypt as its fourth president. Mubarak served almost 30 years starting shortly after the assassination of Anwar el-Sadat. Before he assumed the role of president, little was known about him, though as the Economist pointed out on October 10, 1981: “He is believed to have little stomach for opposition or for the ideas about democracy professed by his predecessor.” That was a fair guess as to what would unfold. When he first assumed power, Mubarak’s immediate challenges included the preservation of the then three-year old Camp David Accords and the fracturing of
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
International a nation that had been held together by the charisma of his predecessor. United States aid to the Egyptian regime grew rapidly after Sadat signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1978, while Sadat commenced a policy of infitah (or openness) that set in motion Egypt’s neoliberal transformation and tied its economy to international capital, a process accelerated by Mubarak. Due to the Egyptian debt crisis of 1982–90, the International Monetary Fund imposed a neoliberal structural adjustment program as a condition for continuing the flow of credit (neoliberalism is critical of legislative market reforms such as free trade, deregulation, privatization, and the reducing of government control of the economy). The IMF conditions forced the government to cut spending on social services, relax price controls, cut subsidies, deregulate and privatize industries, target inflation, and liberalize capital flows. This transformation had wide-ranging implications for social relations in Egypt, including growing inequality, poverty, and social insecurity for the lower classes, as well as the violent exclusion of the millions who were condemned to abject misery. The neoliberal state dismantled social protections, gutting and privatizing Egypt’s health care system and other social services along with many of the state-owned industries. During Mubarak’s rule alone, food subsidies were reduced by more than 50% percent, while privatization frequently meant less job stability, longer hours, and a lower standard of social services for workers. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO), Egypt ranks as one of the twenty-five worst violators of labor rights worldwide. Meanwhile, political allies of the regime benefitted tremendously from such privatization schemes, and state assets were handed over to a domestic oligarchy that included many members of the Army’s officer class, effectively forming a new capitalist class closely linked to the state apparatus. There was considerable economic growth in Egypt under Mubarak. Gross Domestic Product per capita rose about fourfold between 1981 and 2006 (in purchasing power parity terms). However, this growth was accompanied by rising inequality that by the time of Mubarak’s resignation, reached levels that had not been seen before in Egypt’s modern history. Real wages did not rise in tandem with the increases in production and wealth, and in many cases actually declined. Egypt’s minimum wage
remained stagnant for 26 years in the face of increased productivity and significant inflation. Most workers work long hours (according to the ILO, the average Egyptian works 48 hours per week) and earn wages that cannot cover basic necessities. Despite attempts of economic reform from 2004 to 2008 to attract foreign investment, Egyptians right before the revolution were living on about $51 a month. Anger at existing social conditions grew when food prices jumped 24 percent during the 2007 world food crisis, triggering massive bread riots. With 55 million people—roughly 75% of the population— spending the majority of their income on food, the state was forced to implement an expanded subsidy program in order to stabilize prices, contrary to the neoliberal principles adopted by the regime. Despite rhetoric about individual freedoms, the imposition of neoliberalism required state coercion to discipline labor and subdue the poor, while also containing dissent among the educated middle class. Since the assassination of former President Anwar Sadat in 1981, Egypt was under a continuous “State of Emergency,” which permitted the Egyptian state apparatus to “engage in massive and often systemic labor rights violations,” while torturing and even murdering regime critics. Mubarak promised in his inaugural that: “We will embark on our great path: not stopping or hesitating, building and not destroying, protecting and not threatening, preserving and not squandering,” but all he really pledged to protect was his power at all costs and at the expense of his people. Millions of people protested in the 2011 revolution chanting “isqat al-nizam” (“the fall of the regime”), an apt description of Mubarak’s “presidency.” At first, Mubarak and the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) tried dealing with the protestors with violence, but the sheer numbers of discontented citizens overwhelmed his vast security apparatus. The state’s attempt to use propaganda and fear mongering to scare the population back into its embrace and good standing also failed. Finally, the Mubarak regime resorted to making concessions, but these were too limited, and the death toll from the protests had already grown too high. Fearing an uphill battle that would only ruin its credibility and remaining support among the population, SCAF broke with the regime and forced the dictator to resign. On June 2, 2012, he was
September 2013
sentenced to life imprisonment over allegations of corruption and abuse of power. He was then ordered to stand trial, which officially began on August 3, 2011, on charges of negligence for not giving orders to stop the killing of peaceful protestors during the revolution. Just a little over a year later, on August 20, 2013, a court ordered Mubarak’s release because there were no more legal grounds for his detention. Between Mubarak’s life sentence and release, the country passed through two rulers and more protest and revolution. There was a democratic election and a coup, leading the country almost full circle to where it began in 2011. THE FAILED YEAR OF DEMOCRACY Mohamed Morsi won 51.7% of the vote to become Egypt’s first democratically elected leader on June 30, 2012 as the Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate with a slew of problems left over from the Mubarak era. When Morsi left office in July 2013, the economy was still severely suffering. Political and institutional uncertainty are certainly not helping growth or restoring market or investor confidence. Real GDP growth slowed to 2.2% and investments declined to 13% of GDP according to the World Bank. This slowdown contributed to the rising unemployment, which stood at 13% at the end of December 2012 with 3.5 million people out of work. In the fourth quarter of 2012, the official unemployment rate jumped 0.5% (though actual rate is predicted to be up 9% since 2010) and more than 162,00 Egyptians lost their jobs. While the population has swelled, job opportunities have not kept pace and graduates have had to wait more than 5 years on average to find a job. Compounding the already multitudinous problems, foreign reserves have continued to decline and the deficit has risen to 11% of the GDP. Due to political tensions, the IMF abandoned its bid in June to secure the $4.8 billion loan that Morsi had reluctantly asked for last August. There still remains economic and social inequality and great income disparities. In July, a former minister from Morsi’s ousted government said Egypt has less than 2 month’s supply left of imported wheat. Morsi’s attempts to deal with these problems were simply insufficient. Morsi and the Brotherhood initially adopted the policy of rejected foreign assistance. Yet
17
International even the intransigent ruling party had to address the fact that a huge budget gap, a perilous drop in currency reserves, and the need of thousands of new jobs and schools would not solve itself. Morsi pushed through a new constitution for Egypt’s new democracy. He proclaimed that the constitution, which passed through a referendum in December 2012, was the dawning of a “new republic.” “We don’t want to return to an era of one opinion and fake, manufactured majorities. The maturity and consciousness (of voters) heralds that Egypt has set on a path of democracy with no return,” Morsi said. “Regardless of the results, for the sake of building the nation, efforts must unite. There is no alternative to a dialogue that is now a necessity.” The referendum was approved by 64% of voters. Yet his opposition, mainly led by the
“It seems that history has come full circle: once again a military coup has disposed of an ineffective government, which was set up to reestablish order after an uprising.” National Salvation Front, rejected his dialogue and constitution. They argued that the new constitution would allow a dictatorship of the majority, which the Islamists had won with repeated election victories over the past two years. Additionally, the constitution would allow for greater implementation of Shariah—Islamic law—which would allow the Islamists to keep their hold on the presidency and overwhelmingly dominate temporary legislature to restrict civil rights and limit the freedoms of minorities and women. Unfortunately, Morsi did not follow the 1787 Constitutional Convention that became the cornerstone of US democracy. Instead, his constitution lacked legitimacy because of the low turnout in the referendum (Liberals and Christians withdrew from the assembly writing the document, complaining that the Islamist majority was railroading it through). Morsi defended decrees he issued in November granting himself sweeping powers, which had sparked a wave of protests. He said the decrees, since revoked, were necessary to swiftly push through the constitution to a referendum to end instability. “You can’t talk about a second republic when
18
it is based on a constitution that has no national consensus,” Abdel-Rahman Mansour, an administrator of a Facebook page seen as a major mobilizer in the 2011 uprising, said: “He says he doesn’t want power but acts differently.” In fact, more than 70% of Egyptians rejected the new constitution. The 2012 constitution was based upon the supremacy of Egypt’s majority religion and its penetrating influence of the daily life and livelihood of citizens. Religious mandates by clerics turned into civil law and enforced by the police negated freedom and individual rights, the basic precepts of democracy. This is not surprising given the goals of the Muslim Brotherhood party. Founded in 1928, the Brotherhood is a transnational Islamic political organization with the stated goal to instill the Qur’an and Sunnah as the “sole reference point for... ordering the life of the Muslim family, individual, community...and state.” This motive, however contrasts with Western ideas of democracy. There is an inherent irony in instating the Brotherhood in charge of a nascent democracy that was drafting its first constitution; the fact that the constitution failed to provide a path forward to democracy is therefore not so surprising. Further undermining Morsi’s legitimacy was the fact that his election was allegedly not valid. According to Yossi Beilin from Israel Hayom, who based his evidence from an unnamed Egyptian official, the military rigged the results of the 2012 elections to prevent riots from Morsi supporters if he were not elected. In fact, according to the same source, Ahmed Shafiq, Mubarak’s last prime minister, actually won 51.7% of the vote, but the official numbers were almost the exact reversal of what actually happened at the polls. When all said and done, it seems natural that people would take to the streets to protest Morsi’s rule. After all, the people in a functioning democracy should be able to express their beliefs and have their voices heard. Unfortunately, Egypt does not have a functioning democracy, and the result was yet another change of power. On the anniversary of Morsi’s ascension to presidency, the army released an ultimatum to Mohammed Morsi after ongoing protests for and against Morsi. The army demanded that Morsi respond to the demands of protestors within 48 hours or he would be deposed and the army would impose its own roadmap for the country. On July 3, 2013, Abdul Fatah al-Sisi, the commander of the army and chairman of SCAF, removed Morsi and sus-
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
pended the constitution in a bloodless coup d’état. Al-Sisi declared Chief Justice Adly Mansour as the interim president of Egypt charged with instating a transitional technocratic government. International reaction was based on the question of whether or not the transition was indeed a coup. THE 15 MESSIDOR & AL-SISI’S EGYPT Mohamed ElBaradei wrote in a Foreign Policy article called “You Can’t Eat Shariah” that: “You see people being lynched in public, while others take pictures of the scene.
International
www.nbcnews.com
Mind you this is the 21st Century—not the French Revolution!” Yet it seems that history has come full circle: once again a military coup has disposed of an ineffective government, which was set up to reestablish order after an uprising. Perhaps Al-Sisi is no Napoleon, but there are some uncanny relations between November 9 (18 Brumaire according to the French Republican Calendar), 1799 and July 3 (15 Messidor), 2013. Both Napoleon and Al-Sisi led military coups. Napoleon rid Revolutionary France of the ineffective Directory while Al-Sisi nullified Morsi’s poorly managed
presidency. Both have included tremendous amounts of violence. Though perhaps Egypt has avoided sending people off to be beheaded by the “national razor,” the raids on protestors with fully armed police, gas, live ammunition, and snipers produce a similar effect. It took Napoleon only a short while before he crowned himself Emperor in 1804. Al-Sisi will probably not become a war-mongering proto-nationalist ruler, but it is unsettling to think that almost 215 years later, there is a possibility that yet another dictator can emerge in the Middle East in the same way that Bonaparte did.
September 2013
As State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki said, Morsi’s government “wasn’t a democratic rule…What I mean is what we’ve been referencing about the 22 million people who have been out there voicing their views and making clear that democracy is not just about simply winning the vote at the ballot box.” Since Morsi was taken out of power and put under house arrest in a location that is still undisclosed, a series of events have wracked the politically fragile Sinai state. The struggle in Egypt boils down to pro-army and pro-Morsi camps. The interim gov-
19
International ernment took special efforts to break up the Morsi supporters, allowing for a mass of unlawful killings. August 14 marked the deadliest day since the 2011 revolution with 638 people killed (595 of whom were civilians) and almost 4,000 people injured. ElBaradei was the acting vice president of Egypt from July 14, 2013 until the raid on the protestors at Nahda Square and a larger one at Rabaa al-Adawiya Mosque. Disgusted with the actions taken by the government, ElBaradei stated: “...I always saw peaceful alternatives for resolving this societal wrangling, certain solutions were proposed, which could have led to the national conciliation, but things have come this far...It has become difficult for me to continue bearing the responsibility for decisions at which I do not agree, and I fear their consequences; I cannot bear the responsibility for single drop of blood before God, before my own conscience or citizens....” Though President Obama has cancelled joint military training exercises scheduled for September, he has not cut the $1.3 billion in annual aid supplied to the Egyptian military. If the transition were deemed a coup, the cash would have to be stopped according to US law. The aid continues de-
spite Al-Sisi’s seeming disregard for election results, challenge to the basic principal of popular will, and the increased use of extra-institutional means, be it street agitation or calls for judicial or military intervention. This is an attempt for the US to maintain “leverage,” but unless Egypt does something like attack Israel, the money will still flow, essentially meaning that the US in fact has no leverage. Despite having provided $75 billion over the years, the US has consistently demonstrated its impotence in Egypt: the administration wanted to preserve the Mubarak dictatorship, urged President Morsi to govern more inclusively, objected to the army coup, urged the military regime to include the Muslim Brotherhood in its political roadmap, and opposed the bloody crackdown on August 14th. Washington has been reduced to begging the military to promote reconciliation and provide a speedy roadmap back to democracy, a far cry from having leverage. Al-Sisi is essentially free to maintain his own power and continue to use military power indiscriminately against his own people, especially with the promise of some $12 billion in financial support from Gulf Arab states.
Hosni Mubarak; Presidential Rule: October 14, 1981 – February 11, 2011
20
Shortly after the military removed Morsi from office, the power outages and energy shortages that plagued his reign came to a halt, and police returned to the streets in greater numbers, implying that the military had been working behind the scenes to undermine Morsi’s presidency and turn the electorate against him. Despite the daily bloodshed sparked by the evictions of the pro-Morsi sit-ins, Al-Sisi has managed to retain the admiration of many. He presents himself and the army as the “guardian’s of the people’s will.” At least, he is the guardian of the people who do not support Morsi’s government. The government has a record of a historically high number of attacks on journalists. Unfortunately for Al-Sisi, the Brotherhood is a well-organized nationwide movement that has survived prior attempts at suppression and will not be easily subdued. The Brotherhood survived repression and persecution from Nasser and later, from Mubarak’s military-backed regime, though for Islamists, a return to the pre-Arab Spring Era is an unwelcome thought. The Muslim Brotherhood expressed their stance on the current situation: “We have repeatedly affirmed that our oppo-
Abdel Fattah el-Sisi; Commander in Chief of Egypt’s Armed forces and Defense Minister: August 12th 2012 - Present
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
International sition is peaceful and will continue to be peaceful, safeguarding the security of our homeland, its institutions and facilities. We denounce all forms of violence, all acts of terrorism or sectarian strife. We strongly condemn all that.” Yet it seems as though the opposition has been thoroughly exhausted. Over the past month, Cairo has been the site of an endless stream of protests, many of them violent, but, recently, the opposition has seemed exhausted. The Brotherhood, the best-organized grassroots group in the country, is shattered, defeated by a brutal and efficient crackdown by the military government. In the meantime, Al-Sisi’s government has declared a one-month state of emergency, the same pretext Mubarak used to rule the country under a dictatorial regime. In a similar vein, the army has dubbed itself “the protector of the revolution.” Throughout the past two years, little seems to have changed. The feloul, the remnants of Mubarak’s regime, still have commanding positions in Egypt today. People now say something that was never conceived as possible before: they want the army to come back to stabilize the situation. ElBaradei warned: “There are worse things
than state failure, and I’m afraid Egypt is teetering on the brink. Continuing civil disorder is almost certain, with violence “likely to become a constant feature of Egyptian life and politics,” warned Eric Trager of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Egypt could then be a breeding ground for terrorism, which would target government officials and facilities, Coptic churches, and tourist sites. Senator Graham (R-SC) voiced his fear that Al-Sisi was “going to create an insurgency for generations to come. The Morsi government agreed to keep the Suez Canal open but refused to strictly abide by the unilateral peace agreement Sadat had signed with Menahem Begin at the urging of President Jimmy Carter. After the rise of Morsi, Egypt started slipping from a secular Arab state close with the US into an increasingly fundamentalist state. If some good has come out of Al-Sisi’s rule, it is the cooperation with Israel on the control of terrorist activity in the Sinai and the grant of preferential Egyptian over-flight and Suez Canal transit rights to the United States. As Al-Sisi’s government considers outlawing the Brotherhood, a familiar chapter dawns in Egypt where rule by the military is
Mohamed Morsi; Presidential Rule: June 30, 2012 – July 3, 2013
the rule, not the exception. If Al-Sisi fails to meet with needs of the people, who knows if they will take to the barracks again. Perhaps Mubarak has simply been reinstated again with a different name and face. Perhaps there is yet another chapter in the story. Perhaps the Syrian conflict, or a problem with Israel, or a failure to reach a deal with foreign nations to revitalize the economy will be the catalyst to move Egypt again towards a new state. For now, it seems that Egypt is no closer to democracy than it was thirty years ago. Whatever democracy Morsi instituted failed because of poor management and a lack of understanding that the fundamental nature of that political system requires participation of the people. Al-Sisi’s disregard for the democratic process and likeness to Mubarak eschews any hope for a legitimate democracy. So for now, Egypt will have to settle for a democracy—if it is even fair to call a military coup on the pretext of the masses democratic —in name only. HMR
Adly Mansour: Egypt’s current acting president A: www.arabianbusiness.com B: www.todayonline.com C: lens.blogs.nytimes.com D: www.o.canada.com
September 2013
21
International
the tipnis
road complexities of development infrastructure
caroline kuritzkes
I
n the United States, construction is hardly an exciting concept. On the streets of Manhattan, scaffolding goes up daily and is torn down without notice from even the most observant of New Yorkers. Our most recent major highway projects were completed by Robert Moses in the 1950’s, and though perhaps stirring controversy then, now they appear as nothing more than stepping stones of a bygone era in the history of urban planning. Here, in New York City, urban infrastructure is a mark of modernity, offering transportation, communications systems, electricity and power, countless jobs and economic prosperity; our lives without it are almost inconceivable. But it is this very complacent dependency upon infrastructure that renders us - as New Yorkers, Americans, and even Westerners - completely apathetic to its merits and potential drawbacks. We believe that infrastructure is undoubtedly a positive force, but we are smug, unwilling and unable to view urbanization with a more critical eye. There are corners of the world, however, where infrastructure offers not construction, but destruction of cultures and ecosystems that have survived millennia in the midst of sweeping change. Perhaps the best example – or at the very least, a contentious case – of this phenomenon is demonstrated by the proposed 182 mile Villa Tunari – San Igna-
cio de Moxos road connecting the Andes and Amazon basins. Thirty-two miles of the road cut through the TIPNIS (Territorio Indígena y Parque Nacional Isiboro Secure) region of Bolivia, at the geographic heart of South America, linking the department of Beni in the northern altiplano with Cochabamba, situated at the country’s southern core. But this road-to-be is a puzzle piece of a much larger infrastructural goal: a massive Brazilian construction effort called IIRSA (Initiative for the Regional Integration of South America), of which the TIPNIS highway is only one of 536 mega-projects aimed to modernize the continent. In fact, the Brazilian government conceived of the highway as a medium that would transport Brazilian goods across Bolivia to pacific ports, ultimately enabling more efficient trade between Brazil and its most valuable economic partner: China. With these economic motives fueling Brazilian foreign policy, the rising power has been encouraging Bolivia to permit the highway’s construction through the TIPNIS territory, thus fulfilling Brazil’s long held vision of modern commercial prosperity. In 2008, Bolivian President Evo Morales finally approved plans for the road’s construction. And how could he not? Sure, Brazil would reap most of the highway’s benefits, impose tariffs and tolls on Bolivian goods in
22
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
transit, and take home most of the big bucks at the end of the day. But Bolivia is a developing economy, classified by the World Bank as a “lower middle income country,” with a GDP per capita of only $5200 USD (compare that to the U.S. GDP per capita of $49,965). The country has suffered immeasurable economic hardship in its recent history, worn out and exploited by corrupt presidents of the nation’s past who were friendly to neoliberalism’s interests. In 1985, Bolivia hit rock bottom with an inflation rate of more than 20,000%, inviting intervention from the International Monetary Fund and American economist Jeffrey Sachs, who decided Bolivia would be the ideal testing ground for a post-Harvard economics experiment, otherwise known as privatization. Under Sachs’ advice, Víctor Paz Estenssorro (Bolivia’s president at the time) launched a wave of privatization initiatives that drove the country’s economy even further into the ground. Bolivians could only watch as the mining and gas industries were swallowed by private companies, while consumer prices surged and Coca Cola and other large Western corporations snatched Bolivia’s natural resources out of the earth. It is no surprise that Bolivia is still healing from its recent economic calamity. It could clearly and easily benefit from the potential commercial, health, and education resources that the TIP-
International
“We believe that infrastructure is undoubtedly a positive force, but we are smug, unwilling and unable to view urbanization with a more critical eye.” www.bbc.co.uk
NIS road would bring, especially because the country is completely landlocked and has little access to foreign trade as is. At present, transportation is inefficient, costly, and dangerous, but the TIPNIS road would reduce travel time from the fifteen hours required to circumnavigate the territory to only one hour, providing a transport link between Bolivia’s more underdeveloped northwest and southern Santa Cruz, the nation’s economic capital. With Brazil eagerly offering to cover nearly 80% of the estimated $415 million USD cost, there is no way Evo Morales could refuse this business deal so unequally weighted in his favor. But there is reason for why the TIPNIS issue has become a widespread domestic (and even minor international) point of tension. Over 12,000 indigenous inhabitants live in the TIPNIS area comprising three groups – the Yuracaré, Trinitario-Mojeño, and Chimane – in 64 communities, and hundreds of their ancestors populated the land before them. The region is also home to the Isiboro Sécure National Park and fragile ecosystems characteristic of the Amazon Rainforest. There is no doubt that the highway’s construction would engender severe environmental consequences for TIPNIS. According to a Yale environmental analysis, the project would “contaminate the park’s three main rivers, open large areas of forest to illegal logging and settlement, and alter habitats that are home to 11 endangered species.” The indigenous people within TIPNIS’s borders depend heavily upon the area’s natural resources, for sustenance, but also economically for their high tourist attraction. But with the road’s construction and consequential demolition of natural beauty also comes the elimination of tourist appeal, a key business for TIPNIS
communities. A transport system through the TIPNIS region would also bring mass migration of cocaleros, coca growers who burn forests and cut down trees to clear land for coca growth, as well as increased human settlement and waste - both threats to the way of life for TIPNIS’s indigenous peoples. Naturally, indigenous groups and organizations like CIDOB (Confederation of Indigenous Peoples of Bolivia) have begun to rally against the proposed highway. In August 2011, 1,000 people (most of which were from the TIPNIS area) marched on a three month long journey 350 miles to La Paz, Bolivia’s capital. Their anger was directed at Evo Morales’ administration not only for permitting the road’s construction, but also for violating a provision in the Bolivian Constitution requiring that the president receive consent from indigenous groups before launching development projects. As the first ever indigenous president of Bolivia, Morales capitalized on an image protecting the interests of indigenous groups, an image which he has clearly turned on. Paradoxically, now Bolivia’s indigenous populations stand more divided than ever. Coca growers are all for the highway so they can make use of new land on which they can continue cultivating the crop and increase the value of coca production. Aymara communities support Evo in all of his endeavors because he is Aymara himself. And of course, the three groups from TIPNIS violently oppose the highway project. Every group, as expected, looks out for its own interests. Just as Evo Morales justifies the loss of lowland indigenous culture and environmental preservation as a sacrifice for Bolivia’s well-being on the whole, so do lowland indigenous communities seek to protect their land and tradition at the expense of Bolivia’s over-
September 2013
all modernization and economic security. The complexity of the TIPNIS debate stems from these self interested perspectives. It is only an unlucky twist of events that has turned public opinion against the TIPNIS road and resulted in the project’s temporary suspension. On their way to La Paz, the marchers were met by Bolivia’s National Police force and severe police brutality, leaving dozens of protesters critically injured and stirring up national fury. In the face of scandal, Morales declared the TIPNIS reserve “untouchable” in October 2011, prohibiting extraction and destruction of the area’s natural resources by any external interest. This smart political move by Evo has serious implications for the TIPNIS territory, banning development projects like the highway, as well as logging, coca-growing, and the ecotourism that the region so heavily relies on. In 2013, the debate has since resurfaced with each group still not satisfied with the outcome. Now is the time for us to view infrastructure development in a more analytical light and to realize that modernization comes with a cost. No longer should we assume that development is intrinsically synonymous with progress. So what is the solution? Even if the road were re-routed around the TIPNIS area, those near it would inherently oppose it, while those farther away, whether in the northern altiplano, Amazon basin, or government capital buildings, would endorse it wholeheartedly in the name of Bolivia’s common good. Let the TIPNIS controversy be a lesson revealing a problem of development that someone has to lose. Self interest may be the driving force behind development policy, but you know what they say: “Aren’t all politics local?” HMR
23
Features
NATHAN RAAB ‘13
S
ecret NSA spying, says Germany’s Der Speigel, is “a scandal that just won’t die.” Others have been less restrained. The Atlantic’s Conor Friedersdorf claims that “the NSA has repeatedly engaged in activity that violated the law and the Constitutional rights of many thousands or perhaps millions of Americans.” Jesselyn Radack, of the Government Accountability Project, says, “we should be prosecuting the government officials who turned the U.S. into a massive surveillance state.” One program in particular has attracted critics’ ire: the bulk collection of telephone metadata from most major telephone companies, through which the government acquires
basic information about nearly all the calls made by American citizens. This program, critics say, is illegal, unauthorized by statute and forbidden under the Constitution. And it is bad policy, violating Americans’ privacy regularly and easily susceptible to extreme abuse. These critics are wrong on both counts. To rebut them, I proceed in three parts. Part I outlines the processes the NSA employs to collect and analyze telephone and internet metadata. Part II examines the legal authorization for such processes and finds that bulk collection is authorized by statute and permitted under the Fourth Amendment. Part III investigates whether a policy of bulk
24
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
collection is wise policy; I conclude that it is. I What, exactly, is the NSA doing? Without a security clearance it is impossible to independently verify much of what the NSA claims about its surveillance practices. If we assume that the government is being honest, however, we can determine with pretty good detail the procedures in place according to which the NSA collects and analyzes telephone metadata. The process begins with the telephone companies. Pursuant to an order of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court – a special court Congress has created to administer con-
PRISM
Features
NSA METADATA COLLECTION IS LAWFUL. IT SHOULD BE.
www.digitaltrends.com
fidential, national security-related surveillance programs – these companies submit (one assumes electronically) customer metadata to the FBI, which in turn relays it to the NSA. Telephone metadata is, as the name suggests, “data-about-data”; it includes the numbers called by individual customers, the duration of those calls, and potentially, for cell phone users, the rough location of those callers. Critically, the telephone companies already possess and retain this information: they use it to bill customers and detect potential service issues. Equally critically, metadata is not the content of a call. Neither the telephone company nor the government is listening to your phone calls. Once entered into the NSA database, a few specially trained analysts can search it for connections to known terrorists. Say, for example, that the FBI has arrested someone they suspect to be a terrorist explosives maker – and further, that they also suspect he’s not alone. Knowing the explosives man’s cell phone number, they can check the metadata to figure out who he has been in contact with, or, even more importantly, who his contacts have been in contact with. If analysts discover that he and six other U.S. contacts have all called the same telephone number in Yemen on a regular basis, success! They’ve almost certainly been able to find a U.S. based terror cell, led by someone in Yemen. The only metadata actually analyzed is those from callers two or fewer degrees of separation from a suspected terrorist – most people will never have their data seen by an NSA analyst. But the only way for the NSA to determine who is two or fewer degrees of separation away from an as-yet unknown suspect is to have all the data in the first place. Even though the NSA knows it does not need most of what it collects, it does not, and cannot, know what it does not need in advance. And finally, the NSA never puts a name to a number. To figure out who uses a telephone, the NSA forwards its results to the FBI, which subpoenas the service provider for more infor-
September 2013
mation. Thus, the ability to gather meaningful information on individuals is always divided up between at least two government agencies. II Is this legal? Yes. Bulk collection is authorized by the PATRIOT Act and permitted by the Constitution. Critics who claim otherwise are mistaken. Bulk Collection is Authorized by Statute The Obama Administration justifies bulk collection by referencing Section 215 of the USA-PATRIOT Act, as amended most recently in 2011. Section 215 reads, in relevant part, that “the Federal Bureau of Investigation… may make an application for an order requiring the production of any tangible things… for an investigation …to protect against international terrorism.” Such a request will be granted if the FBI can demonstrate that “there are reasonable grounds to believe that the tangible things sought are relevant” to the investigation. After the FBI collects such data, it forwards it to the NSA for analysis. Business records are unquestionably “tangible things” under the plain meaning of the words: they are, as Merriam Webster defines it, “possessions” that are “capable of being perceived.” Equally clear is that the purpose of the NSA’s analysis is “to protect against international terrorism.” The only reason business-record collection, in the aggregate, would be unauthorized is if it were not “reasonable” for such collections to be “relevant” to an investigation with the purpose of protection “against international terrorism.” Before moving forward, it is worth noting a basic canon of statutory construction – that “all statutes must be construed in light of their purpose” (Hagar Co. v. Helvering, 308 U.S. 394). Statutory construction “is a holistic endeavor” in which provisions unclear on their own are “often clarified by the remain-
25
Features
“A MERE HOPE OR BELIEF THAT ONE’S INFORMATION IS PRIVATE IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE AN EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY REASONABLE”
der of the statutory scheme” (U.S. Savings Association of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, 484 U.S. 371). Even the most cursory reading of the PATRIOT Act indicates the thrust of the statute – it “enhance[s] domestic security against terrorism” and “remove[s] obstacles to investigating terrorism” (P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1.) If one interpretation which respects “the provisions of the whole law and…its object[s] and polic[ies]” is available, such an interpretation should be preferred to one that is more restrictive (United States v. Boisdoré’s Heirs, 49 U.S. 122). “Relevant” permits bulk metadata collection under its ordinary definition. A tangible thing is relevant to an investigation if it has “significant and demonstrable bearing on” it (Merriam Webster), or if it “applies to” it (Black’s Law Dictionary). Certain subsets of the metadata absolutely apply to a valid investigation – the metadata demonstrating that a U.S. citizen was in contact with a foreign terrorist organization. Because the NSA is unable to determine which parts of the metadata are useful until it has all of it collected, the whole set of records is “relevant” until the useless things are screened out. More specialized interpretations of rele-
vance, discussed in courts when viewing the extent of other search or subpoena powers, are even broader. In these analogous contexts, relevance “has been construed broadly to encompass any matter that bears on, or that reasonably could lead to other matter that could bear on, any issue that is or may be in the case” (Oppenheimer Fund v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 351). Oftentimes, the Supreme Court has explained, an investigator “simply cannot know in advance whether information sought” will be particularly helpful (United States v. R. Enterprises, 498 U.S. 300). As such, “courts have generously construed the term ‘relevant’” to permit access to “virtually any material that might cast light on” an investigation (EEOC v. Shell Oil Co, 466 U.S. 68-69). Under these (lax) standards, it is “reasonable” to believe that records of customer metadata are “relevant” under §215. On the whole, access to a call or location record “might cast light on” terrorist activities, while collecting all of the metadata “lead[s] to” specific and useful information. This is so even though not every record collected as part of the broader package is useful in an investigation; such perfection is not required and never has been. Hard drives with illegally downloaded films on them are
26
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
“relevant” to a copyright investigation, even if most of the drive holds copies of Supreme Court opinions. Suitcases containing heroin are “relevant” for DEA purposes even if most of the suitcase is filled with tuxedoes. Similarly, business records of customer metadata are “relevant” if collecting the records is necessary to assist an ongoing investigation. If the NSA knows that a haystack contains a relevant needle, the haystack is relevant regardless of the amount of hay therein. In total, it is certainly reasonable that the statute authorizes bulk metadata collection. Because ambiguity is to be resolved in a manner consistent with the PATRIOT Act’s broader scheme, which is to expand, not contract, the government’s surveillance authority, any remaining ambiguity should be resolved in favor of greater government authority. Bulk collection of metadata is authorized by statute. Constitutional Objections But statutes can violate a higher law – that of the U.S. Constitution. §215 could contravene the 4th Amendment’s guarantee that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,
Features
www.wikimedia.org
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.” Fortunately, it does not. Not all of the government’s investigatory activities constitute searches for 4th Amendment purposes. Law enforcement officers may observe and investigate otherwise public activities; “what a person knowingly exposes to the public…is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection” (Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 351). In fact, there are only two ways in which government conduct constitutes a search. First, the government can search by violating a property interest, “physically intruding on persons, houses, papers, or effects” that would otherwise be withheld from the public (Florida v. Jardines, 133 S.Ct. 1414). Second, even if physical intrusion does not occur, the government still conducts a search if “government officers violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy” (United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945). Metadata collection clearly passes the first test. The data collected is not the property of the telephone user – it is the property of the telephone company, which uses it to place the user’s calls and provide location-specific services. Corporations do not possess the same Fourth Amendment rights as individuals; a
search of corporate property is valid if “the information sought is reasonably relevant” to a valid investigation (United States v. Morton Salt Co., 338 U.S. 652). And “a person who is aggrieved by an illegal search and seizure only through…a search of a third person’s premises or property has not had any of his Fourth Amendment rights infringed” (Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 134). Because there is no personal property interest, there is no search of property for Fourth Amendment purposes.
September 2013
Nor does bulk collection violate a person’s “reasonable expectation of privacy.” A mere hope or belief that one’s information is private is not sufficient to make an expectation of privacy reasonable; the Fourth Amendment “does not protect the merely subjective expectation of privacy” (Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 176). When a person reveals information to others, the Supreme Court has “repeatedly held” that he or she forfeits any reasonable expectation of privacy, “even
27
Features cares whether they know that she is pregnant. Now we return to Lohan’s personal garbage can with a different hypothesis. This time, I take the original medical paperwork, un-redacted; instead of looking at it immediately, however, I take it home. Before I arrive home, though, a sudden gust of wind takes the paper from my hand and flings it into the Pacific Ocean. Has Lindsay’s privacy been violated? Again, the answer seems to be no. Lindsay doesn’t care, in the abstract, whether someone could know about her pregnancy. It would only make her uncomfortable if someone actually knew that she was pregnant. In total, this has demonstrated two critical facets of privacy. First, mere collection is not sufficient to violate someone’s privacy; some sentient being must actually see and understand someone else’s personal information to create a violation. Second, that same being must know whose personal information is being viewed: knowing that someone unidentified is visiting a gynecologist, or a Communist Party meeting, is not a privacy violation. The Privacy Interest, Outweighed www.techweekeurope.co.uk
if the information is revealed on the assumption that it will be used only for a limited purpose” (United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 443). Smith v. Maryland, decided in 1979, all but forecloses upon a legal challenge to bulk metadata collection. Smith dealt with the warrantless installation of a “pen register,” a primitive method of determining the telephone numbers dialed by a specific phone user. The Court noted that the telephone user voluntarily gave up his information to the telephone company as a condition of service, and concluded that “the installation and use of a pen register, consequently, was not a search” (Smith v. Maryland, 742 U.S. 746). In short, it is settled law that metadata collection does not violate the Fourth Amendment. III Bulk collection of metadata is legal and constitutional, but it might not be good policy. Balancing privacy and security interests, however, indicates that collection is, on net, justified. I proceed below. Hierarchies of Privacy It seems intuitively obvious that the
28
collection of metadata violates some kind of privacy interest, but the nature and extent of that interest is up for debate. Understanding the genesis and purposes of the privacy interest will help elucidate the extent to which collecting metadata violates (or rather, does not violate) personal privacy. From a gut perspective, we value our privacy because the disclosure of certain information makes us uncomfortable. We can all agree that I violate Lindsay Lohan’s privacy, for example, if I rummage through her garbage, discover thrown-out medical paperwork, and learn that she is secretly pregnant. The information is hers, and it makes her upset when other people gain access to private information.This is in itself not a particularly revealing analysis – we value privacy because, well, we value privacy. But we can tweak these examples to get a better picture of what, exactly, we value. Let’s say that instead of rummaging through Lohan’s own garbage to find the medical paperwork, I find it in the municipal dump with her name and personal identifying information permanently concealed by grime. In looking at it, do I violate her privacy? Clearly I have not; I have not gained enough information. A privacy violation must be personal. Lindsay does not care about whether other people know about pregnancy; she
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Based upon currently available information, as discussed in the introduction, bulk metadata collection satisfies neither of these criteria. Without a warrant, no sentient being sees anyone’s personal information – it sits, unobserved, on an NSA server somewhere, until an analyst has a very good reason to call it up. And without a warrant, no FBI agent is permitted to put a name to any of the phone numbers – in other words, the agent is prohibited from knowing whose data is being analyzed. To return to the previous example, knowing that 712.555.6013 is pregnant violates no one’s privacy if I do not know whose phone number that is. And while alarmist rhetoric is neither useful nor necessary, it is worth noting that the stakes in counter-terrorism investigations, as a general rule, are sufficiently large that any vague, remaining privacy interest (should one exist at all) is certain to be outweighed by public safety needs. 9/11, to take the most obvious example, killed thousands and inflicted about $75 billion in economic damages. The Boston Marathon bombings injured almost 300 people and the hunt for the perpetrators shut down a major metropolitan area for over 24 hours. Foiled plots to bomb the New York City subway system, detonate explosives on aircraft, or damage other critical infrastructure could have killed hundreds to thousands. On a more speculative level, nuclear or biological terrorism could kill mil-
Features lions and cripple the U.S. economy for years. Analysts differ as to whether metadata collection was necessary to foil all or any of these attacks. From a mathematical perspective, however, a one percent chance of saving 1,000 people is equivalent to saving ten – the “expected value” of a program, as it is termed, is equivalent to the probability of an outcome multiplied by the outcome magnitude. It may be impossible to know how many lives, exactly, bulk collection saves, but the magnitude of the numbers involved means that we should assume that it will save some lives. For
use the program to access Americans’ personal data. These concerns, while valid in the abstract, are substantially overblown. First, the existing public record – which, granted, is far from complete – lacks even one example of the kind of abuse predicted. It is true that the NSA has from time to time inadvertently collected or accessed data in a way that contravened legal limitations, although it does not seem that either of these occurred specifically within the metadata program. But there is no evidence that these errors revealed personal identifying information which the
“THERE ARE REAL SCANDALS IN THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AND THERE MAY EVEN BE OTHERS LURKING WITHIN THE NSA – BUT BULK METADATA COLLECTION IS NOT ONE OF THEM.” a non-violation of privacy, this is a very good deal. Fraud and Abuse Certainly, some pundits respond, in an ideal world there are no problems with bulk collection. Real world use, however, will be riddled with fraud and abuse, as rogue or overzealous NSA operatives
NSA does not possess. There is certainly no evidence that data was collected out of malice or out of anything but honest error. Second, even if personally identifying information has been revealed, it has been revealed very infrequently. The Washington Post trumpeted news, for example, that the “NSA broke privacy rules thousands of times” in collecting and analyzing data, which is notable until someone noticed that the
NSA collects millions of items and analyzes hundreds of thousands of them, making the error rate well under one percent. By comparison, between five and seven percent of police shootings are unjustified in retrospect. We do not, in consequence, disarm police. And finally, if we are going to worry about the unauthorized use of personal information, we ought not start at the NSA, where analysts with thorough background checks and rigorous supervision look at numbers on a screen. We could start at the IRS, where thousands of un-cleared individuals have access to detailed financial information on all taxpayers and which either has extraordinarily lax supervision of its employees or which deliberately targeted Republican groups in the 2012 elections. We could start with Medicare employees, which, according to the Department of Health and Human Services, have “repeatedly and without permissible reason looked at the electronic protected health information” of patients. With real, systemic, unnecessary privacy violations elsewhere, it would be odd to focus on hypotheticals in a place where a lack of caution could mean lives lost. * There are real scandals in the Obama administration, and there may even be others lurking within the NSA – but bulk metadata collection is not one of them. Privacy advocates should redirect their outrage elsewhere. In this case, NSA surveillance is legal, and it benefits our country. HMR
www.mintpressnews.com
September 2013
29
Economics
A DEFENSE OF CORPORATE RAIDERS Deependra Mookim ‘11
A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
C
orporate raiders, barbarians at the gate, robber barons, bust-up artists. The advent of aggressive shareholder activism in the 1970s and 80s–with all its different names–shook up boardrooms and created vast fortunes for a number of market participants. These raiders would buy up enough stock in a company to push for changes in strategy, hire new managers, acquire board seats, lobby for divestitures, and the like. Their actions were often well profiled, such as Ron Perelman’s now-classic hostile takeover of cosmetics giant Revlon. But while quite profitable for successful aggressors, raiders were far from media darlings or corporate heroes. The title itself connotes ruthlessness, and cultural portrayals like Michael Douglas’s Gordon Gekko in Wall Street certainly didn’t do much to salvage their image.
we be interested now in this small subset of investors? More recently, corporate raiders have been re-branded under the label “activist investing.” These hedge funds have been attracting significant amounts of capital lately, and a number of activist campaigns have received media attention similar to the previous boom years. The resurgence of activist investing raises the question yet again: do these modern day corporate raiders enhance market efficiency and create value for society?
WHY ACTIVIST INVESTING CREATES VALUE Activist investors are vital market participants. They speak up for smaller shareholders that may not have the resources or credibility to push for reforms. These activist investors, in fact, are not dissimilar from political activists that spur dawdling entities to action. In their essence, activists profit by addressing management complacency or in-
THE RENAISSANCE IN ACTIVIST INVESTING The work of old school corporate raiders topped out in the late 1980s after a few major investments went bad and access to credit markets (e.g. debt to fund transactions) became more limited. So why should
30
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
A: www.lisahistory.net B: www.businessinsider.com
Economics adequacy, unlocking value in the process for the company and its other shareholders. The problems that activists help solve are numerous and consequential: David Einhorn made a public effort for Apple to return its excess cash to shareholders, Carl Icahn wanted Dell to increase its financial leverage, Dan Loeb called for Sony to divest its Entertainment division. Activists are a force of discipline on many fronts, including operational efficiency, management strategy, capital allocation, and corporate structure. CHANGES IN INVESTOR PRACTICES In the past, activist investors have been criticized for their modus operandi. While old school activists also enhanced market efficiency, a few tactics are deserving of scrutiny and criticism. For example, Carl Icahn bought 4.9% of tire manufacturer B.F. Goodrich in 1984. Icahn then threatened to accumulate a 25-30% stake and acquire board seats. At this point, B.F. Goodrich’s management was worried about departures from the status quo and potential job loss. Knowing that management wanted to get rid of him, Icahn gave B.F. Goodrich a way out: he told the company it could pay a 25% premium to buy back his shares and Icahn would also agree not to buy any more shares for the next five years. This practice, known as “greenmail,” grew in prominence in the 1980s. The Carl Icahn’s and T. Boone Pickens’ of the time were the only real beneficiaries: greenmail hurts companies–they have to pay a premium to the prevailing market price–and consequently hurts all other shareholders. Activist investing has changed dramatically since the 1980s. First of all, greenmail is no longer an issue: changes in corporate law and the tax treatment on greenmail profits have all but eliminated the practice. The activist investors of today are less focused on controlling companies and more keen on leveraging their position as minority shareholders. As non-controlling shareholders, these investors then rally the support of other passive investors and often gain board seats to work on the front lines. Activist Robert Chapman once sent an open letter to Dallas-based Carreker with lines like “Chapman Capital’s criticism is not directed, in the least, towards the hard-working, loyal employees who have been subjected to your apparent ineptitude as Carreker CEO” and “If our ownership stake in Carreker leaves you tossing and turning through sleepless nights, we recommend that you pick up a copy of insomnia-killer The Modern Corporation
and Private Property by Adolph Berle and Gardiner Means.” Chapman understands the power of his bully pulpit in communicating to companies (in this case literally bullying them) and creates value by pushing for change. THE NUMBERS DON’T LIE Another criticism often lobbed at activists is that these hedge fund managers are in it for a quick buck to the detriment of long-term shareholders. Nothing could be further from the truth: activists have an average holding period of 20 months and
a direct result of activism, and Ackman still gets letters from other shareholders thanking him for his efforts. EMBRACING ACTIVIST STRATEGIES The prevailing corporate and legal environment is excessive in its support of anti-takeover provisions. These provisions–often known as “poison pills”–make it difficult for activists to acquire large enough stakes in companies. Barring legal changes, cultural and market shifts are the only feasible ways to promote the work of activist investors: the reputation of the activist investor commu-
Carl Icahn: B.F. Goodrich
their proposals often create real, sustainable value. While activists make mistakes like every other investor, there is a reason more money is flowing into activist hedge funds: the performance has been impressive. In the short-term, hedge fund interventions resulted in an average 6% bump up in a company’s stock prices. A recent study by Prof. Bebchuk, Brav, and Jiang found that the benefits are not illusory and limited to the short-term: “activist interventions are followed by improved operating performance during the five-year period following these interventions.” The track records over time of great investors like Bill Ackman further illustrate the benefits of shareholder activism. Every $100 of his investment five years ago in mall-operator General Growth Properties is now worth $9,200 – that value creation is
September 2013
nity matters a lot due to their public nature. Companies are becoming increasingly receptive in cooperating with activists, which is beneficial to all investors–activist or not. However, market efficiency takes a step back when a well-respected CEO like Jack Welch makes remarks like “I’d give [activist investor] Einhorn the back of my hand.” Today’s activists act as public advocates and are a different breed from the corporate raiders of the past. They address problems that smaller investors cannot solve by themselves and promote shareholder democracy. By better understanding and enabling activist investors, management teams would stay on their toes, boardrooms would operate more efficiently, and society would be enriched in the process. HMR
31
Science and Technology
www.thedailybeast.com
The Chinese Pollution Problem A Consequence of Economic Success and Government Negligence 32
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Science and Technology
Lenn Uchima
A
s a result of three decades of furious and unparalleled economic growth and industrialization, the People’s Republic of China stands as the world’s second largest economy. Yet as a direct consequence of its own success, China now also finds itself swamped in an enormous amount of pollution, a cause of great environmental concern and social unrest. Despite the Chinese government’s attempts to downplay the true scale of the problem, pollution control is a fast growing social and political issue and one that will no doubt shape the future of the country in the years to come. All for good reason. In 2010 alone, 1.2 million premature deaths occurred from Chinese pollution, accounting for 40% of pollution-related deaths worldwide. It is estimated that air pollution that year cost China $230 billion USD, 3.5% of the country’s entire GDP. Indeed, the toll pollution has taken on the population has by now become so staggering that the government, pressured by the populace, has no choice but to finally begin taking serious action to address it. But is it enough? Pollution has long been a problem that has plagued mankind since the Industrial Revolution. All of today’s most developed nations have had their fair share of “build now, clean later” sorts of environmental crises, including the United States and Japan. Yet China’s predicament is one of unprecedented measure. In China, pollution comes in several forms. In 2011, China produced 2.3 million tons of electronic waste, the second most in the world. Dumping of waste and harmful chemicals into waterways has polluted much of China’s rivers and water resources, reportedly leaving 500 million people without safe, clean drinking water. In March of this year, nearly 3000 dead pigs were recovered from rivers used for drinking water in Shanghai. Shortly after, over 1000 dead ducks were found in a river in Sichuan. In addition, a large section of the Pacific Ocean along the coast are without marine life due to massive algal blooms caused by the unnaturally high nutrients in the water. Lead poisoning, in large part due to pollution from metal smelters and the battery industry, is one of the most common health problems in Chinese children.
In 2009, pollution from a lead plant in the Shaanxi province was discovered to have poisoned over 850 children from surrounding villages. These children displayed up to 10 times the level of lead in their blood deemed safe by authorities. In rural areas, toxic pollution from manufacturing and the overuse of industrial fertilizers have sharply cut the amount of farmable land by 25 million acres, 8% of China’s arable land, which poses serious problems for China’s domestic food supply. Air pollution, however, is by far the most pressing of concerns, of which the notorious smog hanging over China’s major cities is an example. Every year, hundreds of thousands of people are killed by ambient air pollution alone, and it is estimated that only 1% of the country’s 560 million city dwellers breathe air that is safe by European Union standards. In recent years, the poor quality of China’s air has propelled lung cancer and cardiovascular disease to the top of the list of leading causes of deaths in China. Research has found that pollution has lowered average life expectancy in Southern China by 5.5 years. Measurements by the US Embassy in January 2013 of the most dangerous air pollutant, PM2.5, particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers in diameter, were too high for the Embassy’s equipment to measure, which has a maximum of 755 μg. The World Health Organization considers a safe daily level to be 25 μg. Chinese air pollution effects surrounding nations as well, such as South Korea and Japan, and has even reached as far as California. In the face of such astonishing statistics and growing social discontent, China can no longer deny the severity of its pollution problem. In response, the Chinese government announced the Action Plan for Air Pollution Control (2013-2017), which describes plans to invest 1.7 trillion Yuan (nearly $300 billion USD) in pollution control over the next five years. Furthermore, the China Environment Chamber of Commerce revealed in July its intention to spend 4.7 trillion Yuan in water pollution control and improving the rural environment by the end of 2017, over a 50% increase compared to the last five years. Yet, considering that seven of the world’s most polluted cities are
September 2013
in China and that only 1% of China’s major cities have reached the target air quality set by the World Health Organization, the task ahead is daunting. For even mild success to be achieved, unbending government backing will be absolutely necessary. First, a strong, subsidized environmental industry and a market for the developing and sharing of new green technology must be established to help harness alternate sources of power in the disastrously coal-dependent country. Next, the government must place strict regulations on its state-owned enterprises. Indeed over the years, it has been infighting within China’s own government bureaucracy that has been one of the biggest obstacles to effective policy enactment. China’s oil and power companies in particular are known to prioritize profit over health concerns, repeatedly violating government restrictions on emissions from coal-burn-
In 2010 alone, 1.2 million premature deaths occurred from Chinese pollution, accounting for 40% of pollution-Related deaths worldwide. ing plants, as well as sending false reports regarding emission levels. In order to make progress, the government must enforce its regulations more vigorously, as well as curb the great influence it has on environmental policy making. Thus, if China is at all serious about reducing its pollution, the Chinese government will do well to begin by demonstrating its intentions to see its plans through to the end, as well as a readiness to regulate state-owned corporations more closely. The problem has become too big to be fixed simply by throwing money at it, and China must make it clear that it wants change, and that it wants it fast. HMR
33
Science and Technology
the gop’s war on
science
a corruption of political discourse
alexander posner ‘13
F
or the time being, hyper-partisanship in Washington D.C. is here to stay. Much of the legislative docket remains in limbo, and our elected leaders have shown little willingness to trade rigid ideology for meaningful compromise. This broader political impasse has been exacerbated by the GOP’s growing war on science. Today, the challenge facing politicians isn’t only about addressing different
philosophies; in many cases, it is also about reconciling dueling conceptions of reality. The Republican Party’s frequent rejection of scientific scholarship—and its willingness to literally create its own facts—is endangering our ability to have meaningful debates about the important issues of our time. The GOP’s hostility towards mainstream science has impacted many public policy debates, including those about pol-
34
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
lution, climate change, and abortion. On the issue of climate change, for example, an amendment proposed by Democratic Congressman Henry Waxman, which would have done nothing more than recognize the existence of global warming, failed to garner a single Republican vote. The amendment would not have prompted any federal action, nor would it have implicated carbon dioxide as the cause of our warming planet.
Science and Technology It was simply a question of whether temperatures have risen. The Republican Party said no, even though the evidence to the contrary is unequivocal. Consider the facts. According to NASA and NOAA scientists, 2012 was the hottest year on record. In fact, every year of the 21st century has fallen within the 14 hottest years ever recorded (since temperature data collection began in 1880). As NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt concluded, “What matters is this decade is warmer than the last decade, and that decade was warmer than the decade before. The planet is warming. The reason it’s warming is be-
creasingly common within the GOP. In an era where the pitchfork populism of the Tea Party has gained increasing traction, those willing to simply ignore science have found a greater voice in Congress. While Representative Rohrabacher does not speak for the Republican Party as a whole, the fact remains that the majority of the GOP—including many of its leaders— continues to reject climate science. In the lead-up to the 2012 general election, all but one of the Republican primary candidates expressed skepticism or complete disdain for the idea that human activity is precipitating a rise in global temperatures. The
“The Republican Party’s frequent rejection of scientific scholarship—and its willingness to literally create its own facts—is endangering our ability to have meaningful debates about the important issues of our time. “ cause we are pumping increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.” The scientific community has almost universally accepted this analysis; a recent survey, published in the Guardian, found that of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers, over 97% concluded that global warming is manmade. In spite of the near consensus among climate researchers, much of the Republican Party hasn’t budged. The majority of its members—as polling data reveals—remain committed to the belief that climate change is a hoax, or, at the very least, that the science has yet to be settled. As GOP Congressman Dana Rohrabacher recently declared, “Global warming is a total fraud and it’s being designed because what you’ve got is liberals who get elected at the local level [and] want state government to do the work…And at the federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives.” Rohrabacher’s attack also focused on who would oversee the climate change response: “A government official who, by the way, probably comes from Nigeria because he’s a U.N. government official, not a U.S. government official.” This inflammatory rhetoric and far-fetched assertion of government conspiracy has become in-
one outlier—Jon Huntsman—exited the race early on. Whether the GOP candidates genuinely believed what they were saying or whether they were staking out positions in the name of political expedience is irrelevant. Their willingness to openly disregard the conclusions of the scientific community corrupted our political dialogue. There is a genuine debate to be had about the appropriate response to climate change. However, denying that a problem even exists represents a failure of leadership and a desertion of the moral obligation we have to future generations. Abandoning science may temporarily delay some difficult decisions, but it will not delay the inevitable. The GOP’s denial of science extends to other issues, including rape and abortion. Last year, two Republican senate candidates argued that the human body naturally prevents pregnancy in the case of rape. While that would be great news if it were true, there isn’t an ounce of science to support the claim. Nevertheless, some in the GOP have used this unsupported assertion to justify further restrictions on abortions. In addition, more than a dozen Republican controlled state legislatures have now enacted bans on abortions after 20-weeks;
September 2013
legislation to this effect has been inspired by the idea that fetuses first feel pain at the 20week mark. Again, there is scant scientific evidence to back this up. As the New York Times reported last month, “Most scientists and medical associations say that perception of pain is impossible without brain developments that occur well after 20 weeks.” Yet this fact has not fazed the GOP. Without any apparent reservations, Republican lawmakers have simply ignored scientific realities. The GOP’s war on science has also extended to the teaching of evolution in schools. In Colorado, Oklahoma, Missouri, and Montana, Republican legislatures have worked to enact bills requiring the teaching of intelligent design. Moreover, during the 2012 election, all but two of the GOP presidential candidates flatly rejected the theory of evolution, and many called for the inclusion of creationism in school curricula. These views are systemic within the Republic Party. A Gallup poll published last year found that only 31% of GOP members believed in theistic evolution—the idea that humans have evolved, but with God guiding the process. A meager 5% of the Republicans polled said they subscribe to the idea of natural evolution. The GOP’s consistent disregard for science has influenced the political orientation of American scientists. A 2009 poll by the Pew Research Center found that only 6% of scientists consider themselves Republican; it is hard to imagine that figure has increased within the past few years. The Republican Party’s systematic rejection of science is not only corrupting our national dialogue but also making it much more difficult for our political system to confront and resolve serious issues. It is also alienating voters. As Ron Fournier, editorial director of the National Journal, put it best, “When they deny science, when they deny facts, they’re going to make themselves irrelevant.” Today, Congressional Republicans remain fixated on who constructed the talking points about the U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi. They accuse the Obama Administration of covering up the truth about the tragic firefight and its aftermath. But what about the Republican talking points on women’s health, evolution, and climate change? What about the blatant distortions the GOP propagates on a daily basis? Now that’s a scandal. It’s one with serious implications, and it is worth being outraged about. HMR
35
Science and Technology
010101010110101001 01001001011111100010 0010010000010111010100100 0 010101010110 101001010101010010010111110 0010010010010101010001100 01010101011010 1010101 0101010 10101010010010111110001001001010101001 010101010001100 01010101011010100101010 10101001001000001011101010010010010010 00101010101001001011111000100100101010 0010010101010001100 01010101011010100 01001001010101001001000001011101010 01010101011010100101010101001001011 00010111101010010010010010101010 01010100100101111100010010 0101 0101001001000001011101 0100100 10010010101010001100 01 01010101100101 00101010101001001011111000100100101010100 1001000001011101010010010010010101010001
CLOUD COMPUTING
m
otos.co
positph
http://d e
36
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
Science and Technology
01010101 100100101010
A
1 0 100100101010 100 0110 00100100101010100100100000101110101 100101010101001001011111000100100 001001000001011101010010010010 10001100 0101010101101010010 001000001011101010010010010 1010011010101111100010010010 101010001100 010101010110101 100100100000101110101001001 Mihika Kapoor 10101010100100101111100 011001001001010001010001100 111000100100101010100100100 001100 010101101011010100101
s the cloud market matures, we continue to witness evolution in this revolutionary technology. Cloud is an everchanging, evergrowing segment of the IT landscape. Due to its nature, which epitomizes flexibility and agility, there is a continuous influx of “as a service� products to encompass the needs of the growing number of customers. We see the market progress as new technologies spring up and older ones are customized to cater to the growing demands of consumers.
There are four major trends on the IT horizon for cloud. The first is the uprising of new technologies that only continue to enhance performance. The second is the unification of cloud products in terms of standardization and commoditization, and its implications for the market, particularly in SaaS and IaaS. The third is methods of the dynamic sourcing of services so they can be consolidated and enabled in a business-wide environment. Finally, cloud is permeating markets in Europe, South
September 2013
America and Asia Pacific and this globalization will drive new service providers, customers and overall growth. Innovation keeps things cutting edge. To ensure the continued influx of cloud customers, technologies must evolve in conjuntion with demands to provide new capabilities and exceed expections. In cloud, there are already many established technologies, most notably SaaS and IaaS, which have seen growth and success in the market; however, as virtualization con-
37
Science and Technology
tinues, the services must evolve and administer more management and security practices. On the other hand, there are new technologies poised for growth. They hold promise for new functionalities up in the cloud, offering virtualization in areas it was not previously available. Overall, the continued development of services will keep the face of cloud appealing and fresh. Standardization and commoditization are divergent paths fueling new trends in public cloud. As customers become more confident of services they are buying, they are more readily moving to cloud, but they are also paying less for it. Commoditization is ignited by consistencies in financial value, and is stagnating market growth in IaaS, where it is most apparent. Standardization develops due to consistencies in performance, SLAs and interoperability. Standards in IaaS and PaaS are still in their early stages of development, however those in SaaS are nearly fully establsihed. These standards combined with a whole myriad of assorted services will guarantee the most growth in this market. Cloud will only flourish if people and businesses invest in it. The consolidation of services is necessary in the realm of business, as it allows for a unified cloud system to be deployed over a company, rather than siloed networks, systems and servers. It is imperative that companies are able to deploy their cloud services over their organization in a way that each individual user is
110101 1011111100010010010101010001001000 0001100 010101010110101001010101010 0010010010101010001100 010101010110 0001011101010010010010010101010001 1010101001001000001011101010010010 0101111100010010010101010010010000 0010101010100100101111100010010010 01010101011010100101010101001001011 standardized in its market, with the highest levels of interoperability, hence maximizing the benefits of different cloud vendors.
WITH NUMEROUS SERVICES AND FUNCTIONS POURING INTO THE CLOUD, VIRTUALIZED CAPABILITIES ARE SPREADING THEIR WINGS. comfortable while using their “on demand� services. We are seeing two different manners in which a company can consolidate its services. First is dynamic sourcing. In this approach, the business takes care to pick and choose services that are the most
The role of integrating these services more often than not has fallen to the CIO. However, there is a lot of movement to Cloud Brokerage Services. The second form of service consolidation is a converged infrastructure, which
38
The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIII
is provided by the cloud service provider itself. The provider assumingly has made many acquisitions and is integrating them as extra features to their services. This is used in scenarios when consumers prefer to deviate from the standards in the market and operate with more customized services. There is a similar amount of adoption via each of these types of consolidation at the moment, however dynamic sourcing is ultimately more flexible and agile, and will most likely overtake converged infrastructures in years to come. Globalization will expand the market for cloud. Adoption is steadily climbing in Europe and South America, while in Asia it is soaring. China in particular holds a lot of promise for growth, with major adoption in place since 2008. Local cloud providers are gaining many customers. Innovation will continue in the rest of the world, and global demands will help in the development of new possibilities. As these four movements continue, more viable cloud opportunities make the pheneomenon less about the hype and
010 101010 10010101010100100 0001011101010010010010010 10 101 001001011111000100100101010100100100000101110101001 1010100101010101001001011111000100100101010100100100 1100 01010101011010100101010101001001011111000100100 0010010101010001100 01010101011010100101010101001101 001011101010010010010010101010001100 010101010110101 010101001001000001011101010010010010010101010001100 1111100010010010101010010010000010111010100110010010
Science and Technology
more about the growth. The overall shifts are in anticipation for technologies which are thorough and effective; towards standardization which will increase cloud customers and enable dynamic sourcing; and globalization which will lead to more expansion due to innovation and adoption around the world. This robust growth will fuel the progressing momentum of cloud technology and generate three strategic implications for the future. The first is interoperability before convenience. With numerous services and functions pouring into cloud, virtualized capabilities are just speading their wings. With such movement, agility will become the key motivator for cloud adoption. Business performance will be enhanced by the myriad of services offered in the cloud. Cost benefits will not have much of a swaying factor and the capex to opex shift will just become an added benefit to virtualization. While pre-integrated services seem very attractive, they are incompatible. The influx of services will force enterprises to adopt interoperable cloud capabilities so
that they can maximize the best of what is offered. The ability of an organization expand in any direction on the sprawling virtual landscape embodies the concept of cloud at its finest. Secondly, we will begin to see adoption of a horizontal approach in place of a vertical approach. Currently, there is a fairly even split in demand for customized converged infrastructures as for dynamically sourced infrastructures. However, as standards develop and interoperability increases, sourced dynamic workloads will emerge as the front runner for enabling cloud deployment. Vendor lock-ins from customized solutions will stifle virtual growth, and businesses that adopt such methods will fall behind the times on technology. Dynamic workloads will further drive relocation to the cloud and enhance virtual business performance so that it grows alongside IT. Finally, with big data comes a big movement to cloud. Big data and analytics is one of the four skyrocketing forces driving IT growth today. It is progressively multiplying the demand for data center space. Once
September 2013
internal storage space is overwhelmed on a global level, unstructured data all around the world will ‘cloudburst,’ either for storage, or for organization and analytics. This will especially accelerate growth on an international level, where adoption is most reluctant, but opportunity and demand are soaring. Cloud computing serves as a vital paradigm for the future advancement of all enterprises. As a disruptive technology, it has entered the field with a bang and companies that have failed to adopt it are struggling to keep up with the advancing generation around them. Cloud has shattered all preconceptions of technology being concrete and defined, hardware and assets. Rather it can be woven seamlessly into any organization, enhancing efficiency and augmenting operability. Its versatility, flexibility and agility put it in an ideal position to revolutionize the way companies function, and as it matures, it will continue to dominate the industry. HMR
39