Issue 3: Whistleblowers

Review THE HORACE MANN

Volume XXIV - November 2014

WHISTLEbLOWERS PatriotS or Traitors?

Letter From the Editor

Review THE HORACE MANN

Ikaasa Suri

Editor-in-Chief

Lauren Futter Executive Editor

Jenna Barancik Laszlo Herwitz

Managing Design and Web Directors watanserb.com

C

ongratulations on finishing the first trimester, Horace Mann! As we hurry to finish our last assessments and onto the field to play our last fall games, many of us have become more and more familiar with the concept of a referee. Similarly, in the corporate world outside the hallways of Tillinghast, we have recently come in contact the whistleblower - a person who exposes misconduct in an organization. For this issue, we have decided to focus on these whistleblowers in a global context. With corruption on the rise both at home and overseas, many feel the only way to end such illegal activity is through large-scale exposure and the leaking of information. Such methods often yield casualties on the road to justice, begging the question: who exactly are these whistleblowers? Heroes or traitors?

I can’t imagine a better, more passionate issue for the third installment of Volume XXIV. With more and more students getting involved in The Review, our staff has watched the range of opinions and the perspectives discussed significantly expand. Writers critically analyzed key players in the exposure of domestic violence in the NFL, compared the costs and benefits of Edward Snowden’s past actions, and examined the current protests in Hong Kong in the context of the international sphere. In addition, writers continue to discuss the global impact of a variety of issues ranging from ISIS, Alibaba, and Ebola to the negative consequences of the viral Yik-Yak app and the need for reform in our prisons today. All of these writers took the time to write meaningful, thought-provoking pieces, and we ask that you approach them with an open mind.

Matthew Harpe Adam Resheff Brett Silverstein

Managing Content Editors

Emily Kramer

Senior Editor - Domestic

Neil Ahlawat Senior Editor - International

Elizabeth Xiong

Senior Editor - Features

James Megibow Mitchell Troyanovsky Senior Editor - Economics

Alexander Newman Abigail Zuckerman Senior Editor - Science and Technology

Edmund Bannister Charles Cotton James McCarthy Harry Seavey Samantha Stern Senior Contibutors

The Review strives to encompass as many perspectives from the Horace Mann student body as possible, and I am confident, with the ever-increasing involvement in this publication, this issue embodies that goal. Such a diverse variety of viewpoints enables us to become a community of questions, explorers, and learners, in the process gaining knowledge and becoming more critically minded. With every issue, The Review staff continues to amaze me with the amount of effort and talent they pour into this magazine.

Ben Alexander Daria Balaeskoul Maria Balaeskoul Gabriel Broshy Daniel Jin Cassandra K-J

We thank them, Mr. Donadio, Dr. Kelly, and the rest of the administration for their commitment to this publication.

Miranda Bannister Evan Greene Ray Fishman Alex O’Neill

Happy reading!

Anna Kuritzkes Natasha Moolji Anne Rosenblatt Daniel Rosenblatt Peter Shamamian Eric Stein

Junior Editors

Matthew Parker Aditya Ram Spencer Slagowitz Evy Verbinnen

Associate Editors

Gregory Donadio

2

Ikaasa Suri Editor-in-Chief

Volume XXIV

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. For more information, please visit www.hmreview.org.

Table of Contents

Sophie Maltby

page 4

Standard of Reform: The New SATs

DOMESTIC

Michael Farinelli

page 6

Mental Illness Behind Bars Sadie Lye

page 8

28 FEATURES

4

Celebrities Swaying Politics

The College Rape Crisis Elizabeth Raab

page 10

INTERNATIONAL

page 12

46

page 14

The Chinese Ballistic Missile Crisis Stephen Phillips

page 16

ECONOMICS

16

ISIS’ Global Economics John Eng

page 20

Ethan Gelfer

Henry Shapiro

Siddarth Tripathi

page 24

56

page 49

Ella Feiner

page 52

page 30

Con: Edward Snowden page 32

SCI-TECH

page 28

page 54

page 56

Yik Yak: Anonymous Bullies Emma Forman

page 58

The Future of Apple

page 26

Pro: Edward Snowden

Zach Gaynor

page 46

HP’s Prospects After its Split

Ben Shapiro

page22

The Legalization of the Organ Trade

Honor McCarthy

page 44

Modi: Finding Growth

Evan Megibow

Karen Jiang

page 42

Crony Capitalism

Ananya Kumar-Banerjee

Alibaba and the Economy

FEATURES

Nuclear Whistleblowing

Ebola’s Ripple Effect

Daniel Lee

page 38

Trademarks: The Boundaries of IP

Immigration Reform

30

Yarden Hahn

The Brazilian Presedential Election

Alexis Megibow

page 36

The NFL Takes a Hit

Olivia Becker

Guantanamo: Beyond the Barb Wire Ruthie Yankwitt

Zoe Mavrides

Jack Palmer

The Federal Reserve Krystian Loetscher

The Decline of Presidential Protection

Jacob Chae

page 60

Euthanasia: Putting an End to Suffering Jack Vahradian

page 62

The Placebo Effectiveness Celestine Samaroo

page 64

Military Advancements Ankit Gupta

page 66

Hong Kong: Standing up to China Annie Liu

page 34

3

Domestic

Under THE CelebritY Sway Sophie Maltby

F

4

rom Ronald Reagan to Shirley Temple to Emma Watson and Leonardo DiCaprio, there is a long history of

celebrities getting involved in politics, and in recent years this trend has become ubiquitous. The debate over whether a celebrity should be able to voice his or her opinion is popular and controversial.

Although some may consider our nation’s confounding fixation with celebrities a problem, some of them, actors in particular, are very good public speakers and can benefit society by spreading important messages. In addition, it is not fair for us to criticize them for exercising their first amendment rights.

The United Nations seems to have made a trend of using actors and celebri-

ties to further their causes. Angelina Jolie, Liam Neeson, and Shakira are just a few over the over 15 celebrities advocating for the UN. Neeson and Shakira, along with other actors such as Susan Sarandon and Nicolas Cage, are UNICEF goodwill ambassadors, someone who has been “enlisted the volunteer services and support of prominent personalities from the worlds of art, music, film, sport and literature to highlight key issues and to draw attention to its activities.�

The involvement of celebrities in politics has received harsh criticism, with generalizations made about the knowl-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

Domestic edge any of these people have about these issues. Many celebrities make knowledgeable and well informed arguments about important issues facing the nation and the world. The issue does not lie with their participating in debates, but rather with the way we as a society perceive their participating, taking their words to mean much more than they actually do.

The People’s Climate March on September 21st attracted many anti-climate change activists, including some as famous as Leonardo DiCaprio and Ben Affleck. In many news outlets, the two were dubbed as part of the “cult of the white

The same week as the Climate March, actress Emma Watson addressed the UN as their new UN women goodwill ambassador launching the HeforShe campaign.

Again, what Watson said in her speech was nothing groundbreaking in the world of feminism, but because she was able to introduce a broader, more engaged audience, the issue rose to the forefront of discussion. While she has received criticism for not having original ideas, what she said in her speech was accurate, well informed, and well delivered. In this instance, like many others, her fame helped raise a very important concern.

infatuation people have with that person’s celebrity.

In order for everyone to have a voice proportional to their knowledge of or experience with a certain topic, we must shift our way of thinking, and focus more on facts and figures, rather than blind opinions. Does it really matter if those facts and figures are delivered through the mouth of a celebrity or a DC bureaucrat? If an organization has a strong or important message, is it bad for them to garner support by using a celebrity as a spokesperson? As long as the sway a celebrity hold is used for good, it is outra-

While it is not a problem for people to express their views on hot-button issues, it is a problem when a person’s views influence the masses because of the absurd infatuation people have with that person’s celebrity. male celebrity activist” (The Guardian).

DiCaprio is a large beneficiary of the anti-climate change cause; as an activist he attended and tweeted about the event and held an art auction that raised close to $38 million. Recently, the actor addressed the UN, urging them to take action and enforce environmental conservation.

Affleck was praised for calling out Bill Maher’s supposed Islamophobia, when Maher made islamophobic comments on his talk show Real Time. While many others have also publicly addressed the issue, it was Affleck’s comments that gained the most traction, begging the questions: Why? Is this bad? More and more, celebrity activism is moving away from photo-ops and short statements and towards involvement in the community with passion for an issue they find important.

Still, the truth is that attention and praise follows almost solely people whom we put on a pedestal. In the cases of DiCaprio and Affleck, they are free to discuss any and every issue, leading a discussion on a topic of their choosing, while celebrity women are encouraged to focus on issues relating to their gender, and other things that impact them directly.

When in recent history celebrities who are famous for being famous say or post political opinions, the media reacts by discussing that celebrities’ political influence. In August, Kim Kardashian posted on Instagram endorsing a congressional candidate for the midterm elections.

Upon the release of the photo on her account, news outlets ran entire spreads in magazines and online about her past as a political activist, including her stance as a democrat. This was followed by a plethora of tweets from fans and fellow celebrities about how Kardashian is a woman who has it all, participating in politics while still having a family life, and her statements garnered support for the candidate. Kardashian’s support was not taken as an idea of a citizen from the congressional district, but rather as a fashionista and reality star, in the very same way that the press releases for the event discuss not only how Kim Kardashian supported candidate Marianne Williamson, but what she was wearing while doing so.

While it is not a problem for people to express their views on hot-button issues, it is a problem when a person’s views influence the masses because of the absurd

November 2014

geous for their participating to receive criticism. The problem is that the idea of “the good thing” is incredibly subjective, and so people believe that it would be easier for people to obtain an objective view on important matters if celebrities stayed out of important and impactful conversations.

What many suggest is a matter of infringing on the freedom of speech that all people are granted, and encroaching on this right is unacceptable, especially when it is our fault for idoling a celebrity, when they are all just people too. HMR

5

Domestic

wnyc.org

Standard of Reform: The New SAT Michael Farinelli

M

ost of us have taken a standardized test before, whether it be an SAT II subject test, the ERBs in lower school, or maybe even the SAT or ACT if you’re a junior or senior. The SAT, one of the biggest nation-wide standardized tests, will be redesigning the format and content of its tests in the year 2016. This change will effect the 2017 (sophomore class) graduates and later. The big changes to the SAT will include a switch to an optional essay at the end of the test, the removal of arbitrary vocabulary which will be replaced with contextual vocab used in sentences, and a slimmed down math section including only the most central mathematical concepts. Another change will come from the CollegeBoard, a non-profit organization that administers the test. They will offer free test prep from Khan Academy,

a leading digital tutoring web company.

A practice exam, skill games, and practice questions will be provided by Khan Academy. In the past, most upper class high school students would take expensive test prep courses to give themselves an advantage over the kids who couldn’t afford or didn’t want tutoring. There is currently a very big disparity in scores; kids coming from low-income families are scoring lower than the kids with higher incomes. A big question is will the redesigned SAT with the free test prep help curb economic disparity? It is likely to help bridge the gap, but not significantly. Many of the kids who can afford the expensive test prep courses will continue taking them, while the kids who cannot afford them will use the free test prep.

Since everyone can take the free test prep on KhanAcademy.com, the wealthier stu-

6

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

dents can also use it along with kids of all different socioeconomic backgrounds.

Sure, the students who in the past have taken the exam with little to no prep will now score higher with the test prep if they choose to use it, but I believe kids who are taking multiple tutoring courses and practice tests for many months prior to the test will still score higher than the students using the Khan Academy prep.

In a report from 2013, students whose families had an annual income of $20,00 or less scored an average of 1326 points on the test while students who had a family income exceeding $200,000 scored an average of 1714 points. The scores increased from lower to greater incomes in a direct proportion. If your family makes a greater annual income your scores are generally higher for multiple reasons. If you make enough money to afford the

Domestic

“The scores increased from lower to greater incomes in a direct proportion. If your family makes a greater annual income, your scores are generally higher.” test prep courses, that’s great, but your high school education and tutors (if necessary) come into play too. This is a huge problem because if you don’t attend a high school that will give you the right tools to take the SAT with a small amount of preparation, you will not succeed. The SAT is an unfair test because anyone that gets a lot of tutoring and prep can do well on it. You don’t have to be brilliant to score highly on the test as long as you study really hard. If you can’t pay for a lot of test prep, then the test does show the true colors of students because it is based on pure knowledge and intelligence. The SAT is now making it a little easier to study because the arbitrary vocabulary is gone and the essay is optional, which is a step in the right direction of making this a test that doesn’t require tutoring for a student to succeed. A New York City elite expensive test prep company called “Bespoke Education” has released data showing how much students’ SAT scores have increased per months of tutoring. The scores increased in a direct proportion just like the data from annual income. With just one month of tutoring, students’ scores increased

on average by 194 points and with one year of tutoring their scores increased by 347 points. It will be interesting to see what the students’ scores will be after taking the prep from Khan Academy.

CollegeBoard assumes that this free test prep will help bridge the disparity between scores greatly, but that’s just not true. The prep will consist of just one practice SAT exam, and other activities like games and practice questions. If a student doesn’t understand a question or gets it wrong, a video can be played to help explain the material. If you still don’t understand the topic, whom can you go to? Students may not find somebody twith an explanation, but the kids who take multiple classes and practice tests will be able to go over the question or topic one-on-one with a tutor. The tutor could help explain the material in multiple ways where Khan Academy can try to include many points of view, but not all. Many practice tests are also a very important aspect of the prep classes. I recently took the Biology SAT II subject test, and I had a tutor go over material that I had not learned in school from the winter to the middle of spring.

November 2014

I took around 6 different practice tests.

This helped me a lot since I could go over each question I got wrong with my tutor on a previous practice test, and apply it to the next one. Khan Academy doesn’t provide the “bespoke” tutoring that many classes provide. Khan Academy and the CollegeBoard provide practice questions, but they won’t really explain the topic because they assume you understand the general idea. These test prep classes provide the ability to give tricks and tips for getting a really good score. One tutor said that the way todo really well on the writing section is to pile on the facts.

He even says you could say “the war of 1812 took place in 1945.” The tests are looking for the skill of backing up your assertions with hard facts, not necessarily your opinion and how you write it. This is something that Khan Academy might not say because it could be controversial to CollegeBoard, whereas a tutoring company will definitely mention this. The changes are a good step towards helping lower income students, but they will not be enough to prevent students who take expensive tutoring classes from scoring higher than lower income kids. HMR

7

Domestic http://searchpp.com/

http://postsfrom

mental illness behind bars

M

illions of Americans suffer from mental illness, and cannot afford proper medical care. The government has been reducing funding for state psychiatric hospitals but increasing spending on prisons. There is a correlation between having a mental illness and committing crimes. The prison population could be reduced if appropriate changes such as separating prisons from mental hospitals were made. In order to do so, the government should create psychiatric hospitals and stop increasing the prison budget. As a result, prisoners with a recent history of mental illness would receive better medical care while the overall cost of prisons and hospitals combined would be less than the cost of prisons today. Mental illness facilities are the most cost effective usage of tax dollars and more humane than correctional institutions.

Every year, the government spends large amounts of taxpayer dollars on the judicial system, law enforcement, and prisons.

Each part of the judicial system needs to be funded. The prison buildings need maintenance, their inmates need basic supplies, and the minimum prison wage increases.

These small costs add up to constitute a substantial amount of the government budget. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, a 2012 study of forty states found that the average annual spending on a single inmate was 31,286 dollars. The study also

found that New York State was the most expensive state to house a prisoner in.. According to the Vera Institute of Justice, the cost of housing a prisoner in New York was 60,000 dollars. Furthermore, every year the number or prisoners and the cost of keeping them in prison increases.

NAMI (National Alliance On Mental Illness) reports that 21% of prisoners in local jails and 20% of prisoners in state jails have a recent history of mental illness. These people are incarcerated again and again, often for petty crimes. While these inmates are in prisons, they receive proper medical support, paid for by the government. They receive medication and, in some cases, undergo therapy. Once these inmates are released and re-enter society, however, they struggle to find work because of their criminal record. Without income, these former inmates struggle to find substantial work to pay for their medication. Many of them will return to prison for committing more petty crimes. Studies have found that mental illnesses can lead to a person committing crimes more frequently because untreated mentally ill people are more likely to have negative emotions and take actions on them.

This is a best-case scenario. Often inmates do not get the support they need, when incarcerated and when free. Many inmates end up locked in solitary confinement, and this does not improve their men-

http://theamericanread

http://www.mnartists.org/

8

tal stability. An investigation in 2006 found that 64 percent of prisoners in solitary confinement are mentally ill, and discovered side effects of solitary confinement include insomnia, paranoia, increased risk of suicide, hallucinations, sensitivity to touch or noise, feelings of rage and fear, and PTSD. These symptoms indicate a condition known as Special Hosing Unit Syndrome. If an inmate is not mentally ill before solitary confinement, their mental state is severely compromised. Unstable inmates lash out with violence, and as a result, they are placed in higher security holdings. These unstable inmates get lost in the system.

Sometimes a simple medication could have been prescribed to prevent the violence that caused them to lash out.

NAMI claims that 70 percent of youth in juvenile detention facilities have at least one mental health condition, and 20 percent live with severe mental health conditions.

If these youth do not receive treatment at an early age, they will not complete school.

Without a proper education they will struggle to find work. Many will end up in the judicial system or become homeless. Unemployed people struggling to make ends meet sometimes turn to crime as a potential income source or an outlet for aggression.

As the number of prisoners increases, the percentage of mentally ill prisoners remains the same. This means that there are in fact a large number of prisoners who are

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

Domestic

stsfromthepath.com/

http://onefaithmanyfaces.org/

sadie lye mentally ill. Even though there is an increase in mentally ill prisoners, state mental health facility funding has been cut as state budgets have been reduced. However, state funded medical hospitals could combat the rising cost of prisons, and the rising number of mentally ill inmates, .

These proposed mental health hospitals would consist of an in-patient and an out patient program. Both of these programs would receive funding from the state. The in-patient program would provide mentally ill patients living in the hospital with constant care, medicine, and therapy. The end goal of this program would be for the patients’ mental states to stabilize. Patients participating in the out patient program would live at home and hopefully have jobs and social lives while still receiving medicine and therapy as needed. Both programs would offer vocational training and classes in many subjects to broaden future opportunities for the patient. Prisoners would be able to move from the in-patient program to the out patient program if their mental state improves significantly. This program would encourage the former inmates to become economically independent; hopefully enough so that they can eventually pay for their own health care. Thus, more prisoners would be able to enter the state-funded program.

Besides benefitting inmates, the proposed program would also help many others. Ac-

cording to NAMI 26 percent of homeless people living in shelters live with a serious mental illness and 46 percent live with a severe mental illness. The proposed facilities would be extremely beneficial to the homeless, as they would give them a chance to re-integrate into society. These facilities would offer opportunities for treating veterans with PTSD or other mental conditions who otherwise could not afford it.

These facilities could become premier research centers for mental illness. The research done by psychiatrists would have the potential to revolutionize the treatment of mental illness. Cures for some conditions could be discovered. Modern science has taught us much about the human brain.

The data that a state mental hospital would provide would allow research to progress much faster. America could be leading the future of psychiatric care and reducing the cost of this care. Newer methods could be less expensive and work quicker allowing for the overall state program to be less expensive.

The success of treatments can be measured by the number of mentally ill inmates who can successfully be reintegrated in society. The proposed treatments and hospitals would not yield 100 percent success rate, but right now we have just above a zero percent success rate. Even a low success rate would be substantial, because inmates who did not have much of a future

before now have the ability to lead lives and have careers. Inmates have the potential to start making an income, paying taxes, and become fully functioning members of society. The taxes that they pay would help fund care for another mentally ill individual.

A crucial component to ensuring this program’s success is keeping its cost below that of the prison system. The program will not be endorsed unless it cost less and is more beneficial than the prison system. .

At first the new program will probably be more expensive than our current system, but once refined and cheaper ways of treating patients are developed the cost of treating mentally ill patients will be much lower.

The end result is a lower cost, because patients will only need to go through the program once, unlike the prison system, which inmates usually enter multiple times.

Instead of locking away mentally ill inmates and losing them to the system, the state should protect them by opening more state funded mental hospitals. These hospitals would be cheaper than prisons, provide a bright future to those who previously had a dark one, and become premier centers for innovative treatments of psychiatric illness. There is no reason that any person who is ill, mentally or otherwise, should be left untreated, yet many mentally ill people are ignored. This is a problem that can and should be fixed. HMR

http://www.xtremexplorations.com/

anreader.com/

November 2014

9

Domestic

The Coll ege Rape Cris is

By Elizab eth Raab

I

n a story mentioned in the New York Times, two weeks into her freshman year at Hobart and William Smith Colleges, a girl named Anna attended a party where she had been drinking heavily.

Suddenly, no one could find her. She texted her male friend that she was “scared� and did not know what to do. After she failed to pick up or return his phone call, he went out looking for her. He found her; a member of the football team was sexually assaulting her on top of a pool table while an audience of six people watched and took pictures. Records later showed that she had suffered blunt force trauma, indicating that she had participated either in intercourse multiple times in the 24-hour span or very forceful intercourse. She had no memory of the pool table incident, but she recalled being raped earlier that evening in a room in the fraternity house. Unfortunately, this

10

is only one of countless instances where sexual assault has occurred on college campuses. Although the details may not be exactly the same in every case, the basic storyline is hauntingly familiar. A girl goes to a party, drinks until she can no longer think clearly (much less consent to sex), and is sexually assaulted by a guy attending the party. There is no doubt that the people at fault in these stories, the people solely responsible for the horrors that these poor victims go through, are the rapists.

However, there are other factors that play into these rapes. In almost every instance of sexual assault on campus, the victim has consumed large quantities of alcohol, and bystanders fail to take steps to prevent the rape of the victim until it is too late.

Though sexual assault is never the victim’s fault, it could be greatly reduced if more people, especially women, in colleges un-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

derstood more about sexual assault, how it occurs, and who the main perpetrators are.

Many instances of sexual assault on college campuses go either unreported or without repercussions for the rapists because massive amounts of alcohol are consumed; as a result, there is a great deal of ambiguity around these incidents. Many women attending university know how prevalent sexual assault is in their environments, or at least understand that it happens, but they may not realize most rapists choose their victims. It is a popular belief that the rapist is some random stranger, dressed in black, who attacks an unsuspecting girl on her way back to her dorm. In reality, though there are probably a few examples where this is the case, the vast majority of rapists are students at these colleges attending the same parties as their victims. These rapists systematically

Domestic

choose to go after the drunkest girl in the room. After this girl eventually realizes that she has been assaulted, she is either too ashamed of her state at the time of the rape or does not remember enough of it to bring it to the attention of the university or the police. In many of these cases, even if the woman does present her story to the college, it has been days or even months after the assault. Consequently, it is difficult for law enforcement to pin anything on the accused rapist. Unfortunately, as Emily Yoffe of Slate Magazine said, “a misplaced fear of blaming the victim has made it somehow unacceptable to warn inexperienced young women that when they get wasted, they are putting themselves in potential peril.” Thus, even though alcohol is a prominent factor in sexual assault at most campuses, many women do not realize that when they participate in such ac-

tivities, as binge drinking, that limit their cognitive abilities, they are risking sexual assault. According to a 2009 study, more than eighty percent of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol. If it were not taboo to mention that excessive consumption of alcohol elevates a woman’s chance of being raped, sexual assault would decrease.

According to David Lisak who coauthored a 2002 study with almost 1,900 college men, most young women do not realize that each rapist has approximately six victims. Many women who are victims of sexual assault are reluctant to report it because of shame or embarrassment, not realizing that their silence allows serial rapists to continue to hurt other young, unsuspecting women. If more women knew that the vast majority of perpetrators of rape on campus attack multiple people, they would likely be less reluctant to speak up. One victim’s silence can contribute to another victim’s rape, and if more women were aware of this fact, it would be much easier to stop serial rapists at colleges.

Perhaps most importantly, the definition of sexual assault needs to be publicized.

Many women do not realize that what has happened to them is sexual assault until months after it has occurred. Some women think that if they were too intoxicated to say no or if they did not physically attempt to stop the act, it was partially their own fault and thus not considered assault.

However, if the perpetrator knew that the victim was unwilling to engage in sexual activity or the victim was intoxicated, then the incident was a sexual assault. Most women also do not know about Title IX,

which prohibits discrimination against women universities and can protect a victim who has experienced sexual assault.

When women do not understand that they are victims of sexual assault and are legally protected, they are less likely to report their assault. It is important to educate everyone about their rights so that they realize that they can report instances of sexual assault.

There is a cultural taboo that stigmatizes announcing that a woman can protect herself against rape. Whenever anyone tries to bring to light that heavy drinking or underreporting by the victim are heavy factors in sexual assault, the public accuses them of victim blaming. But what if telling young, inexperienced women entering college that when they drink excessive amounts of alcohol puts them at a higher risk of being raped decreases sexual assault? Preventing more rape cases is more important than being politically correct.

If education helps women protect themselves from sexual assault, it is not “victim blaming.” It is fact. Ignorance is a reason for sexual assault, and though it is never the victim’s fault, the victim can take steps to prevent another woman’s rape as well as her own. One cannot expect a university to stop every rape on its own; it is not solely the school’s responsibility. They need help and victims and bystanders can help by reporting rape, knowing their rights, and making mature decisions. A crucial step in stopping rapists is to make their job harder, and education can do that. HMR

w o n k u o y d1 i4d

November 2014

exual s a f o m i t e the vic b l l i w n e ollege c n in wom i e l i h assault w llege o c a n o e is a rap e r e h t s r u ho the US Every 21 n i s u p m a c to be y l e k i l e r mes mo i t 4 s i an by a m h i t t c i w v o e n p k a Ar one they e m o s y b assaulted stranger 11

Domestic

Krystian Loetscher

The Federal Reserve:

Interest Rates and Our Nation’s Future

I

nterest rates have been the focus of much speculation regarding their effect on the state of the economy. Some economists say that the economy is ready for interest rates to rise since an increase in Gross Domestic Product, a drop in unemployment, and other economic indicators demonstrate an upturn in the economy. They argue that the economy is at risk of high inflation, which occurs when there is an increase in the price of goods in a given market, thereby reducing the purchasing power of the dollar. Too rapid an increase in the price of goods will lead to hyperinflation. Hyperinflation occurs when benign inflation becomes uncontrollable and hard for the Federal Reserve to manage. While there are arguments for raising interest rates, Janet Yellen, the current chair of the Federal Reserve, recently announced that the Federal Reserve will not for a “considerable time,” given the current standing of the somewhat feeble economy. Interest rates are a significant factor in steering an economy in the right direction during times of trouble. This decision to not raise interest rates will have a big economic impact, and will ultimately benefit the economy.

There are many reasons why this decision is the appropriate one considering the current state of the economy. The largest is simply that there is no reason to slow down the economy when there are no signs of high inflation. Essentially, when you raise interest rates, more people will start to save their money because they are receiving a sizable income from

12

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

do is jump start the tightening process today without any inflationary pressure.”

Given that the current rate of inflation is benign, there would be no benefit to stopping the growth of the economy by slowing the exchange of money.

A couple of weeks ago the Federal Reserve was planning to raise interest rates, but one of the main reasons they chose

“When interest rates are low, borrowers are able to get loans with more ease, and that money, for the most part, gets reinvested in the economy. When money flows easily, it recirculates and spending boosts a once idle or stagnated economy.” it. When interest rates are low, borrowing and spending are promoted because there is no incentive to gain the marginal interest on it. This idea was summarized well

by Krishna Memani, the chief investment officer at Oppenheimer Funds, when he said, “If [the Fed] take[s] it away all they

not to was that there are still many signs that the economy needs the stimulus campaign. The stimulus campaign is a policy in which the Federal Reserve increases the liquidity of money, which essentially is a measure of how easily money can flow, in order to stimulate

Domestic economic growth. The Federal Reserve does this with actions such as purchasing bonds and, of course, lowering interest rates. Although the Federal Reserve has announced that the stimulus campaign will end next month, interest rates will remain low, ensuring easy investment and promoting growth in the economy. When interest rates are low, borrowers are able to get loans with more ease, and that money for the most part gets reinvested in the economy. When money flows easily, it recirculates and spending boosts a once idle or stagnated economy.

One of the largest counterarguments to lowering interest rates is that income from interest serves as a meaningful source of income for many retired Americans. Interest rates, when they are high, provide a sizable amount of money to those who leave their money in banks.

But what needs to be realized is that income from interest rates is more than outweighed by the benefits that are gained from a stimulated economy. A healthy economy benefits everyone, encompassing every citizen who buys and spends in the economy, such as through an increase in the employment rate. In other words, the income gained from interest rates is marginal compared to the benefits of the latter option.

Among the most important benefits of the stimulus campaign are climbing out of a recession, low unemployment, and high growth. As many know, the economy was in a colossal slump just a few years ago. The purpose of stimulus is to revive and lift the economy back onto its path to steady growth and eventually to pursue policies that involve saving money. Unemployment levels have been steadily decreasing, currently at a low 6.1%. GDP growth has shown signs of success as well. So, if there has been so much success with stimulus and low interest rates, why would someone argue that we should stop pursuing these policies? Well, as addressed in the previous argument, many are afraid of high inflation. It seems that those who advocate high interest rates are skeptical of such healthy signs of growth and are worried that something bad will follow. So, high inflation became the basis of the opposing side’s argument to increase interest rates. However, this worry is overblown.

As said in a Wall Street Journal article, the majority of economists agree that the economy can still benefit from stimulus

“If people are saving their money, then it is clearly not being spent; that slows down activity, slows down money circulation, and slows down the economy.” and that there are no visible threats on the horizon due to high inflation.

Just as the Federal Reserve was planning to raise interest rates, the Bureau of Labor statistics showed that the unemployment levels stopped improving so rapidly, as just 142,000 jobs were added last month. This seemed to be the tipping point for the Fed, as a couple of weeks later they announced that they will not in fact increase interest rates. The unemployment levels were among the signs that showed that growth was no longer rapid and almost uncontrollable, but rather slowing down and thus bringing down the risk of high inflation. Growth and stimulation is what is being pursued currently, although if it exceeds a certain rate or amount it then becomes uncontrollable and has the risk of causing high inflation. What these indicators tell economists is that having low interest rates has not caused unhealthy inflation due to rapid growth, as others had previously believed it would. At this time in our economy, slow to medium paced growth is good.

Another argument against the low interest rate is that it discourages saving.

People argue that with such a heavy emphasis on spending, the average person will not save enough. The answer to this

November 2014

is simply that at any given time, there is the appropriate economic policy to pursue. At this point in time, the economy is in need of stimulus, not austerity. Austerity, in economic terms, means that people are encouraged to save rather than spend.

Right now the government’s main goal is to get out of the seventeen trillion dollars of debt it has currently. In other words, there needs to be growth, a promotion of spending that recirculates and revitalizes the economy. If people are saving their money, then it is clearly not being spent; that slows down activity, slows down money circulation, and slows down the economy. Austere policies are implemented when the economy is healthy enough to operate without artificial aids such as stimulus, and the focus is shifted to saving money in the long run to ease the government’s debt. But currently, the economy is in need of this aid and the focus should not be on saving. The key point is that when in need, the economy needs to be bolstered or revitalized by artificial interention, and that time is now. Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve made the right decision to hold back on increasing interest rates so that the benign growth can continue. HMR

13

Domestic

Guantanamo:

tribune.com

Beyond the Barb Wire

G

By Ruth Yankwitt

uantanamo Bay Prison is one of the most infamous prisons controlled by the United States. Located at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, this military prison, or detention camp, is currently neither fully open nor fully closed as it is not accepting any new prisoners. While the Joint Task Force Guantanamo runs the detention camp on a day-to-day basis, Barack Obama has taken an interest in the matter throughout his presidency. Although Obama has said he plans to try to put an end to Guantanamo Bay by returning certain prisoners to their home countries, or at least other detention centers, the process for accomplishing this is complex. So far, there have been several attempts to relocate prisoners. Unfortunately, the Obama’s Administration is reluctant to return people to Yemen.

There has always been controversy over Guantanamo Bay; while it is operated by

the United States, it is not located within the United States. By being outside the bounds of the country, it is unaffected by US prison regulations. If it is property of the United States, shouldn’t it have to conform to US prison regulations put in place to protect inmates’ basic human rights? Current and former prisoners have reported abuse and torture in the past, but the Bush Administration denied it. The United States is responsible for Guantanamo Bay, seeing that we run it, and therefore must ensure that the conditions are reasonably good and the prisoners are treated humanly.

Requests for much needed additional funding to make the prison livable have been continuously denied, however, the problem is not simply the facilities as it is the treatment from the guards. The facilities are atrocious. The area used to house most of the inmates has an unstable floor.

Yet still, the Pentagon refuses to spend

14

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XIV

more money on these “criminals.” There is still some hope though with Congress discussing the approval of 23 million dollars in funding. In addition to the conditions of the facilities, many of the policies and practices at Guantanamo Bay make daily life an uphill battle, to say the least, for the prisoners. Although Guantanamo is well-stocked with medical supplies and equipment, this is because the frigid temperatures maintained throughout the camp increase health risks and there is a reluctance to transport prisoners to an actual hospital. The money going into this equipment is essentially being wasted when it could easily improve the prison exponentially. This prison is falling apart, there is an obvious solution, yet no one is taking strides to make these positive changes.

While the people being held at Guantanamo Bay are indeed prisoners accused of committing heinous crimes, they are still

Domestic people and deserve to be treated as such.

The guards regularly practice techniques used to wear people down and essentially demean them to nothing other than just another prisoner. The lights are kept on constantly, making sleep near impossible.

Many detainees have minimal contact with the guards, but they are constantly being watched seeing as several young enlisted troops are required to check on the every several minutes.

Even among the terrible conditions, there is some humane treatment for the lesser offenders. Some of the men are able to sit outside and watch television using headphones. There are separate television sets for those who would like to watch Western television and those who with to avoid seeing women not fully covered.

Guards also respect the religious practices of the prisoners allowing them to put mats on the floors and pray in the direction of Mecca. While most American prisons have established centers for Abrahamic religions to be practiced, whether it is Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, the men are completely denied of their right to pray as a community, as prescribed by Islam. There has not been any sort of chaplain available to these prisoners since 2003.

It is America’s duty to protect the basic rights outllined in the Constitution.

Like other prisons in America, any privileges an inmate may have can be taken away due to misbehavior. At Guantanamo, indiscretions include exhibiting aggression toward a guard or attempting to splash feces and urine at a guard as a means of protest. Other prisoners are equally penalized for protesting passively; they go on hunger strikes or refuse to obey orders. Both of which people in America are allowed to do based on their given rights, but of course these prisoners are not technically in America. Those who go on hunger strikes receive nutrients through a tube or are

force fed by guards and medical personnel, which shows the blatant disrespect to these men’s personal choices.

The daily lives of those who live at Guantanamo Bay are often very isolated and miserable. There is little contact with other prisoners, very similar to solitary confinement; however this is their regular environment. Food is delivered through a metal slot in each cell door. The men are not housed together, but if they yell loud enough, often resulting in punishment, they can be heard by others. Weeks often go by without these men seeing sunlight.

As with other solitary confinement facilities and institutions, these living conditions often result in “sensory deprivation, environmental manipulation and sleep deprivation, not to mention the daily psychological and physical torment”. They are forced to spend their days without human interaction, or the outdoors we take for granted. Almost all prisons located in the United States have yards for prisoners who behave to exercise, relax, or socialize in.

Toothbrushes, blankets, soap and deodorant are considered privileges that can be and are taken away as forms of punishment. It is unimaginable and inhumane that someone be denied a simple neces-

sity, such as a toothbrush, as punishment for misbehavior. Prisoners are even denied sleep, a necessity of life, because the lights are kept on at all hours as previously mentioned.

Largely invasive searches are also a part of daily life. In Camps 5 and 6, new search procedures have been developed. They are subjected to full body scans that show naked images of them to the guards. To avoid the humiliating, embarrassing, and emotionally degrading experience, many men will simply refuse to leave their cells.

Although Obama has said on multiple occasions that he plans to the down the prison, only one prisoner has been freed and sent home. He argued that Guantanamo must be closed due to its extremely high costs, which reach nearly 3 million dollars per prisoner annually, in addition to the fact that it endangers national security.

Guantanamo Bay is often seen as an anti-American symbol because of previous torture tactics used and various prisoner abuse claims. After a two-year period

November 2014

in which none of the “low-life” prisoners were released, the men started their hunger strikes. The news of their protests prompted Obama to again attempt to close the prison.

Although Obama has previously discussed closing Guantanamo Bay, it is yet to happen and in reality Guantanamo Bay will be open for some time, but the government needs to take the necessary steps in order to maintain the facilities and condition of life for the time being. Even though this facility is not technically in the United States, it is our property and therefore our responsibility to take care of it and those it houses.

Guantanamo Bay’s facilities should be held to the same level of quality as a standard prison or jail in America. Currently the physical conditions at Guantanamo Bay are a disgrace to our prison system. The living conditions are deplorable, with solitary confinement, sleep deprivation, and so much more on a daily basis. Barack Obama and his administration must take the necessary actions including relegating funds as necessary to improve the conditions at Guantanamo Bay, and to organize a systematic closure of the detention camp, with the final goal of returning the detainees to their respective home countries. HMR

Guantanamo In Numbers

149

Men still imprisoned

116.3

Million dollars spent to run facility in 2013

8

Convicted inmates

15

International

THE CHINESE BALLISTIC MISSILE CRISIS STEPHEN PHILLIPS

T

he United States has a complex web of allies and interests in the Pacific. Japan, South Korea, and many Southeast Asian nations rely on the US Navy to secure Pacific seaways and facilitate the flow of trade.

China has become more belligerent in its naval operations in the South and East China Seas, seeking to claim valuable resources and expand its sphere of power through aggressive deployment of the People’s Liberation Army Navy. However, the massive volume of trade between the US and China complicates the American response to the PLA Navy’s antagonistic behavior. China, as an emerging world power, is seeking to unseat the US Navy as the dominant military force in

the Pacific and to expand its sphere of influence to include resources in the South and East China Seas.

China’s economic growth has been accompanied by a significant increase in funding for its military, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Military spending in China increased by an average of 15.6% annually between 2001 and 2013.

China will spend around $130 billion on the PLA in 2014, a 12.2% increase in spending from the previous year, making its absolute military spending second only to that of the United States, which will allocate $572 billion to defense in 2014. However, the amount China spends on the PLA as a percentage of its GDP (between 2.0% and 2.2%) has remained

16

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

fairly stable in the past decade, signaling massive growth in the overall Chinese economy rather than in the allocation of government funds to the military.

One of China’s long-term goals is to force US aircraft carriers to stay farther away from its shores. Currently, American carrier strike groups sail freely in the seas around China, bolstering the morale of US allies in the region such as Japan, Taiwan, the Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam. However, the Pentagon is concerned that Chinese advances in ballistic missile and maritime technology, while currently in their early stages, could eventually threaten American naval supremacy in the region.

In 2013, the Department of Defense

International

energyandnuclear.com

and the White House declared that US military forces would “pivot” to the Pacific, emphasizing their interest in and concern about the region. The staple of the US Navy’s presence in the region is the carrier strike group forward-deployed in Japan. As part of the pivot, the Navy will eventually dispatch the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan to replace the older USS George Washington, the carrier currently on duty with the Seventh Fleet in Japan.

The Ronald Reagan, commissioned in 2003, is an aircraft carrier of the Nimitz-class, a group of ten nuclear-reactor-powered warships built by the US between 1968 and 2006 and currently in service. While the George Washington

is also a Nimitz-class ship, the Ronald Reagan is equipped with more advanced technology because it was built more recently and the design has evolved over time.

The decision to station one of the Navy’s most powerful ships in the Pacific will help buttress American forces there and check China’s advances. Along with its carrier, a standard strike group contains a guided missile cruiser for launching long-range cruise missile strikes, two guided missile destroyers for protecting the fleet against aircraft and missile threats, an attack submarine for engaging enemy ships and subs, and a supply ship for providing fuel and ammunition for the combat vessels.

November 2014

“CHINA, AS AN EMERGING WORLD POWER, IS SEEKING TO UNSEAT THE US NAVY AS THE DOMINANT MILITARY FORCE IN THE PACIFIC AND TO EXPAND ITS SPHERE OF INFLUENCE TO INCLUDE RESOURCES IN THE SOUTH AND EAST CHINA SEAS” Retired Navy Rear Admiral Edward Masso wrote, “America’s national interests greatly depend upon our aircraft carriers as premier instruments to project power and to support our foreign policy. Protecting those carriers and their escorts is also of paramount importance to the safety of American warfighters and assets abroad, as well as our ability to keep sea lanes open to peaceful commerce.” The arrival of the Ronald Reagan and other advanced US ships will give the Navy a greater ability to stabilize the Pacific region through intimidating force, but will also send a symbolic message that the Navy is committed to defending Japan and the rest of Asia against Chinese ambitions. However, the Navy’s www.global-gateways.com

17

International

AUG

2010

China becomes the world’s second largest economy second to the United States

SEPT

2012

The Chinese complete the refurbishment of the Liaoning

ability to operate freely near China faces a potential threat from advances in Chinese ballistic missile technology.

The DF-21D is an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) developed by the PLA, currently deployed in relatively small numbers. The missile has a range of over 1,500km (930mi), far enough to target ships anywhere in the South or East China Seas. The US Department of Defense believes the DF-21D is designed to target large ships and could severely damage or destroy an aircraft carrier in a single strike. China started research and development of missiles designed to target carriers after the 1995-1996 Strait of Taiwan crisis, during which two US carrier strike groups were deployed to Asia in reaction to China’s firing missiles at locations near Taiwan and carrying out provocative military exercises. China realized after the incident that it had few ways to counter the US’s greatest power projection tool, which would surely be present in any serious conflict in the Pacific.

Ballistic missiles are strategic weapons, designed to hit targets far from their launch locations. They arc high into the air using rocket engines, often escaping Earth’s atmosphere, and then fall back to Earth under only the influence of gravity.

They can reach several times the speed of sound during the descent phase. The DF-21D is designed to strike a target at an angle higher than a cruise missile but lower than a normal ballistic missile, making it hard to intercept with traditional ballistic missile defense technology.

China uses large, road-mobile vehicles to position and fire the missiles of the DF-21 series. These launchers can be rapidly repositioned in the event of a conflict, and therefore would be harder to identify with satellites and destroy with strikes from aircraft or warships.

While the US Navy is concerned by the capabilities of the missile, it is developing countermeasure systems onboard aircraft carriers and the other ships of the carrier strike group. The Navy is

18

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

MAR

2013

The Department of Defense and the White House declared that US military forces would “pivot” to the Pacific, emphasizing their interest in and concern about the region

currently testing Pandarra Fog, a cloud of carbon fiber that absorbs radar waves and can deployed around ships to confuse the radar guidance systems of ballistic missiles. An Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) will upgrade the current Aegis Combat System onboard US cruisers and destroyers with longer-range and higher-accuracy threat detection, even when the enemy is attempting to jam the signal. This allows these vessels to lock onto incoming missiles and launch antiballistic missiles to destroy them. Laser cannons with the ability to burn through incoming missiles and damage their electronics or flight gear are being incorporated into ships, giving sailors another line of defense if disabling or diverting the missile fails.

Chinese advances in missile technology should not be taken out of their wider military and geopolitical context. First, the US military in general and the Navy in particular are much better funded, more technologically advanced, and better trained than the PLA. It has been only

International

NOV

2013

China declared an Air Defense Identification Zone over the East China Sea

two years since China commissioned the refurbishment of its first aircraft carrier, the Liaoning, and the ship will not be combat-ready for several more. Even when the Liaoning enters active service, it will be at a significant disadvantage to US Nimitz-class carriers, which are longer and can hold more aircraft. US carriers will continue to outnumber and outclass Chinese ships for the foreseeable future, and immature missile technology will not be enough to counter the power projection capabilities of US strike groups. Second, neither China nor the US is willing to risk a war that would disrupt the trillions of dollars of trade that flows through the Pacific. A loss of security in major trade routes there would cause irreparable damage to both nations’ economies. Thus, an open war between the US and China is extremely unlikely—both parties currently take steps to avoid such a conflict.

Tension in the Pacific is most acute in the South and East China Seas, where disputes over the sovereignty of island

JAN

2014

China plans spend around $130 billion on the PLA in 2014

chains and their surrounding waters has led to standoffs between China and US regional partners. In the East China Sea, China has laid claim to the Japanese-controlled and uninhabited Senkaku islands (called the Diaoyu islands in China). The strategic importance of the islands lies in their proximity to shipping lanes, good fishing, and surrounding ocean that could yield rich oil and natural gas deposits.

Chinese military ships regularly sail through the disputed waters around the islands, and China in 2013 declared an Air Defense Identification Zone over the East China Sea, demanding that all aircraft flying over the area, which includes the Senkaku islands, identify themselves to Chinese authorities. US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel rejected the new Identification Zone, stating, “[It] will not in any way change how the United States conducts military operations in the region.” Hagel assured the Japanese people that the islands fell within the US’s treaty obligation to defend Japan, dispensing a

AUG

2014

Beijing told the United States to reduce its close surveillance of China if it wants to repair damaged bilateral ties

barely concealed threat to China of the possibility of retaliatory action. A similar conflict has been brewing between China and Southeast Asian nations such as Vietnam and the Philippines over islands in the South China Sea, an important route for cargo going to and from Asia.

Chinese advances on islands in the South and East China Seas claimed by other Asian nations show that it is becoming more confident in its naval power. The DF-21D, if it were to work as advertised, represents a significant threat to Navy operations in the Pacific. However, US carriers remain by far the dominant force in the region, and a shift by the Pentagon to focus on the Pacific will increase the US presence there. Rapidly evolving ballistic missile defense technologies will lower the risk to US ships operating near China. Until China can field a more powerful navy that includes aircraft carriers, they will not be able to present a serious challenge to the Navy or threaten America’s partners in the region. HMR

www.global-gateways.com

November 2014

19

International

ISIS’ Global Economics

By John Eng

O

n August 19th, 2014 millions of watchful eyes turned to President Barack Obama, wondering how he would respond to the public execution of James Foley by ISIS. In recent years the terrorist group has executed many people in public, atrocious displays of cruelty. ISIS has singlehandedly managed to weave chaos into countries around the world. Even countries that have no relationship to these terrorists feel the strain of having such a problem impede their economic growth and trade. The Iraqi and Syrian armies have made futile attempts to hinder ISIS. Due to economic, political, and geographic implications, Syria and Iraq have not been able to crush ISIS. By focusing on combating ISIS’ sources of funding, the

global community will be able to slow, or even stop ISIS’ expansion into Iraq.

Iraq has several different ethno-religious groups such as Shiites and Sunnis. ISIS is mostly comprised of Sunnis. In large part, Shiites constitute the government. Consequently, the Sunni’s feel they are not being represented fairly. Mass-arrests and discrimination are two examples of the animosity between them. Because of their treatment, Sunnis are more willing to join ISIS and retaliate against Iraq. ISIS holds territory in both Syria and Iraq, and the war between the two countries has helped ISIS establish firmer control and has provided them with heavy weaponry. ISIS’ facilities are positioned on a sizable oil field. With ISIS’s ability to retreat into Syria when

20

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Iraqi forces attack or retreat into Iraq when Syrian forces attack, it has dropped a heavy anchor on their territory.

In September 2014, the US launched multiple airstrikes against ISIS that targeted various training camps, military establishments, and a finance center.

ISIS’ finance center stored millions of dollars. The attack on this particular building seriously impacted ISIS’ ability to conduct subsequent operations. Oil fields then became one of ISIS’ primary sources of revenue. It owns 6 out of 10 oil fields in Syria and several in Iraq according to US Officials. The Middle East is a gold mine in terms of oil and is a main source of oil exports for other countries.

Its oil is in high demand. By controlling the price of oil, it can amass tens of mil-

International lions of dollars in a week.

The US and other countries opposed to ISIS could weaken ISIS foothold by targeting ISIS’ oil pipelines. However, the amount of oil lost to the strikes and sanctions would be enormous. One of ISIS’ biggest pipelines produces 75,000 barrels of oil per day. ISIS has at least 10 more pipelines that have similar production rates. The oil lost in such a strike could amount to as much as 825,000 barrels of oil per day. The price of oil further undermines the use of sanctions and strikes. Crude oil costs roughly $80 to $90 per barrel. One damaged pipeline can drive oil prices up to almost 40% and consequently increase the crude oil’s cost to $115 per barrel. Demand would be the same, but supply would decrease. Thus, the price would further increase.

The war between ISIS, Iraq, and Syria damaged a major pipeline that delivered 600,000 barrels of oil daily. Such a lost prompted businesses to obtain oil no matter the cost. According to Nasdaq, this impulsive action increased oil prices.

ISIS has not stopped expanding its territory. There is currently widespread fear in Iraq and Syria that the fighting will expand and incorporate other large oil reserves. According to Brad Plumer, a reporter on economic issues, “There’s also potential for things to get a lot worse.

If the conflict spreads further into the Kurdish regions, that could disrupt operations in the large Kirkuk oil field near the city of Mosul, which now produces around 260,000 barrels of oil per day – and accounts for one-sixth of the country’s proven reserves.” If more oil plants in Iraq are damaged, we will lose a major source of fossil fuel. Due to a decreasing oil supply, global oil prices will increase.

Some countries are in a deep depression.

For instance, although Iraq has an abundant oil supply, citizens are struggling to get their hands on the valued resource.

As of right now, the global and local economy has not been significantly devastated by the conflict. Although oil prices initially spiked after ISIS rose to prominence, the prices have gradually begun to drop. For the mean time, the economic-based friction has dissolved.

Nevertheless, economic stability is not guaranteed. Just one action can change the global economy. If such an occurrence transpires, the Middle East and the rest of the world will be in shambles.

One way to deal with terrorists is to

conduct preemptive strikes, such as airstrikes, against the organization so that no threat exists in the first place. However, ISIS’ territory is too widespread to effectively conduct air strikes. Since civilians live within tis territory, civilian causalities would also be to high. Therefore, directly attacking ISIS is difficult.

Additionally, ISIS receives a continuous stream of tax money from residents whose land they own. As an Iraqi shop owner recounted, ISIS militants forced him to pay $100 per month around 6 or

more than willing to pay a couple million dollars to have their citizen return safely. However, countries like the USA and Great Britain have a policy that dictates that they shall not negotiate with terrorists their payment helps ISIS conduct future operations. As a result, American and Great Britain journalists have been executed because their countries are unwilling to buy their freedom. ISIS’ executions attract global attention, instill terror, encourage obedience, and provide incentive for countries to pay ransom for

“Since 2008, ISIS has reportedly netted $125 million from ransom payments.”

7 times a year. ISIS militants detonated a bomb outside his store as a warning, and threatened him with the kidnapping and ransoming of his family. Many of the residents do not pay because they ISIS but because they fear ISIS. Due to these factors, ISIS does not solely rely on foreign aid. As a result, the militants are harder to fight, can work at their own pace, and do not need to take orders from anyone save the leader, Abu Bakr al Baghdadi. As ISIS spreads along the Middle East, it gains money from banks, natural resources from the land, weapons and supplies from troops, and ultimately power and momentum.

ISIS uses kidnapping and ransoming to make profits. Since 2008, ISIS has reportedly netted $125 million due to ransom payments. Recently, ISIS released two German hostages when a ransom of €5.65 million was paid and when Germany agreed to withdraw German troops from Iraq and Syria. Many countries are

November 2014

their civilians.

ISIS is a threat, and it must be stopped.

There is no ideal resolution to stopping its reign of terror because all the effective plans result in chaos and death. I believe that targeting ISIS’ pipelines would be most effective. Although this solution would increase oil prices and impair the Middle East’s economy, it would avoid excessive causalities. The longer we wait, the stronger ISIS becomes and the harder it will be to uproot it from its territory. The global community has to make a decision and act on it soon. No solution is flawless, but if the oil pipelines were destroyed and global economies hit a depression, consequent damage would be salvageable. The global community faces a hard choice between harming global economies or harming the people and the state of Iraq for years to come. One thing is clear: ISIS’s economic and militaristic reign over Iraq must end. HMR

21

International

THE BRAZLIAN ELECTION:

ITS LEAD-UP AND CONEQUENCES

O

By Ananya Kumar-Banerjee

ver the past three years, Brazil’s economy has stagnated. This stagnation culminated in the Brazilian recession at the beginning of this year. The Word Cup, normally an explosive simulant to it’s host country’s economy, did not bring in the expected economic spike.

Currently, the Brazilian population has been dealing with the issues of deforestation and the exhaustion of natural resources by national oil company Petrobras, which has a strong political foothold in the form of President Dilma Rousseff. The issue of economic instability is thus attributed to Rousseff ’s liberal economic policies. Further, issues with the private sector, namely Petrobas’ control of Brazil’s natural resources and those of deforestation are also closely linked with Rousseff, since she is a member of the company’s board. With this in mind, the Brazilian people are looking to elect a President that serves both their economic and social needs. After the recent run-off, there are only two candidates to choose from: Dilma Rousseff and Aecio Neves.

Dilma Rousseff was the first woman to

hold the Brazilian presidency, and she is running for a second term in the current election cycle. Previously, she was the Chief of Staff for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. During Rousseff ’s years in office, she reduced the taxes related to national agricultural staples and as well as the federal energy tax. In doing so, she managed to appeal to the englargening modern middle class. Over the years, Rousseff has changed her stance on many controversial political issues, making her seem disloyal to some of her constituents. Rousseff is currently pro-life, only agreeing that abortions are appropriate in the cases of rape and measurable harm being done unto the mother.

Before being elected, Rousseff had been for the legalization of abortion, an idea which caused her to lose the backing of the Roman Catholic Church. Rousseff is also against the death penalty, citing the United States’ high volume of criminals despite the presence of the death penalty, as illustrative of the tactic’s ineffectiveness. Dilma Rousseff is against gay marriage, saying that “Marriage is a religious issue. I, as an individual,

22

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

hdpaperwall.com

would never say what a religion should do or not.” She does, however, support samesex civil union, stating that it is a civil liberty that should not be denied of the people.

But what makes Rousseff ’s possible second term so important to the Brazilian people is her promise to continue working on a particular social welfare program that was started in 2003 during the Lula Administration: Bolsa Familia. Its goal is to provide financial aid to lower class Brazilian families so that they can send their children to school and have them properly vaccinated, eventually decreasing the number of people below the poverty line by investing in future generations. Bolsa Familia is a program that provides conditional cash transfers to the poor, and has received wide international acclaim. It was this very social policy that won past President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva his presidency.

Despite these positive factors on Rousseff ’s side, there have been a series of controversies surrounding the issue of human rights in Brazil that Rousseff has refused to address. One issue that has been repeated-

International ly brought up in the international sphere is Rousseff ’s Amazonian hydroelectric dam projects. While also having a negative effect on the surrounding environment and displacing more than 3,000 indigenous peoples, and the other citizens working on the projects have been subjected to harsh working conditions. In many instances it has become big enough of an issue that there have been international humanitarian complaints directed at Rousseff, but with little to no response.

On the other hand, Aecio Neves, who is representing the Brazilian Social Democracy Party, has shown to be politically active, something he promises to continue should he be elected. Neves was once the governor of Minas Gerais, and during his governance he introduced a set of reforms which effectively managed the state budget by reducing spending and increasing investments. Socially, Neves has implemented several social development programs including the Project to Combat Rural Poverty (PCRP) and the Youth Savings Program. This similar, smaller scale programme (when compared to Bolsa Familia) is meant to help the lower class children’s quality of education.

Despite these great achievements, there is a good deal of social stigma surrounding Neves’ possible presidency. For example, during his time as governor he allowed the average salary of schoolteachers to drop to an all time low, upsetting those who were dependent on precisely those wages. Fur-

ther, it is known that Neves was responsible for trying to censor large international search engines, such as Google, Yahoo, and Bing, in an effort to prevent the public from becoming aware of the government’s possible misappropriation of health funds.

Neves promises to increase sustainability while also bolstering the economy. He vows to lower inflation, reform the tax system, and adopt a more laissez faire approach to the economy. In fact, he was recently backed

by Marina Silva, the candidate who came in 3rd in the premier. Silva agreed to back Neves after his incorporation of Silva’s ideas of social outreach and creation of a fund to decrease tensions between indigenous and urban persons.

Given his economic promises and motivations, Neves is supported in major urban areas that are more concerned with the declining atmosphere of the brazilian community and the issues of corruption in Petrobras. Rousseff, on the other hand, finds her backing in the lower-income groups who have benefitted from the increase in minimum wage, high levels of employment, and the number of poverty alleviation programs.

In order for a candidate to win the presidency in Brazil, they must win by 50% of the votes. If no candidate reaches above the fifty percent mark, there is a repeat election, also known as a runoff, between the two most popular candidates. Even if there is a large majority of votes leaning towards one candidate, Brazilian law requires a second elec-

tion. In the first round of elections Rousseff had a 41.4% majority while Aecio Neves won a 33.1%. Even though these figures are relatively close, Neves would actually need another 50% of his original votes in order to win, which seems nearly impossible numerically despite the popularity of Neves’ economic plans.

Even though Rousseff has been successful in bolstering the economic situation of the working class, a Neves administration might be a safer choice for the Brazilian people. Neves will boost the economy, a factor which will have positive effects on the both the upper and lower classes. Even though he plans on lowering the minimum wage, (This would increase employment but also is a negative for those already employed because worker’s rights are highly nebulous.)Neves does promise to maintain and establish more social development programs to provide for the poor youth and invest in the next generation. Rousseff, while favourable in her ideas to continue with Bolsa Familia, has no intention or ideas in the way of changing the current economy of Brazil which has only shown to be more and more harmful for the Brazilian people.

Further, her alliance with Petrobras is more than unsettling and should cause alarm for the constituents that worry about economic elitism in politics. Therefore, given the current economic standing of Brazil and of it’s current president, it actually makes the most sense for Neves to take over. HMR

www.global-gateways.com

November 2014

23

International

Jacob Chae

OrganS For Sale: The Legalization of the Organ Trade Alexis Megibow

T

here are currently more than 122,000 American citizens on the seemingly endless waiting list for organ transplants, yet this year there were only slightly more than 8,000 organ donors. Given this vast difference, every day an average of 18 people die awaiting organs. It is evident that the current system is failing, and the solution to this shortage seems rather simple: to legalize the sale of organs.

In the United States, The National Organ Transplant Act outlaws the commercial sale of human organs. Common arguments against the legalization include

the view that profiting from the sale of organs is inhumane and immoral, but would it not be considered immoral to reject a law that could save thousands of lives?

In order to minimize crime, it would be logical to legalize only the sale of organs from the living that are not critical for survival, such as kidneys and portions of the liver (the liver is necessary for survival, yet when only a portion is missing it has the ability to regenerate).

If it were legal to sell vital organs, there would most likely be a substantial increase in the number of killings for their

24

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

theft mainly in third-world countries.

The financial incentive of selling organs would undoubtedly increase the number of organs available for transplant, as a large population who was not willing to donate its organs would be more likely to, given its financial needs or desires. The increase in organ donations would save lives and shorten waiting times of transplant patients in the hospital. Moreover, there would be far fewer patients staying in hospitals for shorter amounts of time. These hospitals could potentially save many resources, doctors, and rooms, which they could in

International

November 2014

How much is your body worth Right now on the black market?

From

Corneas USD $30,000

From

Lungs USD $150,000

From

Heart USD $130,000

LIVER From

tient who is covered by health care, the U.S. government pays for the vast majority of dialysis treatment, and therefore the market would actually save the government and the patient large sums of money.

The potential advantages to the recipient are immeasurable. Not only would he/she save incredible amounts on medical bills that would have otherwise been spent on long stays in the hospital, but also the speed of delivery of the organ would also tremendously decrease the time spent out of work without income and the occasional need to quit his/her job.

Countless attempts to completely eliminate black markets of organ trafficking in various countries throughout the world have failed consistently. The sales will happen inevitably because those who are desperate to get a transplant are willing to break the law. These people are not vicious criminals; they are merely doing what they must to save their own lives. Their risks of infection and death through surgeries in unprofessional environments and by improper surgeons are extremely high, and the legalization of sales would provide patients and doctors with the proper facilities and resources to minimize the risk of death or infection.

Additionally, the current systems of donation and reception in nearly all countries leave transplant lists with patients toward the bottom who have little or no hope of receiving the organ they need to stay alive. These people are the most likely to participate in the black market, although those who are higher on the list but seek the benefits of the sooner arrival and smaller chance of death also turn to the market for help.

The individuals who are willing to break the law in this case are now the ones who receive the organs, while those who aren’t willing to break the law must wait longer or even face death. This proves that people will take illegal action if the current organ system is not immediately is not immediately benefitting them.

The fact that the market is illegal poses to those who are in severe need of an organ the nearly impossible (and frankly, avoidable) moral decision of whether to wait for a prolonged period of time or even potential death, or to be reduced to participating in the black market for organ sales. HMR

USD $98,000

Kidney From

turn use to help other patients.

From an economic standpoint, the outlook for the legal market is very favorable. In fact, in the Journal of Economic Perspectives, Nobel laureate Gary Becker projected that a $15,000 compensation per kidney would satisfy American demand. Many economists believe that an open market eliminates the shortage of organs available for those in need. A number of countries, including Australia and Singapore, are considering legalizing organ trade for this reason.

There are already black markets for organ trafficking in almost every country, and the most common way to illegally trade organs across international borders is through “transplant tourism,” or the process of organ patients’ traveling overseas and receiving a transplant in a foreign country. The costs of these organs are often exceptionally high as a result of the immense profiting of the middlemen and the desperation of the patient.

Some religions, such as Christianity and Judaism argue that legalization of human organ trade contradicts many core religious beliefs. It is important to note that the legalization of this trade would not compel market participation from any individuals whose beliefs prohibit such activities. This would merely authorize the preservation of bodily autonomy for those who feel it appropriate.

While Iran’s political system is not one to be idolized, it utilizes a method of government control in the legal sale of kidneys, where it acts as an intermediary and regulates the market. Organ donors give their organs to the government, which in turn pays them in either money or free health care for one year.

As a result, Iran currently has no waiting list for kidney transplants. In fact, it has a surplus of people who desire to sell their kidneys. The astounding success of this system essentially proves the enormous benefits of legalizing the sale.

With the increase in supply and decrease in demand for kidneys in Iran, the price of a single kidney dropped significantly from as high as 160,000 USD (black market cost) to as little as 2,000 USD. This invalidates the argument that following legalization, only the wealthy would be able to afford to have a kidney transplant, as the cost of dialysis for a patient not covered by health care over the span of only one year approaches $72,000. For the typical American pa-

USD $62,000 www.global-gateways.com

25

International

Central American Immigration Crisis Daniel Lee

T

he Central American Immigration Crisis has become a salient concern for the United States in the past year, as the number of immigrants seeking illegal entrance into the US increased by 63,000 only since last October, according to the New York Times. Many of these immigrants originating from El Salvador, San Jose, and Guatemala, have turned themselves in to the U.S Border Patrol with the false assumption that their children would be legally taken into America. However, our nations’ legislators continue to remain obstinate with slightly nativist tones underlying their facial justifications to protect the United States border.

These cases of desperate attempts to enter the United States are much different from the past, where undocumented immigrants would move into the US with the intentions of joining family members already in the nation.

However, the immigration crisis of 2014

takes on a much new color, where tens of thousands of children mainly from El Salvador, are endeavoring to immigrate alone without any parental guidance into the United States. This major discrepancy can be attributed to the recent increase in crime in the Central American region due to gang members asserting control in El Salvador and neighboring countries, where the respective state governments no longer have leverage to uphold a crime-free community. According to the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, Honduras has the highest rate of intentional homicide in the world, with 6,239 records of deliberate murders. In response, President Obama of the United States and Congress have been stratified and hesitant on their approach in resolving the immigration crisis, temporarily detaining the undocumented immigrants until a decision to either take in or deport these immigrants would be made. As of now,

26

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

the vast majority of Congress is supportive of reforming immigration policies to accelerate the deportation process that could save its budget a total of 4 billion dollars. Opponents of such policies fear that deportation would mean that immigrants would return to the initial, hostile conditions of their home countries. Furthermore, House Republicans also argued that authorizing the illegal immigration of thousands of individuals would inherently undermine the very law of the United States. They worried that loose regulations on immigrations would potentially encourage the entry of more foreign immigrants through illegal means. However, these Republicans’ stance hold some truth to it. The fundamental problem with such positions is that they simply fail to recognize the gravity of the current situation, considering the influx in immigration to be a mere immigration crisis, rather than a refugee crisis.

International The United States government has continuously remarked on its progress with settling the issue, arguing that a fair number of 30,000 undocumented teenagers have been released into the U.S in the past year. However, unaccompanied minors attempting to migrate from non-contiguous areas to the United States are given the constitutional right by the U.S legislation to be given

give each individual, desperately fleeing the horrors of their own country, the opportunity for a fair hearing in court.

Furthermore, the main justification for immigration reform is that the analysis of each individual case in court creates a backlog of legal and social services.

However, this argument discussing the pileup for legal services is clearly nonunique nor inherent to the case of Cen-

Especially in such moments of unregulated catastrophe, it is crucial for the United States government not to merely avert the issue of human rights abuses beyond its borders, but to adhere to its moral obligation of affirming and protecting universal basic rights. According to Luke Glanville from the Centre for Governance and Public Policy, a good majority of representatives from

“The fundamental problem with such positions is that they simply fail to recognize the gravity of the current situation, considering the influx in immigration to be a mere immigration crisis, rather than a refugee crisis.” a deportation hearing. Certain Democrat politicians and the majority of the Republican party are continuing to advocate for immigration reform to permit instantaneous deportation of Central Americans without any hearing. The critical issue with this alternative is that it deliberately overlooks the elephant in the room of the severe violence in the immigrants’ home countries, and fails to provide any solution for the human crises in the Central American nations.

The United States should not be permitting the entrance of any immigrant who attempts to cross the border. The current violent situation in communities such as Honduras mandates that we

tral American children, as these same issues are faced when the United States takes in refugees from any other sector in the world, whether it be the Middle East or Europe. According to the U.S Department of State, the United States has welcomed more than 3 million foreign immigrants into its borders since 1973, and there is no reason explaining why the Central American immigration crisis should not be treated any differently. The issue of intense and unregulated crime has led to basic civil rights as well as lives that are at stake. Rejecting the Central American peoples’ urgent pleas for aid both discriminates and fails to respect them as equal individuals.

the United Nations, including the United States, has repeatedly acknowledged that it is the intrinsic responsibility of the ‘international community’ to intervene to protect the populations through all diplomatic and humanitarian means necessary when the local governments are incompetent in protecting their own citizens. Given its geographic proximity to these Central American nations, and its relatively stable political and social conditions, the United States is most suited to take the matters into its own hands to guarantee and safeguard the natural liberties of the innocent constantly oppressed in these areas. HMR

www.global-gateways.com

November 2014

27

International

1001 Nightmares: Getting Over the Risks of Investing in Alibaba

S

By Karen Jiang

eptember of 2014 was a month defined by a multitude of global issues, including the growing Ebola outbreak, the fight against ISIS, and Scotland’s Referendum; but one of the most notable international events came from the economic sphere, as Alibaba went public on September 19th with the largest initial public offering (IPO) the world has ever seen. Investors scrambled to purchase stocks in Alibaba, and the IPO raised over $25 billion just on its first day. The hype generated around the IPO was enormous, and not without reason. Alibaba is China’s most popular e-commerce site, controlling a large majority of the Chinese e-commerce industry. To any investor, the numbers that Alibaba puts up

in terms of growth, sales, and size are more than impressive, but other analysts warn of the dangers that come with investing in an incredibly complex company that is so deeply entwined with the Chinese government.

Alibaba is far from a household name in America, but its prevalence and power will become evident in the coming years. In terms of American companies, Alibaba virtually acts as combination of amazon, eBay, and PayPal in China. The company is composed of several different entities. The largest is Taobao Marketplace, China’s largest consumer-to-consumer online shopping platform as well as China’s most popular mobile commerce app. Tmall.com is an online retail

28

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

platform that primarily features goods sold directly from name brands. Alibaba also has two wholesale marketplaces: Alibaba.com for international customers and 1688.com for domestic Chinese small businesses. Lastly, the company also offers Alipay with PayPal-like services, and Aliyun with cloud services and infrastructure. As a whole, all of these entities create an e-commercWe supergiant, one with the ability of America’s e-commerce giants combined.

To put Alibaba’s scope in perspective, the company has more sales than eBay and Amazon combined and controls 80% of the Chinese e-commerce market, giving it a near monopoly in its industry. In the past year, due

International to its efficient business model, the company generated a whopping $296 billion in sales.

Unlike Amazon, Alibaba acts as a middleman between sellers and consumers, not as the seller itself. This model keeps costs down while maximizing profits as compared to Amazon’s constant net losses. Furthermore, Alibaba is growing at a rapid rate, with a 52% growth in profits in fiscal 2014 as compared to 2013.

Another blatant comparative shows that Alibaba generated $5.8 billion in sales on “Singles Day,” four times what Americans spent on Black Friday throughout all online shopping platforms. These are stunning numbers, causing the ears of all investors to perk up.

Purchasing Alibaba’s stock can be an extremely profitable investment, as analysts predict vast growth in revenue and size, which will drive stock prices up, with some even pre-

nounced that it would begin selling products to Chinese consumers through Tmall as well.

While foreign companies have just begun to make partnerships with Alibaba, this trend already encapsulates the power of Alibaba’s position. As our world becomes even more interconnected, globalization will become an increasingly important ingredient for a corporation’s success. Penetrating China’s market is a major part of globalization, as China has the largest and fastest growing population in the world. And this is why Alibaba has immense power – Alibaba virtually acts as a link between the world and the Chinese e-commerce market. Following in the footsteps of Tesla and Costco, many companies will utilize Alibaba’s platform to enter into the Chinese market.

On paper, Alibaba looks like an ideal com-

cans are investing in runs. If Americans object to such an unbalanced corporate structure, the US Congress does not even have the ability to audit the company without the Chinese government’s approval. When problems arise in regards to Alibaba, the US Congress will be further entangled with the Chinese government, and the US’ inability to regulate Alibaba’s actions give the Chinese government the upper hand. While disputes over Alibaba may not currently hold extreme significance in the US-China relationship, they can sour an already volatile relationship.

Ultimately, investing in Alibaba is also a bet on China. It’s a bet on the Chinese government, the Chinese economy, and the Chinese people. Alibaba is deeply involved with the government, and while the company currently has a very positive relationship with

Ultimately, investing in Alibaba is also a bet on China. It’s a bet on the Chinese government, the Chinese economy, and the Chinese people...We don’t know what the future has in store. dicting the stock value to multiply by two or three times in the coming years. Alibaba’s current monopoly over the Chinese e-commerce industry already puts it in a great position of power with a positive outlook for the future.

Another important aspect to consider is the sheer size of the Chinese population of 1.4 billion people, with 618 million people online, of which the vast majority rely on online shopping . Thus, Alibaba already has major control over the online shopping habits of the world’s largest population.

Beyond China’s borders, Alibaba may be relatively unheard of among Americans, but Alibaba has recently made several moves towards expanding globally. In July, Alibaba enterned into a partnership with Brazil’s postal service, Correios, and launched a Portuguese version of AliExpress, hoping to attract Brazilian consumers and traders to utilize the site for commerce. From the opposite end of the spectrum, American companies that are looking to globalize are also partnering with Alibaba. In October, Tesla announced that it would begin selling Model S cars in China through Tmall.com, Alibaba’s retail platform.

Similarly, Costco has revealed a low-cost economic approach in its entry into the Chinese marketplace. Attempting to avoid Walmart’s unsuccessful venture into China, Costco an-

pany - enormous revenues, fast growth, an impressive market share, and important international links. But behind the scenes, the company may not be what it seems, and a troubling issue is that investors are not fully aware of what happens internally. By American standards, Alibaba is not a transparent company. For one, US shareholders cannot directly invest in Alibaba due to China’s laws against foreigners owning shares of internet companies; instead, Americans must invest in Alibaba Group Holding, the Cayman Islands holdings of the company, which has contractual rights to profits in the mainland Chinese sectors. Thus, Americans do not actually own any part of Alibaba and have virtually no say in how the Chinese company runs, which is an integral principle in the stocks of American corporations The company’s structure is also extremely complex, compounding on its lack of transparency. The company is structured in a way such that co-founder Jack Ma has firm control, as he owns about 8% of the company. Alibaba is essentially a reflection is of the Chinese government, closely regulated by a small group of insiders and very opaque to the public. Even more troubling, Jack Ma has 60% voting power in the Cayman Island holding, giving him major voting power in how the sector Ameri-

November 2014

the government, this dynamic could easily change. The Chinese government is not one known for its leniency or its laissez-faire approach to economy, and any economic issues caused by Alibaba can spark a much bigger conflict. The Chinese middle class of 1.3 billion people is rapidly growing, and investors are betting on their continual interest in e-commerce, specifically in utilizing Alibaba’s e-commerce services.

For many, the most frustrating aspect of investing in Alibaba is simply the idea that “we don’t know.” We don’t clearly know how the company is run; we don’t know how the Chinese government may react in any economic downfall. Just the very nature of the stock market characterizes our apprehensions: we don’t know what the future has in store. And even more frustrating is that we have very little power to change the way the company runs, and in a very un-American manner, we have to sit on the sidelines and spectate.

Despite these apprehensions, it’s indisputable that the numbers Alibaba is currently churning out are pointing towards a very lucrative future, and investors are tempted by the prospects of this Chinese supergiant. Perhaps we have to do what we do best, that is, take the risk, make the bet, and rush ahead with Alibaba. HMR

29

Features

Pro Snowden

I

The Right to Choose

n the words of Edward Snowden, “A child born today will grow up with no conception of privacy at all. They’ll never know what it means to have a private moment to themselves, an unrecorded, unanalyzed thought. That’s a problem because privacy matters; privacy is what allows us to determine who we are and who we want to be.” The documents Snowden leaked revealed information about the National Security Agency’s surveillance program and the threat it then posed to civilians’ privacy. Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, the United States government has implemented more

drastic security measures to prevent a similar occurrence in the future. The N.S.A. has failed to abide by federal privacy laws on multiple occasions. In 2012 alone, the agency’s own audit revealed 2,776 violations. These “incidents”, as the N.S.A. refers to them, enabled them to procure access to significant data centers’ communication links and obtain civilians’ personal information, such as medical records and financial statements. The N.S.A. was able to access instant messaging and email contact lists, view the content of those messages, and pinpoint and track the movement of an individual’s cellphone.

30

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Honor McCarthy

These actions denigrated the encryption systems of the Internet, undermining our privacy. Furthermore, Snowden revealed that the N.S.A. equivocated their statements regarding surveillance practices in front of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, a clear violation of our Constitution. Critics of Snowden and the N.S.A. criticize his actions, claiming they threatened the security of the American people and undermined the agency’s ability to conduct further surveillance work.

This simply is not true. Rather, Snowden’s actions protected our privacy and ensured transparency, both values our country is

Features

"Did we get to where we are today via a slippery slope that was entirely within our control to stop? Or was it a relatively instantaneous sea change that sneaked in undetected because of pervasive government secrecy?" -Edward Snowden premised upon.

Since the leak in June of 2013, neither Americans nor residents of other countries have experienced any detrimental impact due to this increased transparency. Rather, Snowden’s actions reinforced the right to privacy, democratic principles, and freedom. As a result of the leak, Edward Snowden now faces what could potentially be a lifetime sentence. His charge is three fold: willful communication of classified communications intelligence, theft of government property, and unauthorized communication of national defense information. While each charge has a sentence of ten years, more significant charges will be added when the case is brought to trial for indictment, and will result in a life sentence. Many of his supporters urge for partial clemency or amnesty, but his accusers remain firm in their convictions. However, in the words of former US Vice President Al Gore, “what he revealed in the course of violating important laws included violations of the U.S. constitution that were way more serious than the crimes he committed. In the course of violating important law, he also provided an important service. … because we did need to know how far this has gone.” Since he fled from the US and received a three-year residency permit in Russia this past August, Snowden was awarded The Guardian’s 2013 person of the year, named one of Time’s 100 Most Influential People in the world, and nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

To decide whether Snowden’s actions ought to be praised or punished, two factors come into play. First, we look to see

whether the safety of American citizens has actually been compromised. The answer is a resounding no. As Snowden discussed in an interview, before the leak, he assessed whether the disclosure of such information would benefit the public. While breaches of security have occurred since the release of the documents, none have been directly linked to his actions and the security breaches are occurring at the same rate as usual. While foreign groups under surveillance may have altered their online presence as a result of the leak and the government may have less access to their data, the same occurred for companies within the US. On net, this is beneficial because businesses in the technology industry are adapting their products to ensure the privacy of their users. One of the hallmarks of iOS8, Apple’s most recent software update, encrypts all data. The security overhaul initiated by Snowden prompted the products used by Americans and businesses to become more secure than ever. In addition to civillian’s increased online privacy, the number of people with security clearances in the N.S.A is now fewer than 100,000, resulting in an overall safer system. Had Snowden not leaked the documents he found, any other party could have gained access to them without the government’s knowing. Snowden’s actions served a wake up call for those within the government and its constituents.

After determining that the leak actually made us safer, the second factor to take into account is whether it was justified for Snowden to release such information.

When misconduct or exploitation occurs,

the responsibility to take action falls to the individuals. John Locke, an English philosopher whose work influenced the Declaration of Independence and served as justification for the American Revolution, affirms the concept that a government can only succeed with the consent of the governed. Transparency and ethical behavior of representatives distinguish the United States from a tyranny. American citizens, have a fundamental right to privacy, which is confirmed by the Constitution.

The Fourth and Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantee privacy of the person and possessions against unreasonable searches and provide protection for the privacy of personal information. Until the National Security Agency can prove that reading the text messages and emails of every American without obtaining search warrants is reasonable and not an invasion of privacy, Snowden’s revelations are indubitably justified. Congress, infamous for its inner divisions, agrees; they do not approve of the N.S.A.’s actions and assert that the domestic intelligence program strayed from its original purpose of protecting Americans.

Edward Snowden’s leaking of NSA’s documents served to remind United States citizens that they have a fundamental right to privacy. He also reinforced the idea that government representatives answer to those whom they represent. It is the responsibility of the American people to determine whether the N.S.A.’s policies were justified, and Edward Snowden enabled us to do so HMR

Right of the People

Against unreasonable searches and seizures To be secure November 2014

31

Features

Con Snowden Serve and Protect

D

uring the years leading up to the leak, Edward Snowden spent his time working for the NSA, as an employee and as a contractor for Dell.

Beginning in June 2013, Snowden came to the conclusion that he could no longer live with, what he perceived to be, abuses of power in government. He decided to take action.

Snowden perverted the admirable goal of exposing abuses of power by leaking

classified NSA documents. After he committed these acts of treason, Snowden could no longer live in the United States, and he sought asylum in Russia where there was no fear of extradition to the United States. Snowden believed that it was his duty to expose the secrets of the United States Government to the people, when in reality he embarked on a misled crusade and put both American lives and international relationships at risk.

32

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Zachary Gaynor Edward Snowden and his predecessor Julian Assange, the founder of Wiki Leaks, had a noble goal: “to use the power of the Internet to expose the corruption and wrong-doing of totalitarian regimes.�

Assange attempted to achieve this goal by leaking documents to the press and creating his own site on which other leakers could post their findings. Their mission is interesting when considered alongside their actions, because Snowden and As-

Features

“Edward Snowden broke the laws of a country he claims to love and thereby endangered his fellow citizens.” sange leaked documents for states that sit at the top of the Freedom House’s Index of Freedom in the World. This index is an international ranking of the countries with the most freedom for their citizens.

Snowden actually failed to achieve his goal because he did not target real “totalitarian regimes;” instead, he targeted the nation that sets the standard for civil liberties for the international community. The only purpose Snowden’s actions served to slander the message of freedom that the United States Government supports and that Snowden claims to be a champion of.

According to NewsWeek, 55% of Americans believe that Snowden did the right thing by exposing the PRISM program and releasing the documents he did. They support Snowden because they agree that there should be increased government transparency and that the exposure of “overreaching” NSA surveillance programs was a means by which to achieve this end goal. However, Edward Snowden is not a patriot. He broke the laws of a country he claims to love and thereby endangered his fellow citizens.

PRISM, one of the key initiatives that Snowden brought light to, is a series of surveillance programs that are run by the NSA. These programs use data mining to look for patterns that expose terrorists and large-scale criminal activity.

The PRISM program was first enacted in 2007 with in order to collect raw data and use computer programs to sift through it for anomalies, so that the government would know which information to target.

By exposing the government’s secrets in the way that he did, Snowden allowed for competitors and threats to US security to gain access to crucial information about the inner-workings of our state. As the

world hegemon, the United States faces persistent economic and political threats and is obligated to use all means necessary to protect its people. In order to attain its stated purpose, the government must maintain some level of secrecy about its defense programs and operations, or else our enemies would be able to subvert the safety measures.

Another serious problem that Edward Snowden caused with his whistleblowing is the worsening of people’s distrust in the government. This widespread paranoia is hindering the NSA’s ability to protect them, as Americans are afraid that the government is constantly watching them.

This, however, is not true because the NSA uses algorithms that comb through metadata and look for anomalies. Metadata is data that describes other data, and it would contain information about when a message was sent and where it was sent to and from, rather than the exact content of the email. The NSA has neither the time to look through all of the emails of the American people, nor does it have any interest in doing so. The one, anecdotal example that people cite in describing the NSA’s invasion of privacy is that employees shared and mocked nude photos. While this is a gross abuse of power on the part of government workers, PRISM and the NSA’s counterterrorism measures did not engender this incident and it could have occurred with or without the collection of metadata.

Ironically, Snowden released the proverbial nude photos of the U.S. government and displayed blatant disrespect for the law. Snowden also released the NSA’s elite hackers’ methods and now they can no longer utilize them. Now, many of the United States’ enemies will be more cautious and protective of their information

November 2014

and plans. Snowden put thousands of lives at risk in order to achieve fame.

Snowden made a conscious decision to bring attention to himself rather then to properly affect change through different channels of government. He could have exposed what he thought were abuses of governmental power in several different ways. The simplest way to bring attention to the NSA’s wrongdoings would have been to report his discoveries to the inspector-general, whose sole purpose is to keep different branches of government in check. As a reward for abiding by the laws, Snowden would have been protected by a gaggle of whistleblower laws that would have concealed his identity and made sure his information was properly used. There is no reason that Snowden had to break the law to change the government’s ways. He merely wanted to make a spectacle of himself and stole the information for personal gain.

Edward Snowden should be the last person on earth to be called a hero. He broke the law in order to expose governmental programs that protect the people.

Snowden claims that his goal is to expose absolutist governments of the world, but he has failed to do so. By exposing the secrets of one of the countries with the most freedoms and rights, he undermined the sanctity of freedom. Snowden circumvented the infrastructure that was meant to protect the people who share his goal, and he decided to draw attention to himself and open the United States up to increased risk of cyber and physical attacks. Edward Snowden is a coward, who put American lives at risk, and helped terrorists and real “absolutist governments” continue their acts of suppressing freedom throughout the world. HMR

33

Features

Standing Up to China Annie Liu

C

wallown.com

hina has been a socialist state ever since the fall of the monarchs in the Qing Dynasty. Almost a century ago, it adopted Communism; never in its history has China been able to maintain a democracy. For a long time, the Chinese government has been internationally infamous for its corruption, and it has been tangled in many sketchy dealings because of this corruption. In 1989, the Chinese people famously rallied against the government in protest for democracy at Tiananmen Square. The protests resulted in the slaughter of hundreds to thousands of people, and all protest leaders were silenced.It seemed like the pro-democracy protest movement would never arise again. But on September 22, the people of Hong Kong began speaking up; angry students took the streets of their city and are pushing for serious change in their country.

On September 22, Beijing made its crucial decision on new electoral policies for the 2017 Hong Kong Chief Elective elections. It was deemed that in 2017, electoral reforms will be restricted; a 1200 member nominating committee will continue to be controlled by business factions and Beijing, and a committee will elect two to three candidates and vote over 50% of the votes before releasing them to the public.

In short, a pro-democratic system would not be favored.

The Chinese living in mainland China were expecting the decision, and so were the citizens of Hong Kong— but perhaps Hong Kong, being a part of China with more personal freedom and rights, felt like it deserved, in some ways, a democracy.

The reason for this is Hong Kong has an open Internet and free speech, unlike the mainland. On the mainland, the government censors large websites like Google and Facebook, fearing their citizens would

leak government secrets online. Instead of Google, most mainland Chinese citizens use government-run search engines, such as Baidu, which have a content filter on search results. The government’s control over the Internet limits free speech and free information on the mainland, so one can imagine how much the people on the mainland are missing out on. Due to the lack of information, few Chinese people are aware of what’s going on in the rest of the world or even in their own country.

Additionally, the Chinese government is big on propaganda, with government slogans and agents all over the web.

Drawing further into this observation, while most of the people of Hong Kong want to see change, the majority of the population living in mainland China does not see a shift to democracy as favorable or wise. Many citizens told NPR that they have have done well without democracy; despite the corruption and insecurity of the nation, China has become one of the world’s top economies. Chinese politics may be a mess, but the economy is not.

China plays a big role in world trade, and many of the world’s products are all made in China. On top of that, China is the world’s most populated country, and if so many people were given a say, the country would consequently spiral into chaos.

The people of Hong Kong are unhappy, though. After Beijing released its decision, the student population living in the city poured into the streets and quickly took over the once-inaccessible Central business district. The protest leaders, who continue to lead the peaceful demonstrations today, hoped to send a message that they were serious about reform; however, the government has not at all softened its stance on its policies. Additionally, the police’s reaction has been unfriendly; on September 28, armed forces threw tear

34

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

gas and sprayed pepper spray at surging crowds to keep them away from Central government offices. In reaction, the protestors have carried umbrellas as protection, in a trend that has spread throughout the movement and has earned it the name “Umbrella Revolution.”

Recently, the government arranged for talks with the protest leaders, but they were soon called off. The government’s choice to refuse arrangements with the people was inspirational fuel for the protestors, and thousands who had given up reclaimed the streets on October 20. On October 21, the government finally met with the student leaders, but neither side thinks the talks resolved anything. China did not expect the protestors to be so resilient – nobody did. The Hong Kong protestors have attested themselves to be more serious than anyone initially thought.

After earning global recognition, many international presses and news companies have remarked that the Hong Kong protest is like a rehash of Tiananmen Square.

These are unfounded, speculative observations that fail to take any history or facts into account. The massacre at Tiananmen Square occurred in a very unstable China.

Those were very different times from today. Also, China’s reputation has already been permanently disfigured by Mao’s reign as well as his successors; the nation Would do better than repeating past mistakes.

These protests will, if nothing else, escalate preexisting tension in relations between Hong Kong and the mainland.

Hong Kong was promised a separate political system, but over time, China slowly slipped back into Hong Kong’s internal affairs. With these protests, Hong Kong has shown that it is serious about change.

China would not want that, since the loss of Hong Kong could potentially cripple

Features China’s economybecause Hong Kong has long served as a bridge for trade between China and the rest of the world and is crucial to China’s economy, since it has shown over the years to be more reliable in equity trading than the mainland.

Many companies prefer to invest in China through Hong Kong because the area has a stable investing environment and fair courts compared to the mainland. The potential independence of Hong Kong would also catalyze a shift in the global economy. Many imports and exports go through Hong Kong, so Also, important-

refusing to budge from its original standpoint, mounting opposition to the Chinese government will have China finding itself being continuously irked by other countries to support their own eventual democratic reform.

Whatever choices the protestors make will continue to be globally monitored, and one wrong move could mean a giant, messy affair for many nations, including the United States, and, obviously, China itself.All of these countries are powerful nations currently dominating the world’s markets, economy, and politics. Messing

ulated country like China. Significantly, as of today situations in China have not gotten even close to the mess they were in when the horrors at Tiananmen Square occurred.

The protestors’ umbrellas should be put away and the streets be cleared, but it definitely won’t mean the end of an ongoing struggle for democratic reform in China.

The Hong Kong protests have made it clear that the fight for democracy still lives today, but how much longer will they go on until they realize the true consequences of their actions? Instead of gaining

“Realistically, democracy will probably never reach China and will never be adopted by the country.” ly the Hong Kong protests could lead to a government crackdown on all of China, in that it would very likely look to assert greater control over the people and add even more restrictions to the people’s freedom. China might even decide to discard all freedoms in Hong Kong and start censoring the Internet there, too.

Nonetheless, the protests are sending a clear message to the global community that democracy in China will continue to be fought for, and since the government is

around with them is no small joke, and out of all, the mainland Chinese seem to be the most clearheaded about the situation in that, unfortunately but realistically, democracy will probably never reach China and will never be adopted by the country. However amount of involvement by the outside world cannot change this fact.

The way Chinese history has unfolded highlights the point that democracy isn’t the only good thing, and that democracy will probably never be suitable for a pop-

November 2014

freedom, they are more likely to lose what little freedom they have; additionally, China has never really been influenced by the rest of the world in that it, time after time, rejects democracy.Corruption is not an easy thing to purge, and though the Hong Kong students are not wrong for protesting, when put into context, they aren’t right either. China is not ready for a democracy; neither is the rest of the world.

It is time for things to go back to the way they were, before they get even worse. HMR

35

Features

http://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/secret-service.jpeg?w=1100

http://nyppagesix.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/secretservice.jpg

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1213602/thumbs/o-WHITE-HOUSE-FENCE-facebook.jpg

http://sgrumbleoutloud.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/ronald_reagan26_t607.jpg

Dark Days for the Secret Service...

The Decline of Presidential Protection

O

By Zoe Mavrides

n March 30, 1981, President Ronald Regan smiled and waved at a crowd after giving a speech at the Washington Hilton. What happened next would shock the world: a mentally disturbed man, John Hinckley JR, shot the president. The fourth shot hit agent Tim McCarthy, as he laid his body on top of the President to protect him. President Reagan survived, and so did Mr. McCarthy. In a recent interview, Mr. McCarthy recalled the moment: “I’m glad I got to do it. I’m glad I got to do what I was trained to do. I wouldn’t want it another way.” This is the kind of dedication, courage and trust that the American people have come to expect from the Secret Service. Unfortunately, more recently, the US Secret Service and other revered institutions, such as the CDC and Homeland Security, have come under fire and public

scrutiny due to what the public has perceived as unacceptable lapses of responsibility and/or judgment. What is the source of these real or perceived lapses? Is the public’s perception of a fall from grace justified, and if so, to what extent? Perhaps most importantly, where are we going? Are these recent lapses a signal that our most venerable institutions in government are entering a period of decline? Let us first examine the evidence – what specific actions or failures to act on the part of our revered institutions have resulted in the recent shift in public opinion? Three recent cases involving the U.S. Secret Service over the past couple of years, the Colombian prostitution scandal of 2012, the Counter Assault Team’s March 2014 drinking binge, and Omar Gonzalez’s White House invasion on September 2014 provide excellent explanations.

36

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

In 2012, several Secret Service members were caught spending the night with prostitutes in Colombia during a mission while waiting for Obama to arrive, generating the first of many scandals to rattle the public’s opinion. The controversy led to the removal of 10 members of the Service, and various Federal and Congressional investigations.

The public began to question whether this incident was a warning flag that ethical values of the Secret Service had deteriorated unacceptably, and demanded that action be taken. A new rule was implemented regarding the Secret Service’s code of conduct as a direct result of this incident. This rule prohibited members of the Secret Service from drinking alcoholic beverages for ten hours leading up to any assignment. This rule was a reasonable reaction to an incident that merited the adverse reaction from the pub-

Features lic when it came to light. Unfortunately, it was insufficient, which may very well be a sign that the 2012 incident was indicative of a disturbing trend revealing more endemic issues within the Secret Service’s culture rather than simply an isolated incident.

On March 2014, in the Netherlands, only two years after the Colombia prostitution scandal and following the implantation of the rule proscribing Secret Service members from consuming alcoholic beverages ten hours prior to any assignment, a high level branch of the Secret Service rattled the nation. Three Secret Service members responsible for protecting the President became intoxicated after a drinking binge the night before a busy day of protecting the President. They were sent home and put on administrative leave. The three people sent home were members of the Secret Service’s elite Counter Assault Team, known in the agency as CAT. The CAT’s job is to protect the President if his motorcade comes under attack, and to fight off attackers and draw fire while the President is taken away from the area by the protective detail.. This is a highly specialized division of the Secret Service – it is not easy to become a member of the CAT, as it requires a lot of expertise, shooting skills, and overall strength and agility. The actions of the three members sent home were in direct violation of the regulations put in place in 2012 for any operative. It is particularly disturbing that such a violation occurred at such an elite level of the Service with such a high level of responsibility only two years after a specific

rule was implemented to address precisely such behavior. The March 2014 incident and the resulting public reaction should have motivated the Service to implement internal procedures to address what was apparently becoming an endemic problem.

Unfortunately, this was not the case.

On September 3rd, Iraq War veteran Omar Gonzalez was able to literally jump the White House fence and get inside the White House armed with a knife, bringing to light another public and heavily criticized lapse. To make things worse, the Agency neglected to include crucial details of how dangerous this intrusion was on a timely matter after the incident, suggesting a possible attempt at a cover-up. Members of Congress, outraged about the situation, called for an investigation. Additionally, Congress criticized the Secret Service and former Secret Service director Julia Pierson demanding overwhelming force in future situations. Pierson claimed he was taking full responsibility, while at one point, blaming blame on “funding constraints,” which, given the severity of the lapse in security was an unacceptable excuse. Many believe that the agents in charge didn’t execute a timely capture because they didn’t see Mr. Gonzalez as a threat as the President was not home – this is clearly not an acceptable excuse for the failure stop Gonzales from trespassing government property while armed. If funding constraints played any part in preventing Pierson from implementing measures to prevent such an unacceptable invasion, then it was Pierson’s responsibility to ad-

November 2014

dress such funding deficiencies up-front – prior to an armed invasion of the White House.

This lapse of leadership, together with another September 16th incident where a man armed with a knife successfully entered the same elevator as the President, finally resulted in an investigation leading to direct action. Rep. Jason Chaffetz, one of the heads of a House Subcommittee that oversees the Secret Service was first alerted of the Secret Service crisis by a whistleblower. Chaffetz and the investigative committee at the House conducted an investigation that led to the condemnation of the current Secret Service’s leadership leading Ms. Pierson’s resignation.

The Secret Service, once regarded as the symbol of courage and duty, has without a doubt lost its reputation in a barrage of scandal, incompetence, and poor of leadership. What is at stake is at the core of this Nation’s values - the trust that we, the people, have in our public institutions. In fact, in August 2014, a CNN poll showed that only thirteen percent of Americans believe the government can be trusted to do what is right always or most of the time. It’s imperative to introduce steadfast leadership to the Secret Service. Steadfast leadership that effectively incentivizes self-regulation is necessary to enable a comprehensive reform in culture. This would enable the rebuilding of the kind of agency that Tim McCarthy exemplified. HMR

37

Features

The NFl Takes a

38

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Features

a hit

Yarden Hahn November 2014

39

Features

W

histleblowing in the NFL has led to controversy over its policy on domestic violence and Roger Goodell’s job security. An anonymous law enforcement officer from New Jersey leaked the video of Ray Rice punching his fiancé, Janay Palmer, to Goodell in April, prior to its public release five months later. The release of this information produced chaos within the NFL and portrayed it as a corrupt organization that allows violent criminals to play and make millions of dollars. However, this was also the first step to ending domestic violence within the NFL and creating the NFL’s new, more rigorous domestic violence policy.

Domestic violence over the past weeks has been a hot topic for discussion because it is a problem that has become more publicized as more and more NFL players are exposed.

Players such as Ray Rice, Ray Mc-

Donald, Greg Hardy, and one of the league’s most valuable players, Adrian Peterson, who were all charged with child abuse or domestic violence are few of the many NFL players earning millions annually. These players, as part of such an influential and public organization, have an obligation to be role models. They are cheered for and are paid large amounts of money to entertain with their athletic abilities every week. Millions of people across America watch these incredible athletes battle on the field; off the field, they have an obligation to act with ethics that lines up with citizens under the law. Yet many of these players, like Ray Rice or Adrian Peterson, off camera are completely different people. Ray Rice, a former star running back for the Baltimore Ravens, was perceived to be a good role model for young children who grew up watching the sport. He was adored and cheered

on by fans all across the nation, but someone caught him when he though no one could see. The official who released the news of Ray Rice showed people who they were truly cheering for, and Ray Rice as a role model was destroyed. Without the releasing of the Ray Rice video an abusive man would still be praised and paid millions.

The official who released the information that Roger Goodell was given the Ray Rice video of the NFL player’s punching his wife five months prior to its public release caused chaos as Goodell scrambled to keep his public image intact. Goodell decided to suspend Rice for only two games, but according to him, he had not seen the video of Rice viciously punching his wife knocking her unconscious in an elevator before. Although Goodell claimed he had not seen it, it was revealed by a law enforcement officer

“The official was an essential part of improvingthe NFL’s domestic violence policy and is a prime example of why whistleblowing should be encouraged rather than condemned.”

40

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Features

that the video had been sent to the NFL prior to Goodell giving a two game suspension. Once this information and the video were revealed to the public, the NFL was put under intense scrutiny for its lenient domestic violence policy. Before the backlash from the Rice incident, convicted domestic abusers only received a fine and short suspension.

Following the aftermath caused by the leaked video, the NFL executive board proposed a new domestic violence policy that gave significant suspensions to players who commit such crimes. The new NFL domestic violence policy includes a six-game suspension for first time offenders and a lifetime ban for repeat offenders.

The visceral response to the leaked information was disbelief, and the release of the information caused an outbreak all over the news. Eventu-

ally it became the main topic on every sports show, causing the topic to quickly become mundane. The fans of the NFL grew tired of hearing about the flaws in the organization and potential improvements to its policies. Even though it appeared as though the NFL had been under the microscope for an excessive amount of time, reports quickly subsided after ten days. The heavily questioned and renewed topic was put to rest with a renewed policy, but the issue is that despite a more rigorous policy, domestic violence is still a major problem in the NFL community. The updated policy only changes the perception of the NFL from an immoral business to an ethically sound organization. What people do not realize is that domestic violence continues to occur within the NFL despite a new policy, something apparent by the sudden lack of coverage. The new

November 2014

domestic violence policy will result in a more highly regarded NFL with players who are more disciplined, but it will not cover up Roger Goodell’s lying to the public.

Ultimately the law enforcement official leaking the information did the NFL a favor because his actions resulted in the NFL’s changing its domestic violence policy, improving the public perception of the NFL once more. More importantly, the whistleblower brought justice to an unjust organization with policies that allow criminals to walk away with nothing but a short suspension and a small fine. Overall, the official was an essential part of improving the NFL’s domestic violence policy and is a prime example of why whistleblowing should be encouraged rather than condemned. Whistleblowing reveals the truth and can ultimately benefit a society. HMR

41

Features

Whistleblowers: A Necessary Force in Fighting Corruption Ethan Gelfer

W

hen institutions start to cut corners and slack off on safety, it is the job of whistleblowers to come forward and tell the world of the company’s unfair practices so that they can be rectified. From textiles to electronics, from military to civilian, political and social, companies and organizations sometimes engage in processes that cut corners and unfairly exploit workers or supplies at a cost to the consumers and jeopardize both the workers’ and consumers’ safety in the process. Alarmingly, nuclear whistleblowing has also been a necessary part of keeping the world safe from catastrophic events. From Mordechai Vanunu,

who revealed the Israeli nuclear weapons program to the British, to Gerald Brown, who uncovered the Thermo-lag circuit integrity scandal and silicone foam scandals in U.S. and Canadian nuclear power plants, workers in dangerous situations have repeatedly taken the initiative to keep their workplaces, and the world, safe.

Whistleblowers are integral in the function of the world government. They do the thankless job of turning on their bosses and friends and leaking the little cut corners that friends agreed to in a brightly lit conference room as a harmless way to reduce costs to the world, so that the people not be deceived as to the product they

42

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

are receiving. Nuclear whistleblowers’ job is more thankless than any other while being more necessary to the preservation of society than any other. Most names are absent from common vernacular, and they seem to have been all but forgotten except on Wikipedia’s page on nuclear whistleblowers. Yet men and women who revealed unsafe practices in nuclear power plants have led to sweeping changes in security and management at those plants Some whistleblowers receive national attention and international support. Edward Snowden, the NSA contractor who leaked the PRISM program to the press, is widely known and discussed, even though

Features not all people support his decision. He received the optimal reaction from the public that will most likely lead to changes in privacy policies of American government.

He did the thankless job of revealing trade secrets, and although he is wanted by the United States and is hiding in the Russian Federation, he got his message out. Nuclear whistleblowers are not always so lucky.

On the other hand, the most high profile nuclear whistleblower, Mordechai Vanunu, the man who leaked Israel’s nuclear program to the British government, is not remembered by name, and his actions have all but been forgotten. Some people blow hot air at the issue of Israel’s violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty but most have taken it for granted and accept Israel’s status as a nuclear state. Vanunu

workplace. But there is a need for them to.

There are watchdogs in place to prevent mishandling of nuclear materials in the nuclear power and weapons sector, but of late they have also been doing their jobs incorrectly. The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the agency responsible for ensuring the safety of nuclear reactors, waste, materials, and security. It too sometimes falls prey to a will to preserve pride and face in front of Congress. In July 2011, George Mulley blew the whistle on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for underreporting issues in the nuclear sectors. His actions show that whistleblowing can work, and that it is necessary for them to act. It is preposterous to assume that everything is perfect in the nuclear sector. It is out of the

falling apart. The Air Force corpsmen tasked with the protection of the weapons are not only inept, but also insubordinate.

Other issues such as a lack of interest in maintaining such a large arsenal and lack of discipline even in the higher echelons of the command also plague the nuclear weapons sector. America and the world needs ordinary people who work in these sectors to step up and reveal the wrongs in the industry so that they may be corrected.

At the point where the nuclear power sectors and nuclear weapons facilities cannot self-regulate and the regulator established (NRC) has a conflict of interest when reporting the problems with the plants, the imperative moves to the employees, the people who are seeing the plants continue functioning well past

“Vanunu deserves to be recognized even though his countrymen in Israel and conservatives everywhere tend to resent his actions. He is a strong man who stood up for what he believed in, and it is the duty of the people to recognize that.” deserves to be recognized even though his countrymen in Israel and conservatives everywhere tend to resent his actions. He is a strong man who stood up for what he believed in, and it is the duty of the people to recognize that, especially when the reaction to Snowden’s leaks were disproportionately and vastly larger in magnitude.

Yet the message to whistleblowers in the nuclear sector is clear. If even the most high profile case does not receive the attention it deserves, or give the whistleblower the attention he or she needs to spread awareness about the issue that he or she is trying to fix, then there is no point of blowing the whistle on one’s employer. This fact is seen in the trend observed- there have been remarkably few whistleblowing events and no high profile ones, even though our nuclear industry is in poor shape. The US Public Interest Group advocates against the building of new nuclear power plants by showing that the current plants are outdated and new ones have the same life span.

While other whistleblowers and whistleblowing events are high profile, many nuclear whistleblowing events are not remembered by the public. There is therefore little incentive for people in the nuclear sector to come forward about issues in the

headlines, which are at the moment populated with horror stories out of the Middle East and West Africa, but remains an issue, and perhaps even more acute than the others, because it directly affects the lives of millions of American citizens. It is imperative for both American citizens and the legislative bodies in the states and in Congress to recognize the attention that needs to be paid to our nuclear sector.

It is of the utmost importance for the people to come out and do what is right, because government agencies are often awkward and immobile, while one person can do a lot to stop unsafe practices in one swoop. Even though the job of the whistleblower is unadmirable, it must be done to preserve the security of the country, especially when the sector involved is the nuclear sector. The whistleblowing also extends to nuclear weapons.

Twenty thousand nuclear warheads exist on the planet today. The bulk of them are stored in silos around the United States and the states of the former Soviet Union. Many warheads were manufactured decades ago, and so were the places where they are stored. The technology keeping these warheads from going off is antiquated to the point of comedy, and the locations where they are stored are almost

November 2014

their designed date of expiry and who are seeing them deteriorate day by day, to report them and make the issue of nuclear power safety a national issue. When we can get the general public involved in the issue of nuclear safety, then the world will be a safer place, and it will have been due to the man or woman who originally blew the whistle on the organization.

Whether it be in the nuclear power industry, in the nuclear waste disposal sector, or the nuclear weapons branch of the Air Force, the people of the United States and the world are indebted to the brave men and women who had the courage to report their employers, that their practices may be reformed. These people, including Karen Silkwood, who reported health and safety concerns to the United States Atomic Energy Commission; Ronald Goldstein, who identified safety issues at his plants in South Texas to SAFETEAM, an independent safe haven for whistleblowers; and Arnold Gundersen, who discovered radioactive material in a safe at his office at the Nuclear Energy Services and was fired for reporting it. These people are not the only whistleblowers, but they are just a few of the unsung heroes who deserve to be recognized, for they have brought to light an issue that deserves national attention. HMR

43

Features

Whistleblowers: Malevolent Traitors or America’s Future?

Olivia Becker

O

ne of the more challenging situations in a person’s life may be to speak up after witnessing actions that are ethically questionable when the people involved are familiar or close. Jack Palmer was faced with just that dilemma: keep quiet about his company’s illegal mistreatment of its employees or speak out and risk losing his job. He did what he thought was

right and reported his company, Infosys (a multinational Indian business consulting firm), for violating visa laws. In doing so, he became a “whistleblower.”

A whistleblower is someone working for a company who reveals wrongdoing of the company to the public and authorities. Through such actions, a whistleblower publicly exposes concerns about dangerous or illegal circum-

44

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

stances that violate not only active laws but also basic ethical standards. Even though there are federal laws protecting whistleblowers, it is easy to understand the complicated and emotional process that a potential whistleblower must undergo before deciding to notify authorities of alleged wrongdoing.

Federal and State laws encourage people to report fraud or wrongdoing and

Features offer financial rewards when such exposure results in successful repair of the damages in the fraud. In addition to this, there is a federal whistleblower protection act, also known as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or “SOX,” which Congress passed to protects whistle blowers.

There are four basic tenets in the federal whistleblower act: first, the law requires that all companies create independent

a question of protecting yourself from chaos, or doing what is ethically right.

After the company found out about Mr. Palmer’s whistleblowing, they did not assign him any further work. Palmer believes this was done as punishment for his whistleblowing. According to Palmer, he also experienced harassment from fellow employees and management of the company, essentially cutting him off

not clearly illegal, were “deeply troubling” and “an argument could be made that such threats against whistle-blowers, in particular, should be illegal.”

If Palmer was not an “at-will” worker, the case might have gone in another direction. The company would have had to give Mr. Palmer work, and if not, would be found guilty and fined by the judge. In addition, if there were clearer evidence of

“Employers and employees must take these rules and regulations seriously and do everything possible toensure ethical and legal businesspractice in order to avoid prosecution.”

Audit Committee, to make sure that the company is following the rules. Second, attorneys who become aware of deep and serious wrongdoing on behalf of clients are required, in certain circumstances, to report these actions. Third, the law expanded whistleblower protections beyond public companies to every employer nation wide. Lastly, SOX provided the power of enforcement of these laws. This important set of changes raised awareness for employers to ensure that their companies are conducting business in an ethical and legal manner.

Mr. Palmer was an “at-will” employee (an employee who can be fired for any reason, without having to establish “just cause” for termination) who worked for Infosys for two years before becoming suspicious of corporate wrongdoing. He realized that Infosys was bringing many workers from its corporate headquarters in Bangalore to the US through shortterm B-1 visas, meant to be used only for employees traveling to consult with associates rather than for full time jobs.

Mr. Palmer, although dedicated to his company, felt it was right to report the visa fraud to the public because he wanted to uphold the values of the company: integrity and leadership. “It was a question of right and wrong, following my conscience and following the law,” he said. This is a recurring situation seen in the world:

from work and ostracizing him.

While cut off from work, and essentially, life, Mr. Palmer began to question his decision of whistleblowing, and whether it was worth it. Before Mr. Palmer filed a law suit, instead of isolating him, Infosys could have taken his complaint seriously and investigated it, but instead they chose to ignore it and isolate him, leaving him with a difficult decision: either go forward and work with the knowledge of an inappropriate and illegal practice or reveal these wrongdoings to the authorities and the public. I support Palmer’s decision to become a whistleblower because he chooses to do what is ethically right in order to reduce illegal activity and crime.

This case was presented to the judge in the following manner: Mr. Palmer claimed that Infosys had cut him off from the company, punishing him for claiming the company had committed, in his words, “widespread visa fraud.” The judge found this a difficult case because Palmer was an “at-will” worker, which is a status that gives the company the right to increase or decrease his workload at their preference. The judge found, therefore, that it was difficult to prove that the company was acting in a punitive manner by cutting him off from work due to his whistleblowing claims. Although, the judge did admit that the actions of the company towards Mr. Palmer, while

November 2014

wrongdoing, Mr. Palmer’s status as an atwill employee might be less relevant to the judge’s findings in this case. Despite these facts, the issues that Mr. Palmer raised are still under investigation by federal authorities, and therefore the larger visa fraud case is far from closed.

The judge weighed the facts presented to him without drawing conclusions beyond the evidence. Although his decision might not please those who sympathize with the underdog, Mr. Palmer, the judge also had to account for the company’s argument that Mr. Palmer sued only because he felt rejected and was retaliating against the company for being underutilized.

These principles and dilemmas do not just apply to this case; rather, there is a broader lesson and message to be learned: there are federal protections in place for employees to identify and correct wrongdoing on behalf of their employers.

There is also a burden of proof, and convictions in these cases are not just based on hearsay (information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate.) Rather, strong evidence is required. Employers and employees must take these rules and regulations seriously and do everything possible to ensure ethical and legal business practices in order to avoid prosecution. HMR

45

Economics

WHERE did capitalism go?

Henry Shapiro 46

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

I

n recent years, capitalism has become a scapegoat for many of the world’s problems, and this trend has caused a sharp decline in the popularity of the previously widely supported ideology. According to The Economist, over the past decades the percentage of Americans who believe that capitalism is the best economic system has dropped from 80% to 59%. As Florida Representative Trey Radel said in a 2013 think tank on US markets, “Capitalism has become a dirty word.” The causes of the stigma around capitalism stem from both crony capitalism and perceptions of the Republican Party as defenders of capitalism.

Further, the Republicans’ packaging of fiscal and social conservatism and aggressive political tactics have made shed a negative light on the economic system as a whole.

The perception that modern day America is an accurate representation of life in a capitalist society lies on the assumption that we live in a free market society, an assumption that is simply incorrect. Both Republicans and Democrats, who, in theory, are supposed to represent respectively right and left wing views of the capitalist system, are falling short. The functioning of two parties has been dramatically altered by the current political landscape, which favors petty politics over ideas. The result of this is two parties whose viewpoint don’t accurate represent the liberal and conservative sides of capitalism and and instead spread crony capitalism.

Corporate capitalism, or crony capitalism, is when the government is pro-business instead of pro-free market. Crony capitalism involves a form of favoritism in which government assumes the role of the invisible hand of the free market and determines which businesses succeed and which don’t. It does so by giving specific corporations tax breaks, bailouts, and other forms of government aids. In a world with crony capitalism, success is determined by a company’s relationships with government officials rather than the services it offers.

The first problem with this approach is the ruslting economic disparities. Corporate capitalism centralizes wealth and power in the upper classes of society by inhibiting social mobility. If someone in the middle or lower class were to start a new company with a better product than a big corporation, he or she should, the-

Economics

Corporate capitalism centralizes wealth and power in the upper classes of society by inhibiting social mobility. oretically, be able to succeed despite the competition. However, if the government were supporting this large company, the small buisness would simply not be able to compete. It is at an extreme disadvantage.

Crony capitalism can be seen in our modern economic system. Corn and ethanol subsidiaries and the bank and auto industry bailouts have played a large role in developing this system. Notably in these secotrs, price, which is supposed to be determined by supply and demand, consumption of various products, and the success of businesses have been heavily influenced by the government intervention.

Truly free-markets allow competition between businesses, because consumers favor companies that offer better and cheaper products. Therefore, capitalism inspires innovation because those who invent or develop better products are rewarded. Because better products that are more innovated and better suit the needs of the consumer, good products, such as the iPhone, who currently posses 48% market share, will sell better than inferior products such as the flip phone, who once dominated the market but now have a mere 3% market share. The success of a company is determined by the costumer’s experience, not if the product is made a big business or wealthy individual. In this way, capitalism can serve as a vehicle for social mobility as it allows determined individuals not only to create business but also to have an advantage over big corporations with lower-quality products. This system not only helps society by inspiring the creation of better and more affordable products and services but also creates equal opportunity.

The modern stigma tied to capitalism

November 2014

has also been created by Republicans packaging of fiscal and social conservatism. In a study conducted by the NY Times, when people were asked to say the first thing that came to mind when they heard the word Republican, they found that words like religious intolerance and bigotry topped the list. In an era focused on social progression, many people will favor social change over economic freedom, and won’t support the Republican Party due to its antiquated socially conservative agenda. This moves more voters towards the left side of the political spectrum and diverts voters away from the right, causing a decrease in political support for fiscal conservatives.

Fiscal conservatism is in no way related to social conservatism, but somehow, Republicans have managed to intertwine these two ideas. So now, when you vote for fiscal conservatism, you also vote for social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism encourages the promotion of economic freedom and the equal opportunity while social conservatism removes people’s freedoms and creates inequality. Many individuals do not want to be associated with the stereotypical image of an intolerant capitalist that we have allowed to be created and as a result choose not to join political parties associated with fiscal conservatism.

Additionally, Republican political tactics have led to decreased popularity, and as a result have made capitalism more unfavorable. Currently, the 113th Congress is on track to become on of the least productive of all time. Increasing radicalism and aggression on both sides have lead Republicans and Democrats into deadlock. Both sides are to blame when observing this problem, but the American populous and the media likes

47

Economics

Republicans must stop focusing on social conservatism, stop using aggressive political tactics, and start pushing to remove crony capitalism. to put blame on one side in particular.

When Republicans use tactics such as filibustering and failed to stop the government shutdown in 2013, they anger many Americans who believe that the intent of these tactics is to accomplish nothing but avoiding solutions. When Republicans, the current face of capitalism, use these tactics, they do not only alienate themselves, but they alienate capitalism as well from potential voters.

According to Standard and Poor’s, the

government shutdown cost $24 billion dollars and resulted in many government workers’ temporary unemployment. That’s $24 billion of hard-working Americans taxpayer money that Republicans wasted on political strategy. According to a Huffington Post Poll, during the government shutdown and the events that lead up to it in 2013, the amount of Americans that viewed Republicans in an unfavorable light increased roughly 25%. Republicans should be focused on

48

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

convincing Americans that free market Capitalism represents the values of hard working Americans. Gow are they supposed to do so when the representatives of capitalism are willing to harm that exact group in order to promote their own self-interest?

Although free market capitalism has come under scrutiny, capitalism still remains the backbone of America’s economy. Today, there is no legitimate fear that America will no longer be a capitalist nation anytime in the near future; however, we have progressively been becoming more economically left wing over the past century. Government expenditures as a percentage of our GDP have gone from 5.5% in 1900 to 27% last year, and government has introduced significantly more regulation. This shift can be attributed to the stigma created around fiscal conservatism, which Republicans, along with increased crony capitalism, have created. Republicans must stop focusing on social conservatism, stop using aggressive political tactics, and start pushing to remove crony capitalism.

Only then will the nation once again recognize the universal importance of capitalism. HMR

Economics

Finding Growth Siddarth Thirpathi November 2014

49

Economics

P

rime Mister Modi is taking the world by storm as he prepares to reevaluate Indian policy and rejuvenate the world’s largest democracy. He has an ambitious vision for the future of India; he looks to eradicate poverty, create job opportunities, and produce an environment that is safer for women. Mr. Modi, a master strategist, is working to strengthen Indian foreign policy by setting up multiple opportunities with foreign powers to bolster the defense, technology, and economy of India.

Mr. Modi will succeed because he has an achievable set of goals in mind. In terms of the economy, Modi hopes to reform both the financial and infrastructure sectors, while creating a plethora of new job opportunities. Eswar S. Prasad, a Cornell University economist, when speaking about Modi said, “[He] has a fairly clear idea of what he wants to accomplish, and he does not look for ratification from the market. One could argue that in a country where there are far more words than actions thrown around, that this is far more preferable: a man who acts.” Mr. Prasad is correct in this assessment.

Modi has been presented with a chance to stimulate a somewhat stagnant Indian economy in the last few years. India, a place that is, as Mr. Modi says himself, “a unique combination of democracy, demography, and demand” and whose youth is abundant with “idealism, innovation, and energy”, is just adding to the thirst of investors and countries, who are eager to be part of the bright and promising future of this nation.

September of 2014 brought a significant improvement of the Indian economy.

Over the duration of three weeks, both China and Japan, Asia’s first and third largest economies respectively, communicated with India in the effort to construct brand new infrastructure, particular-

ly bridges, in India. Since Japan made a move towards strengthening ties with India, China followed strategically after and also increased its engagement with India.

This move is widely recognized as a way for China to bolster its economic relationship with one of the most competent global markets and the second largest economy in Asia. This is seen in a few ways.

First, soon after Japan had declared that it would be investing $35 billion over a time span of five years in India’s infrastructure, China Daily reported that multiple Chinese companies were eager to play a role in India’s extending of a high-speed rail network across the country. This money invested from Japan would go to “dedicated freight corridors and metro rail systems, that directly impact the country’s 1.25 billion population”, according to The Business World Magazine (BW).

Additionally, Anil Gupta, a professor at the Smith’s school of business stated, “Any prospect of closer Indian-Japan and Indian-US relations makes the Chinese nervous and keener to send positive signals to India”. Gupta also explained that the India-China relationship will mostly be centered around infrastructure over the next five years because India’s “engineering and management skills” are high while its infrastructure isn’t relatively strong.

Modi, being the prudent and poised strategist that he is, waited for the right chance to strike, and he has now taken that opportunity. By focusing on his foreign diplomacy with countries like China, Japan, and the US, he will be killing two birds with one stone. First, he is stimulating economic growth within India. Second, by looking to strengthen ties with Japan and China, he will help India bolster a relatively weak infrastructure sector.

In addition to working on relations with Japan and China, Mr. Modi has made a serious effort to strengthen political and

economic ties with the US. In his recent speech in front of 19,000 Indian-Americans at Madison Square Garden in NYC, Modi energized the crowd and generated tons of publicity back home. His speech gave a good idea of his wish list as the new Prime Minister. Modi’s speech resembled the other brilliant ones he has given: including sly humor, rhetoric that is on point, and poignant notes to appeal to the emotional side of a mostly young crowd.

Modi is wisely trying to revitalize the relationship between India and the US, which was scathed during the era of Mr. Nehru, India’s first Prime Minister who was a key part of Indian politics during the 20th century. Moreover, the night of the Madison Square Garden speech Modi met with President Obama for dinner, and conversed with congressmen, governors, and executives from big companies like Google and Boeing. Modi’s primary goal in his visit to America was to sell both the Indian-American relatiohip and the general American population on a new thriving India.

Moving forward, Mr. Modi will have to try to mend the critical differences between the US and India on views such as the environment, outsourcing, and taxes.

This will be especially tough since India hasn’t been the most trustworthy partner.

It refuses to call the US an “ally” on disputed matters such as the foreign policy in Syria. Still, Modi’s end goal is to establish a needed form of trust with the US, revitalize their unsteady relationship, and advertise to the youth and the Indian Americans about the New India Prime Minister Modi has promised.

Modi will ultimately be successful. So far, the Prime Minister has shown the characteristics that seem to indicate a strong term; he is bold, ambitious, and a man of the people who is open to play to

“Modi is wisely trying to revitalize the relationship between India and the US.” 50

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

Economics

“Modi will have to try to mend the critical differences between the US and India on views such as the environment, outsourcing, and taxes.” the sentimental side of the populous. Mr. Modi’s humble beginnings as a tea server give him the chance to relate to the 1.25 billion in his nation, many of whom live in destitute conditions.

Nevertheless, there is never a perfect term. Prime Minister Modi will face tough

roadblocks, which he will have to overcome. Goals like changing the policy for taxes, land, and law in India, will be difficult, as they will have to have the aid of the upper house of Parliament which the his party does not control. Challenges like these will test the mastermind’s patience

and will be difficult to overcome. However, it is looking like Mr. Modi will give a country of more than a billion a bright opportunity to be the competent, global, and influential market it has always had the potential to be. HMR

1.8 1.3

TRILLION IN GDP

BILLION POPULATION November 2014

51

Economics

HP’S Prospects after Splitting Up

Ella Feiner

H

ewlett Packard, an information technology corporation centered in California, is splitting into two companies seventy-five years after it was founded. The company, which was originally created to manufacture hardware, has been moving into the realms of software and services. Now, the company’s CEO, Meg Whitman, has decided to split up the services business from the PC and printer business in an attempt to modernize the company during the current explosion of global computing that is transforming the technological industry.

This split is an excellent strategy for the company since it allows the corporation to compete with Apple and Google.

The company is currently the world’s second largest manufacturer of PCs, and it was one of the original Silicon Valley pioneers. Founded out of a Palo Alto garage in 1939 by William Hewlett and

David Packard, the company was established on the invention of an audio oscillator which they sold at prices much lower than all their competitors. Walt Disney Productions purchased some equipment from them which launched the company and began its reputation as the symbolic founder of modern day Silicon Valley.

Eventually, HP entered the computer market, and Wired magazine identified the company as the “producer of the world’s first device to be called a personal computer.” It was an amazing feat of engineering at the time.

In 1984, HP introduced two new kinds of desktop printers - inkjet and laser, along with numerous types of scanners. These were later combined into multifunction machines, which became extremely popular. The Palo Alto garage where the business was founded was made a landmark in California, and the business took off.

52

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

In 1999, HP made the decision to split up its business that wasn’t related to computers, storage, and imaging, and formed Agilent Technologies (AT). Decades earlier, they had tried to spin off a digital equipment company, and named it Dynac. The company couldn’t deal with the logistics of running two different teams, so Dynac was folded back into HP. Agilent Technologies, however, was extremely successful, and it had the largest IPO in the history of Silicon Valley thus far. AT ended up being worth $8 billion and manufactured a lot of important equipment.

This successful split gives me faith that the current attempt to divide the company will be successful. Since its founding, HP has clearly been a very versatile business, dipping its toes into every pond. This strategy, however, hasn’t been working for them very well in the past few years, as HP has started to decline after the immense

Economics success of two of its main competitors, Apple and Google.

In 2002, HP merged with Compaq, owner of Digital Equipment Corporation.

Although the merger was considered by many important business figures to be an extremely risky step, it ended up being very successful for the company, and stock prices soared for a little while. But eventu-

man has been revamping the company’s image. InformationWeek describes HP as “a venerated by fallen-on-hard-times leader of the U.S. computer industry.” HP tried to enter the tablet business but soon withdrew after suffering losses. In 2011, HP stocks lost 50% of their value in just twelve months. With the help of Whitman, the company relied more on its printer busi-

“Although this move will help HP become more nimble and benefit the enterprise business, it will not be enough to permanently transform the company and get it out of its deep rut.” ally, it was clear that something else would be needed to fix the company.

According to Forbes writer Tim Worstall, “HP in the printing world was always the standard by which everyone else was judged. But we’re all just printing less these days so that’s a business in secular decline.” HP’s printing business, a large part of the company, has been getting less and less popular. Additionally, PCs are no longer as large a portion of the market as they used to be. As HP competes with many tech companies to produce faster, lighter, more efficient tablets and smartphones, a smaller number of people are choosing PCs as their personal computers.

HP has already cut 34,000 employees, and according to the New York Times, 11,000 to 16,000 more will lose their jobs.

To combat this decline, CEO Meg Whit-

ness, but in the past year, these sales have also been dropping. After eleven quarters of declining revenue, it was clear that a new solution was necessary for the company to survive, and that this solution lay in the new burst of mobile cloud technology.

Whitman hoped that mobile devices and cloud computing would invigorate HP and help it to compete with its superior and extremely successful counterparts, Apple and Google. In comparison to these cloud computing based big data revolution companies, HP seems like a relic, focusing on PCs and printers. Whitman added a “greater emphasis on software, design, and customer focus,” but the new products weren’t making up for the profit losses on the old lines.

After years of decline, the HP split was announced early this October. One com-

November 2014

pany, Hewlett-Packard Enterprise, will sell computer servers, data storage equipment, software, and services to corporations.

Whitman will head this company. HP Inc, on the other hand, will be made up of the PC and printer businesses, which will be run by Dion Weisler. This shift struck a chord in shareholders, and since the split, HP stock has risen by 4.74%.

Although this move will help HP become more nimble and benefit the enterprise business, it will not be enough to permanently transform the company and get it out of its deep rut. Project revenue will most likely increase, but will it be enough?

HP is marketing this split as its big transformation, but it has merged and split numerous times throughout the company’s history to no avail. The multiple mergers and splits have spurred economic upswing for a while but haven’t been enough to completely revamp the image of HP as an antiquated tech company that’s behind the times. To create a lasting change, the company needs to change its image on the market. The company’s product lineups need to be more focused on the global cloud, and the company needs to establish itself as a true technological innovator.

Hopefully, by splitting from their hardware companies, the split will be effective in carrying this out. This split is by far the most drastic yet and will help the company economically, but instead of repeating its history, HP needs to find a more original solution to its multitude of problems. HMR

53

Economics

forbes.com

Trademarks: The Boundaries of Intellectual Property Benjamin Shapiro

C

an anyone own a single word? The answer to this specific question is no, but alternatively someone can claim a single word to be the product of his or her own unique thought process.

The difference between ownership of a word and a claim on a word is a small symbol that is commonly seen all over products around America, the trademark. A trademark that follows a sentence, phrase, or word marks that grouping of words as the intellectual property of a company or individual. Furthermore, the trademark bans the commercial use of the marked words in a way that would distort public opinion or detract from the rightful holders of the phrase. Strictly speaking, the holders do not own trademarked phrases because the general public can use them phrases freely. It is important to add that physical aspects of a product can also be trademarked, though the physical symbol is more often associated with slogans. Should a company or individual use a trademarked trait inappropriately, the holders have the right to challenge the violators in a court of law.

The illegal use of a trademarked phrase

is called trademark infringement, and there are thousands of lawsuits surrounding trademark infringement each year in the United States. Essentially, it is possible for anyone to claim a pattern or a special string of words just as someone can file a patent for a physical product of his or her creation.

Recently, there has been a lawsuit filed by a man named Dov Seidman against the yogurt company Chobani.

The focus of the case revolves around the word “how.” Seidman is a prominent author and businessman who wrote a book about changing the focus of corporations from their income to their impact on society. The name of his book is “How” and it focuses on the importance of the processes behind each company.

His company, LRN, aids corporations in bettering themselves and making “how” their focus. A couple of months ago, Chobani started an ad campaign that emphasized the importance of the way they processed their yogurt through the small phrase “How Matters.” Seidman jumped on the campaign by Chobani and claimed they had taken his “how”

54

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

and thereby violated his intellectual property. He sued the powerful yogurt company and demanded that they cancel the ads as soon as possible. It is ridiculous for Seidman to assume that he can actually claim such a generic word as “how” to be a product of his unique thoughts, and yet he has every right to file this lawsuit. The boundaries of property of the mind are not strict enough to prevent occurrences like this one.

Situations like this form the makeup of an important issue in the United States concerning the actual concept of intellectual property. While it is important to protect the property of all individuals, where do we draw the line for mental works? It is too much to trademark any one word because anyone could unintentionally “steal” it. Such cases remove from the integrity of a business and from the law. Infringement lawsuits are so common because these cases target vague crossovers of generic language that could lead to confusion of the public.

The only way to prove infringement is to show that someone could confuse the defender’s product with the plaintiff ’s, but

Economics in so many situations the differences are fairly noticeable. The ideals of intellectual property are being abused because there are no defined limits on what are associated with property of the mind.

By suing other companies for such petty trademark infringement, trademarks begin to look less like intelligent conflict and more like a scam. The trend for infringement lawsuits is large companies targeting small ones or small companies

clearly didn’t pose a threat to the major corporation that is McDonald’s. This is an example of how large corporations, such as McDonald’s, constantly try to take advantage of the loose parameters connected to intellectual property in order to gain the upper hand in their commercial field.

Consequences of un-clear law pertaining to intellectual property can be changed for the better if only trademarks

“Rather than trying to change the companies, the legislation should be confined to certain boundaries that exclude the trivial examples of lawsuits that have been all too common recently.” targeting larger ones; there are fewer cases in which companies of similar size sue each other. Many of these cases are an attempt of the plaintiff to either remove the defending company as competition or to claim large sums of money. A good example of such a case would be McCurry Vs. McDonald’s, in which McDonald’s sued McCurry over the use of the “Mc” in their brand name. McDonald’s was motivated mainly to remove any competitors that could show similarities to their own brand, trying to monopolize the attention they received for their name. The defendant, McCurry won the case because they were a small brand name that

were restricted further. Converse has sued thirty-one other shoe brands for using similar styles. Kellogg has sued the Maya Archaeology Initiative for having a toucan logo similar to Toucan Sam from fruit loops. Seidman’s suing Chobani yogurt for using the word “how” clearly shows there is an issue with the restrictions on intellectual property. There are constantly petty lawsuits that result in verdicts costing unbelievable sums of money. The use of trademarks should not be so loosely defined, or as a result the values that they are protecting lose all meaning. Of course, it is very hard to

November 2014

restrict such things because unique ideas can change the parameters of intellectual possessions, but they cannot remain as uncertain as they are. Protection as a whole for ideas is a relatively new and revolutionary idea because it gives credit to those who can muster up clever sayings and concepts, but this meaning is masked when huge companies begin to fight each other over minutia that they have blown out of scale.

No one should be able to own or even hold the rights to a single word. It is utterly ridiculous to assume that something can be distinctively associated with one word unless he or she invented it. In our modern day and age, the trademark represents an important value to cherish the mental accomplishments of a human being. Under the mask and weight of hundreds of insignificant lawsuits, much of this value is lost. Instead of trying to protect their ideas, many companies use these laws to protect their assets. Rather than trying to change the companies, the legislation should be confined to certain boundaries that exclude the trivial examples of lawsuits that have been all too common recently. Our understanding of intellectual property is constantly developing as people create new ideas and evolve socially; however, it can be certain that nothing as generic as “how” belongs to anyone. HMR

55

Economics

Ebola’s Ripple Effect

By Evan Megibow

E

bola as a pandemic is feared and fought, but Ebola as an economic killer may be equally threatening.

The latest report put forth by the World Bank estimates that if Ebola grows at expected rates, the per capita income will dive to $591. That comes out to $1.62 per person each day. When compared to $142 a day in the United States and $45 a day in nearby Gabon, this number appears even more unsustainable. Given that a large bag of rice that feeds an average sized family for a couple weeks costs $20, it is virtually impossible for a person to eat three meals a day on that budget. The healthy need international financial support, and they need it fast.

The Liberian Finance Minister said, “The outbreak has significantly impacted economic activities throughout the country with domestic food production, mining activities, and the service sector all declining.” As business declines, people lose jobs and income. Given that 85% of the Liberian workforce is not formally employed, extended families often depend on

a few workers for salary. When the breadwinner loses his or her job, the family falls into extreme poverty.

The Executive Director of the African Travel Association said, “[Ebola’s effect on the economy] could go way beyond tourism, and there really has not been sufficient discussion about this issue in the tourism sector so far.” Airline cancellations and border closures may be positive for containing the virus, but limiting transportation leaves a negative and lasting impression on the economy. Liberia has benefited from a stabilized tourism industry focused on its Atlantic coast.

The industry will topple when tourists, the foundation and driving force of revenue for the hotels and restaurants, are too scared to visit. The number of flights departing from Ebola-infected regions have been diminishing rapidly as travel bans pop up. Currently, destinations for flights out of Liberia are limited to Morocco, France, and Belgium. The planes generally have aid coming in and people in search of safety going out.

56

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

According to the Minister of Agriculture in Sierra Leone, 40 percent of farms have been completely abandoned. The president of a United Nations agency based in Rome wrote that Ebola might “lead to a hunger crisis of epic proportions for West Africa.” Sadly, international governments have barely noticed the hunger directly caused by Ebola in West Africa.

He continues, “It is unfortunate that the international community does not look up to crises when they occur in what I call the forgotten world, the invisible world where people die in rural areas from drought or disease until it grows out of proportion or until it begins to affect the larger international community.” When a farmer falls ill, the community that was dependent on him or her for food source goes hungry.

Those who do not farm have an average of $1.62 a day to purchase all necessities.

This is a near impossible task. To make matters even more precarious, as less food is created, the mechanics of supply and demand dictate that prices will skyrocket. But

Economics that is only half the challenge. Roadblocks have prevented food from being transported from farmland to more residential areas and have left inhabitants hungry.

Director of the NGO Street Child of Sierra Leone discussed the consequences of quarantine. “The areas being quarantined are really poor communities, most people live on 50p (.64 cents) a day...We need a distribution network to be built to make sure the food gets in and gets in regularly to the starving people. I am expecting starvation to show in three or four weeks unless this is addressed.” A Liberian citizen attempting to survive quarantine told CNN, “First, I was the one that provided for her. But as time goes by, she’s complaining the rice is finished. I just came from my parents’ house and she has nothing.” The respondent was referring to her helpless mother, who is separated from her normal food source by quarantine barriers. The same Liberian citizen was asked if she feared hunger or the disease more, and she responded, “Both. That’s what’s worrying us. The hunger, the Ebola, everything.

I’m scared of everything.” Communities not only suffer from fear of the outbreak’s consequences, but they are also forces to break tradition. Ebola’s contagiousness prevents people from having direct physical contact with one another. Imagine not being able to pick up your ailing baby or bury your dead son. The sense of community and family are ripped from these areas. This fear and lack of community destroy civic pride and morale, consequently lowering production rates. The United States loses $350 billion annually due to low morale. Employees with low esteem focus less while working, skip work, and even switch jobs. When an employee quits his or her job, the employer loses one to two years in salary due to the costs needed to to find a new employee and train him or her. Furthermore, employees in West

Africa miss work due to illness, a sick family member or friend, or quarantine barriers. The governments of these countries face an impossible dilemma: control Ebola with quarantine and experience civilian starvation and reduced economic output or let Ebola viciously spread freely throughout the vulnerable population.

Even those fortunate enough to have

vided considerable aid in order to treat the infected Ebola patients. More than $200 million from the World Bank, 7,440 pairs of latex gloves and 28 all terrain vehicles for logistics provided by UNICEF, $25 million from Mark Zuckerberg, and more donations have been given by groups around the world to treat Ebola patients directly.

People will continue to perish from all fac-

money to purchase food may find local markets empty or missing the vast majority of their vendors. Some of these vendors have died, more are sick, and many more choose to stay home rather than risk infection. In short, the economy has ground to a halt. This leaves a hungry population with even less access to food and supplies.

The disastrous economic impacts of a multiple yearlong break in economic activity will leave scars that long outlast Ebola itself. “The fertile fields of Lofa County, once Liberia’s breadbasket, are now fallow,” said World Health Organization Director General Margaret Chan. Currently food is not being produced that would have supported a stronger future. When farmers are infected by Ebola, cultivation stops. Food is the first building block in an advanced society, and without it progress cannot occur. These desolate farms will require a significant amount of work to become arable, fertile land once again. As Liberian schools have remained closed for months, literacy rates that have sat stagnant at around 60 percent are expected to fall. This expected decrease in literacy rates will likely lead to a drop in productivity levels for years to come.

The international community has pro-

ets of the Ebola epidemic, economic and health related, until the spreading of the terrible illness is stopped.

In order to stop Ebola from devastating economies, the virus must retract and fall in size. Then people can more easily mitigate economic impacts. To estimate the expected cost of rebuilding economies, we must look back to the SARS epidemic, which received similar press and infected nearly the same number of people as Ebola has. The SARS epidemic caused $40 billion in economic damages. Ebola is expected to cost just one billion dollars to cure the virus and a whopping $32 billion to repair economies according to the World Bank. In order to reduce the Ebola’s economic impacts, the workforce must be rebuilt and international investment must return to West Africa. Nearly no money or resources have been given to aiding the desperate, the healthy, and the starving. If donors want to save the maximum number of human lives, then they must consider not only the infected, but also the healthy inhabitants of the affected regions. While caring for the infected and stopping the spread of this terrible illness are formidable tasks, much more dangerous economic rubble lies beneath the surface. HMR

“Ebola is expected to cost just one billion dollars to cure the virus and a whopping $32 billion to repair economies.”

www.washingtonpost.com

November 2014

57

Science and Technology

Yik Yak: Anonymous Bullies Talk Back I

Emma Forman

n the United States, over 80% of teens use their cell phones regularly, making it the most popular mode of cyber bullying. With new apps being released constantly, it is now easier for people to reach a large crowd of people anonymously with their messages. This has been a prominent issue among schools and in communities around the country.

A new app, Yik Yak, is a new media center for anonymous cyber bullying and has become increasingly popular over the last year. There is difficulty in combatting ths issue becuase school and governmental interference could infringe upon privacy rights.

Yik Yak is a new social media app that was created by Brooks Buffington and Tyler Droll, two 23- year- old entrepreneurs from Atlanta. The app launched in December 2013 and has spread to college campuses all over the nation and is becoming a major issue and middle schools and high schools. This app is creating an easier way to bully anonymously, and many people are taking advantage of this. Although the

app was created with good intentions, it is able to bring out the worst types of cyber bullying. The app should be strictly regulated immediately in order to secure the emotional safety of all people.

The app was created as a way for many people in a certain geographic area to communicate in a virtual chat room. It consists of a bulletin board where people anonymously post what they want and has been described as a mix between Twitter and Reddit. Some of this information can be hurtful with false accusations and large repercussions. The people written about have been students, teachers, and co-workers. Some information written can be extremely hurtful to the person and can destroy their reputations, and the author of the comment cannot face any consequences because the site in anonymous.

The app was specifically constructed with the idea that people can only be identified if they post something that could be dangerous.

Both of the creators wanted to build an app that was open to people in a specific

58

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

area, hoping to increase the sense of community. Buffington, one of the creators said he, “designed the app primarily for college students. Using the app the way we intended it to be used requires a certain amount of maturity and responsibility, we were idealistic about who possessed that.” They wanted to bring attention to the many people that you might not get to hear from during the day. Buffington wanted to bring out the, “guy in the back of your science class because he might be the funniest guy you ever hear.”

One story of a junior in high school includes her being bullied through 10-15 false comments on Yik- Yak. They were offensive, hurtful comments that were all lies. The junior, referred to as M, had her most private and hurtful thoughts put into writing for her whole school to see, and no one knows who wrote it. The app is giving people a chance to attack anyone and destroy reputations.

This introduces bullying from the bottom of the social pyramid, something that is impossible to do if you are without In-

Science and Technology ternet popularity. All people can now send out messages to reach a large amount of people, just as a popular person could with all their social media followers. Furthermore, everyones ideas on Yik Yak are treated with equal importance because the posts are anonymous. M and other classmates began to worry about returning to school. They didn’t want to see the people who would judge them and the people who had written about them. One boy who was part of a homophobic post was unaware that his peers viewed him this way. Many accusations such as this are extremely emotionally draining.

The app is not only damaging to self-moral but also affects the safety of many in school. In San Clemente, California, a high school was shut down after a bomb threat was posted on Yik- Yak. Schools in Chicago and California have reported shooting threats. Marblehead High School in Massachusetts was evacuated twice in the beginning of May due to threats. A possible solution to this issue could be the banning of electronic use throughout the school day. The app creators could also put a severe age restriction on its use. This would mean that college students, the targeted audience, could still use the app.

There are no major benefits to any communities that use this app. As a way to hear from new people in a community, it fails to actually bring them together. The anonymity eliminates the possibility of a relationship between two people, so the

use of the app is essentially antisocial. The “quiet person at the back of your science class” might be funny on Yik Yak, but no one would actually know that because he is anonymous. People are able to say whatever they want to say without getting real life reactions. This could mean that another personality can emerge on the app that is not present in person. Someone who you thought was your best friend could actually be spreading rumors about you via Yik Yak. The creators discuss one situation where the app was used for its original intention.

A college student missed his flight and returned to his dorm to find it was locked.

After posting on Yik- Yak, upperclassmen offered him a place to sleep.

The founders of the app have applied new rules to help limit cyber bulling. First they changed the app’s age rating to 17 +.

This age restriction, although enforced, does not guarantee that younger users will not buy the app. The age rating only suggests to parents what age their child should be to purchase the app. They then worked with Maponics to set boundaries so that the app wont let a user send or read messages while at a middle or high school. This geo- fencing should be able to solve the in school bullying, but there is no guarantee that out of school bullying still wont occur. Out of school bullying has always been an issue on social media and has yet to be combatted with force.

Schools could regulate the app and its users, but this may bring up the right to

November 2014

privacy. On a school campus where bullying is common, regulating the use of an app doesn’t seem to be a major offense.

Schools could try to ban the purchasing of the app, but it is not their place to do so.

This decision would have to be made by the parents and the children themselves.

The government has taken some action to prevent online bullying in the past. One site, stopbullying.gov, managed by the U.S department of Health and Human Services informs people what bullying is and ways to respond and prevent bullying.

At the moment, there are still no federal laws directly addressing bullying. There are only harassment laws. This means that any school is required to address and resolve harassment issues. Education is an important part of combatting cyberbullying. Schools should be actively teaching students that bullying in any form is not appropriate and that any issue with bullying can be met with serious consequences.

Cyber bullying has been an ever-increasing issue with the rise in technology and must be combatted with the help of the government.

The end of Yik- Yak’s use in high schools is hopefully soon over, but will soon be replaced by a new way to bully other students. It is disappointing that the app has been abused and used to hurt the self-esteem of many people throughout the US. The app will hopefully be used in a more positive way in the future with the help of restrictions and government interference.

HMR

59

Science and Technology

The Future of Apple

By Jacob Chae www.techandall.com

A

s one of the most prominent and acclaimed companies of the world, Apple has clearly made another powerful statement through its keynote on September 10th, 2014. Through the release of the iPhone 6, iOS 8, and the upcoming Apple Watch, Apple has distinguished another drastic difference between itself and its competitors. Not only is Apple considered one of the top technology companies of the 21st century, but also according to JD Powers and Associates, Apple has constantly won multiple awards in customer satisfaction. According to Forbes states, Apple is the most valuable company in the world; however, some might ask, “what impact or role will these new Apple products have on today’s world?” Well, if we take a look at America’s economy, competition among companies is always rampant and increasing. However, through these newly released products, not only will Apple’s popularity, stock, and demand rise, but also a new perspective to the technology industry will emerge developing around the ideas of labor, human benefits, and, most importantly, profit.

After releasing the iPhone 6, Apple recorded a record number of sales not only in the United States, but also in other foreign countries such as China. Apple heavily impacted rival competitors like Google and Samsung by forcing these companies to counter its recent success. According to the Wall Street Journal, Google released the Nexus 6 while Samsung released the Galaxy Note 4 in hurried act around the same time Apple released the iPhone 6. These des-

perate acts made by competing companies allow us to infer that these companies are succumbing to Apple: they are afraid that consumers will not buy or no longer have a need for their products. Apple is depicted as the most authoritative and powerful among the technology companies and is living up to its reputation. This will later impact the stock market. As Apple’s stock is on the rise, other companies’ stocks, such as those of Google and Samsung, will plummet. As the adage goes, when one thing goes up, another must go down. This idea of balance throughout the stock market will surely intense the competition. Apple is portrayed as a technology giant, and it will only be a matter of time before it claims control economically over the world of technology.

One new addition that Apple has created and has seen success in is Apple Pay. Apple Pay will importantly boost mobile the use of credit and debit cards through its capabilities. When an Apple user has the reliable option of using a credit or debit card on his or her smartphone, this not only benefits credit card companies like VISA or Mastercard, but also encourages the usage of electronic payment. Apple Pay allows for Apple users to be at convenience, regardless of where they are. Now, through Apple Pay, you do not need to be at an ATM machine or the bank if you want to deposit a check or make a payment. Through Apple Pay, people would need only a simple barcode reader or their fingerprint. However there might be other positive implications of Apple Pay. Apple Pay could initially create a

60

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

sense of unpopularity in the usage of cash and therefore change the way stores and companies operate. Since stores will run more on a credit/debit card business, companies will have to invest more money into the technology field to prevent hacking and other methods of fraud. Through increase of the demand for technology support and protection, these technological companies will profit indirectly through Apple Pay. It is evident that through the usage of Apple Pay, not only is Apple itself benefitting, but also credit card and technology related companies.

Another addition that Apple has created that will also have an impact in the future is the Health application. The Health application is a new addition to iOS 8 which allows Apple users to monitor and keep track of many activities such as their daily calories burned, their weight during a certain period of time, and the distance they walk daily.

However this application has been partially regarded as “useless” and “inessential” by recent feedback. While Apple users have often overlooked this application, we musn’t disregard it as useless. Although the Health application will not have an immediate effect on the general health and wellbeing of America, the application will gradually benefit the people of America over time by maintaining Apple users in good shape.

Health plays a key role in people’s lives, and throughout our busy days, few people take the time to exercise and eat healthy. This health application provides people with the ability to monitor their health if they have

Science and Technology

“A new perspective to the technology industry will emerge.� a serious illness such as diabetes or cancer, as well. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the obesity rate and the number of diabetic patients have been increasingly expeditiously. More than 78.6 million people (35%) are obese and 29.1 people have diabetes in this nation. Also according to ABC News, the obesity rate by 2030 will increase to over 50%. With this new application, people will be more aware of how much weight they have gained over a certain period of time and how many calories they consume everyday. Even though this seems like a meaningless application, this little information that the health application provides might end up being the difference between ending up in the hospital with a stroke or maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

As the popularity of Apple and its products overwhelmly increases, so does the demand for labor in these fields. This increase in the labor force might be both a good and bad thing, depending on the region of the world. Apple headquarters is located in Cupertino, California, and currently Apple is most prominent in the United States and China. However, as the demand for Apple products rises, the company would need to expand to other foreign countries. Even though Apple has small branches through-

out the world in Canada and Korea, Apple’s revenue and stock value would dramatically escalate if Apple decided to expand their worldwide branches even more. If Apple plans to create more branches around the world, international popularity of Apple products would see a dramatic rise. This expansion would allow for the creation of thousands of jobs and new opportunities worldwide. Jobs would not only be created through the direct hiring of new Apple employees, but also through the indirect means of construction and maintenance. However, the negative aspect of higher demand resides on the idea of creating an even harsher environment for the labor force in China. It was reported in 2006 by Mail on Sunday that Apple maintained sweatshop conditions in their factories in China. Apple factory workers were reported working 60 hours a week and receiving extremely low payments of $100 a month. This was almost 10 years ago, but not much has been done since to protect the rights and living conditions of these workers. However, it is inevitable that as the demand for production increases, these conditions will only get worse. If Apple were to offer well-fitting conditions and better pay for their factory workers, Apple would not be able to maintain their already expensive price on their products. The price

tags would soar, and consumer satisfaction rates would decrease. Despite the expensive price tag of Apple products compared to other companies, Apple is still able to come out as the winner of the battle. Rival companies have repeatedly tried to lower their sale prices in order to lure consumers away from Apple, but this tactic has failed miserably in the past. However, if Apple were to increase their price by significant amounts, then we might seemore mixed reactions towards Apple products.

Apple has seen itself grow and rise to fame over the past years. It started from the bottom when it released the original Macintosh and iPhone. Many people did not have high hopes for Apple and initially regarded the company as unpromising. However, now Apple stands as a prominent leader in technology, and, as the year progresses, we look forward to seeing the effects Apple will have not only on other rival competitors, but also on foreigners in nations that Apple is not widely present in. Apple has taken many strides towards accomplishing its goal of creating a unique and accommodating technological atmosphere for its consumers, and now, through its recent product launches, we can see a shift towards a new field of technology with Apple being the unanimous leader of the pack. HMR

Share of Worldwide Smartphone Units 2014

phonearena.com

November 2014

61

Science and Technology

ian

hrad a V k c

By Ja

Putting an End to Suffering E

uthanasia is defined as the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or a patient in an irreversible coma. This practice is illegal in many countries, including the United States.

The main reason for its ban is the fear that the practice could be abused. Examples of abuse include the pressuring of vulnerable people into giving consent to prematurely end their lives, or people dying from euthanasia when they don’t actually want to die, and have not given any consent whatsoever for the physician to do so. In modern times, especially when technology allows for increasingly peaceful and painless ending of lives, euthanasia should be an option for those for whose death is inevitable, and would like to stop suffering. Since there could be problems if euthanasia were to be legalized, many security measures would need to be passed. The issues with legalized euthanasia proposed by objectors could emerge when legalized, so it would have to be tightly regulated.

Due to the fact that the physicians monitoring the patients would ultimately be the ones carrying out euthanasia,

legislation regulating euthanasia should focus on monitoring these physicians in order to ensure that a physician doesn’t make a mistake or deliberately take a patient’s life. The first precaution should be that at least 2 other physicians should be alongside the physician who monitors the patient when said patient declares that they want euthanasia. These physicians would also need to be present in the moments leading up to the patient’s death. In addition to this, computerized safeguards could be implemented, requiring that every minor detail be logged into a computer; these details might include the dosage of drugs being used and the precise method being used to kill the patient.

A patient that requests to have his or her life ended is making the most consequential decision of his or her life; it is absolutely imperative that the patient is in a stable mindset when he or she requests euthanasia. Ensuring that a patient is mentally stable can be carried out in many different ways, but one universal method should be adopted by all hospitals. The safest method would be to have the patient evaluated on two differ-

62

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

ent occasions by two different psychologists. This would ensure that no errors were present in the tests, and any radical differences between the two evaluations could be further looked into. Of course, if a patient is in a coma, a psychologist could not evaluate them. However, this should be a nonissue because if a patient is in a coma, it would be impossible for them to give consent for euthanasia.

Since there is no morally correct answer, as is the case with most controversial issues, euthanasia should be looked at from a utilitarian standpoint rather than a moral one. Utilitarianism is the doctrine that actions are right if they are useful or beneficial for a majority. From this view, euthanasia would be just if it were shown that allowing people to have a peaceful death at a time of their choosing would make the patient happier than if they had to suffer for the rest of their lives, anticipating a slow and painful death. A patient who has requested for euthanasia has already made the decision that would make him or her happiest, so there is no reason to have euthanasia illegal. However, while some people have a solely utilitarian moral system, many

Science and Technology more have a combination of a utilitarian and moral belief system.

While euthanasia may seem like a black-or-white law, in that it is legal or illegal, there are many extents to which euthanasia can be implemented. The two main types of euthanasia are passive

euthanasia, and it is the type that should be legalized as a result.

An alternative to euthanasia is physician-assisted suicide (PAS). This differs from euthanasia in that a physician isn’t causing the patient’s death, rather they are giving the patient the means to end

Another core reason put forth by opposition to euthanasia is that death is ultimately a bad thing. Most people would agree that death is indeed a bad thing, as one can no longer enjoy his or her life when dead. However, this contention completely ignores those who are termi-

“They genuinely need to have the option of a peaceful death.” and active euthanasia. Active euthanasia is the most common. It is when a physician actively ends a patient’s life using drugs or injections. Passive euthanasia, a less known method, is when a doctor removes a support that was keeping the patient alive. This is generally viewed as the more acceptable type of euthanasia because not only is a physician not administering life-ending drugs to the patient, but also it is always true that death was inevitable for the patient, as a machine was the only thing keeping him or her alive. The problem with passive euthanasia is that if someone isn’t depending on life support, but will inevitably die soon and is suffering, he or she will not be able to have a peaceful and painless death.

While many believe that active euthanasia is less humane than passive because the former requires a physician to actively take life, passive euthanasia could result in more suffering. In this way, active euthanasia is more humane than passive

huffingtonpost.com

his or her own life, along with extensive information regarding the subject so that the patient knows exactly what to do and how he or she will die. This method is legal in Washington, Oregon, and Montana.

One of the main reasons that euthanasia should be legalized is that its illegalization implies that Americans don’t have the right to death. While the right to death is not explicitly given to American citizens, other rights heavily imply this right to death. The main right that implies this is the right to life. While this may seem contradictory, note that death is a part of life: if people have the right to live a full life with maximum quality, they also have the right to make their death as painless as possible. Certain countries, such as England, have passed laws ensuring the right to death. The Suicide Act, passed in 1961, makes it legal for people to take their own lives.

nally ill. As grim as it may sound, those who are terminally ill are constantly in excruciating pain and can no longer enjoy their lives. This is the only group that genuinely needs to have the option of a peaceful death. However, even within this group, there are people that don’t want to die. The pressuring of these patients into receiving euthanasia by a doctor, person, or group would be a blatant violation of a patient’s wishes. Proper regulation of euthanasia would ensure that these patients are not exploited or mistreated.

Current law bans euthanasia because of the potential of abuse. However, proper regulation would prevent this issue, making sure that only those who actually want to die receive euthanasia. If looked at from a utilitarian standpoint, legalizing euthanasia is morally acceptable.

Ultimately, active euthanasia should be legalized, although it should be heavily regulated to ensure that no one is killed without his or her consent. HMR

http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/am_cms_media/ wordpress.com

November 2014

63

Science and Technology

Placebo Effectiveness: The Future of Medicine Celestine Samaroo

T

he placebo effect is a psychological phenomenon that involves patients’ receiving fake medications while believing they are being treated with real ones. A patient’s outlook becomes more positive since he or she thinks that the medication is treating his or her medical needs. Although he or she is aware that he or she is taking fake medication, it has been proven that taking these pills affects pain receptors less. This new innovation in medicine is favorable, since patients don’t have to deal with the side effects that pharmaceutical medication bestows upon them. The placebo effect is a positive investment regarding human health, due to its potential to alleviate patients’ symptoms and reduce emotional

and physical pain without using chemical medication and without the risks of side effects, addiction, and dependency associated with pharmaceutical drugs. Its use also helps us learn about the relationship between pain and the human brain.

One reason placebos are a positive investment in human health is that they improve the patient’s psychological and physical condition. Patients who suffer from IBS are given little to no medication to ease their pain, which consists of abdominal cramps and bloating. Since minimal research has been done on the syndrome, and prescription drugs are rarely used to treat it because of their very harmful side effects, a trial with IBS patients took place. The placebo effect

64

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

benefited them greatly. Half of those involved knowingly took pills with an inert substance, while the rest were given no medication. The members of the control group reported that their condition didn’t ameliorate at all, whereas the majority of patients taking the inert sugar pill reported that theirs improved dramatically. 59% of respondents concluded that the medication alleviated their pain. According to the New York Times, doctors credit the “significant improvement in IBS symptoms” to “the mind­body self­healing process.” The doctors also noted that the trial “provided direct evidence that our belief in the effectiveness of a fake medicine can close this gate, blocking pain signaling in this all-important area.” The in-

Science and Technology

“The Placebo effect alters the way the brain thinks about medication, since it allows for people to heal themselves through positive thinking.” ert pill hence provides IBS patients with not only psychological pain relief, but also physical relief. The Times noted that a study monitoring the placebo effect regarding back pain found that the “activity of neurons in the spine was also strongly allayed” when using the fake pills. Some patients were told that an anesthetic cream was being applied on their backs to relieve discomfort, while others were told that a normal cream was being used.

A quarter more patients who received the placebo reported that their back pain was partially or fully relieved compared to those in the control group. The placebo effect benefited them by altering the way they processed pain. Based on this finding, we can conclude that placebos block pain receptors in the area that they are

meant to target.

An additional reason the placebo effect is that it provides a positive investment in human medicine that lacks the life­ threatening side effects of pharmaceutical medications and the risks of drug addiction or dependency. One example of this idea is in the treatment of depression.

Scientists have found that Prozac, a previously commonly used antidepressant, is ironically linked to suicide and other harmful side effects. In another particular experiment, one group took placebos while another took antidepressants. According to the New York Times, scientists found that “people who improved on a placebo did so as quickly as those who improved with medication” and do so without the same dangerous risks.

November 2014

The final reason the placebo effect is a beneficial investment in human medicine is that it provides us with insight on the relationship between pain and the human brain. The placebo effect alters the way the brain thinks about medication, since it allows for people to heal themselves through positive thinking. Since it affects the brain psychologically, it is evident that the medication targets the parts of the brain that control pain. The placebo effect therefore allows us to better understand how we react to emotional and physical pain and the ways we can mitigate or prevent it altogether.

The placebo effect is an advantageous investment in human health because it is an innovative idea that promotes self­ healing and improves patients’ physical and psychological condition, as evidenced by its effects on IBS patients and those suffering back pain. Furthermore, placebos don’t present the harmful side effects and risks of addiction and dependency present in pharmaceutical medications, such as in the case of depression treatments. Finally, the placebo effect is beneficial for scientists to study, since it will provide insightful information regarding the way the brain processes pain and help us find ways to suppress it. HMR

65

Science and Technology

ADVANCEMENTS: A

I

n light of he rise of extremist groups like ISIS, and Russia’s expansion into Ukraine earlier this year, it is apparent that tensions have been escalating throughout the globally. Given the potential negative consequences of all these scenarios escalating, I don’t think anybody feels safe right now. With all these tensions building up between rival nations, one can conclude that each country would want to outdo each other and invest in more advanced defense systems and weapons. This is essentially what has happened as America, China and Russia have made significant advancements in these fields. The scenario we are now faced with is comparable to the nuclear arms race in the Cold War although it is less extreme and there lies less fear in the general populous.

The United States has the most ad-

vanced and largest military of any nation, despite ongoing research in Russia and China. The research the Chinese and Russians are conducting is very similar to yet not as complete as the research Americans have conducted. The plan for these three countries is to come up with an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. The concept of an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon is that it will be able to reach any point on Earth within a single hour of its launch.

The Americans began their research into this prior to any other nation, and it shows in the results as we are far ahead of China and Russia in the development process. In 1998, the Americans knew the location of Osama Bin Laden and after a missile failed to kill him because it took too long, the need for a more efficient weapon became apparent. In 2003, the U.S. prompted the development of the

66

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXIV

G

necessity and 10 years later, Russia and China followed suit. The down side to this is that technological advancements cause secrecy on the part of the government. Finding the correct balance between national security and secrecy is a difficult and delicate process. Additionally, and while the need for such weaponry is becoming more needed, the secrecy on the government’s part does not put the American public at ease.

An event where this type of weaponry is needed is highly unlikely, and the government has not released a statement indicating a time in the near future where such a utility would be necessary. In fact, the government has been quite secretive about most of these projects, releasing information to the public only once a major advancement occurs. This is to make sure that American enemies do not get much

Science and Technology light on the new technologies.

Despite this secrecy, the ways in which these new advancements benefit the world are not hard to see. Right now, the fastest way to attack another nation would be the use of nuclear weapons, but the risks of using these are clear. It would almost ensure mass destruction and possible extinction of humanity if things went wrong when during use. This alternative to nuclear weapons, which is just as fast, could be what the world needs to avoid this magnitude of devastation.

By the looks of it, the U.S. has no plans to use an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon in a kind of defense system, unlike China. Even the Chinese have been secretive about their intentions and plans regarding these terrifying yet fascinating weapons.

The Chinese are in the process of developing a hypersonic glide vehicle that could be released from a bomber and take down missiles in air. It is understandable why China and the U.S. are not releasing information about their plans, although, in some cases, the U.S. has been too secretive of its plan. While there is the threat of sensitive information going into the wrong hands, the government does not have to release information of that magnitude. Nevertheless, there should be enough information released so the American public feels informed.

The new age of advanced weaponry and the secrecy that comes with it does not stop at the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. Another weapon that has received more media coverage is the new drone program. It is astonishing how often the U.S. uses drone strikes in other nations. Nearly six years ago, Barack Obama became the President of the United States, and much has changed militaristically. Now, we see fewer Americans manning airplanes used to carry out an attack against other countries or organizations. Instead of risking American lives, the government has turned to using drones in these types of scenarios. In the

time that President Obama has been in office, his administration has authorized eight times as many drone strikes as the Bush administration did in his its eight years. Understanding why the American government chooses to use these unmanned drones is very easy. They are cheaper than what we used before, and they are effective in eliminating the target. In hearing this, any American can argue that this program is great.

Unfortunately, there is more to this story. The first problem is how scarce information and media coverage about drones is. One might think that the government would keep the public informed about events involving drones and their goal, but that isn’t the reality of the sit-

If the American

the meaning of the word “imminent,” which makes one question the necessity of drone strikes. The situation only gets more chaotic from here. When questioned about drone strikes and whether or not they have been successful, government officials are unable to answer them because of poor analysis of the attacks.

Simple data about the drone strikes, such as the number of casualties, who exactly was killed, and whether or not they were a threat to the United States are pieces of information that should have definite answers. This not only questions the drone program further, but also it makes the government look very incompetent.

Despite all this, 65% of Americans can confidently say that they are in support of our drone program. In the recent months, Americans have become extremely confident with the idea of drones through domestic and more commercial purposes, such as Amazon’s drone program. Sadly, as a result of the government’s secrecy, Americans do not realize the severity of using predator drones in other nations.

Invisible to the eye and with the ability to devastate a town in a moment, drones instill a great fear in people living in the Middle East. Living in that constant fear is something that is hard for any of us Americans to imagine. Since the threat of a drone is not present to us in our daily lives, we feel comfortable with their usage on others. Given how little the average American knows about the drone program, it isn’t fair to judge it and assume it is a great program. The government needs to be more open with the American public regarding what is actually happening with it to the American people.

It is difficult to find a balance between security and secrecy, but in both these technologies, the government has opted for secreccy on the topic. It is clear that the government has chosen this path for national security, but if the American public doesn’t know about the program, how can it be expected to formulate an opinion on it? It would be good to know what exactly the uses of these new technologies are and how effective they are in accomplishing their goal. HMR

public doesn’t know about our new military programs, how can it be expected to formulate opinions on it? uation. The government is as secretive when it comes to drones as it is about the Advanced Hypersonic Weapons, and odd fact because drones are used far more.

Attorney General Eric Holder in an interview said that the government only used drones in the case of an “imminent threat.” While on the surface that sounds straightforward and reassuring, there are complications with what the government considers to be an “imminent threat.”

They claim that it “does not require that the United States have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future.” This statement clearly contradicts

November 2014

67