Issue 3 - Climate Change

R eview Review THE HORACE MANN

The Horace Mann Volume XXII - Issue 3

Climate Change

A Special Domestic Section - Obama’s Second Term

Review THE HORACE MANN

Letter From the Editor

Daniel Elkind Editor-in-Chief

Spencer Cohen Executive Editor

Jacob Gladysz-Morawski Alex Posner Nicholas McCombe Stephen Paduano Managing Editors - Design

Managing Editors - Content

Ben Davidoff

Head of Middle Division

Charles Scherr

Senior Editor - Features

Treshauxn Dennis-Brown Senior Editor - Domestic

Lizzy Rosenblatt

Senior Editor - International

F

or this issue of The Review, we turned our focus to the issue of climate change. The discussion of climate change has only amplified in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, and our writers have succeeded in capturing the enormous number of ways of approaching the issue: actions we should take to minimize the effects of natural disasters, the “carbon tax”, and the effect of climate change on the international commodities market are only a few of the topics explored in our Features section.

Also included in this issue is a special Domestic section addressing what we can expect from President Obama’s second term. We asked our writers to present their views on a wide range of political issues, from the effect of the Citizens’ United decision on the election to the changing nature of the Republican Party in the aftermath of Mitt Romney’s defeat. Also discussed are third parties and the future of the American Dream. This is a par-

Daniel Elkind Editor-in-Chief

Volume XXII

2

Nathan Raab

Senior Editor - Economics

ticularly contentious time in our national politics, but it is also a moment that calls for dramatic action in dealing with issues such as the national debt, the fiscal cliff, taxes, financial regulation, war in the Middle East, and social issues such as gay marriage and abortion. There will be much to watch in the next four years.

Together with our second issue of the year, this third issue speaks to the high level of interest that students have displayed in current events and political affairs this year. We are receiving more article submissions than ever before, and our writers and editors have done an excellent job in covering a broad range of perspectives on a broad range of topics. Once again, the table of contents is evidence enough of the wide array of issues facing the world today, as well as of students’ eagerness to speak out and make their opinions heard. We are proud to present this third issue, and we hope you enjoy reading the many interesting articles within.

Vivianna Lin

Senior Editor - Science and Technology

Maurice Farber Philip Perl Sam Rahmin Senior Contibuter

Will Ellison Catherine Engelmann Ben Greene David Hackel Sam Henick Jennifer Heon Caroline Kuritzkes Isaiah Newman Sahej Suri Jonah Wexler Junior Editors

Daniel Baudoin Hannah Davidoff Mihika Kapoor Mohit Mookim Kelvin Rhee Associate Editors

Jacob Haberman Hana Krijestorac Henry Luo Namit Satara Jacob Zurita Junior Contibutors

Gregory Donadio Faculty Advisor

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

Domestic Adam Resheff Matthew Harpe Gabriel Broshy Daniel Jin Eric Stein Mihika Kapoor Isaiah Newman David Hackel

Super PACs 4 The Mayor’s Mayor: Michael Bloomberg 6 The Transforming Political Landscape 8 The Underdogs Step Up 10 The New Republican Party 13 Best of Both Parties 14 Gay Rights 16 Death of the American Dream 18

International Laszlo Herwitz James McCarthy Jake Haberman Brett Silverstein

Intervene in Iran 22 No Need to Intervene in Iran 24 The US and China: A Puzzling Relationship 26 Act in Syria Now 28

Features Natasha Moolji Will Ellison Ikaasa Suri Aditya Ram Jenna Barancik Miranda Bannister

Climate Change: Now or Never 30 Preparing for the Inevitable 32 The Bleak Road for Commodities 34 Identifying the Culprit 37 The Carbon Tax 40 Not Our Problem 42

Economics Robert Hefter Are Small Businisses’ Underrated?

44 Ryota Ikeda Cap and Trade: The Inverse Effect 45 C. Kuritzkes & J. Heon The Consequences of a Consumerist Culture 46 Lauren Futter A Post-Industrial Era 48 Jacob Zurita China’s Currency Manipulation 50

Science and Technology Lenn Uchima An Impractical Utopia 52 Elizabeth Xiong A Quantum Breakthrough 54 3

Domestic

Super PACs

By Adam Resheff

T

he results of the election elucidate the fact that the American people voted for what they wanted and needed. They made their decision despite all of the campaign spending because the candidates and their ideas, not the ads that support or attack them, are what determine the elections in the U.S.

Spending in this year’s election reached historic highs, as total spending this election season reached $6 billion, according to Time Magazine, and campaign donations and spending rose 13% from 2008. In comparison, this level of spending, mainly on ad space, exceeds that of the yearly marketing budgets of large companies such as GE ($1.8 billion) and AT&T ($1.9 billion). Campaigns of the candidates have become well-financed machines, especially within the presidential sphere of the election. Presidential candidates Barack Obama and Mitt Romney each raised a staggering $1 billion on the election. In addition, outside groups raised another $1 billion for the candidates. These additional donations from outside groups came with the promulgation of Super-PACs (Super Political Action Committes), or independent political advisory groups that raise

4

money in support of a candidate. SuperPACs for political campaigns resulted from the Supreme Court case Citizens United vs.

Federal Elections Commission. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court justices ruled in a 5-4 decision that spending from corporations and unions to independent political groups was an expression of political speech, which according to Justice Kennedy (who delivered the opinion of the Court) protected PACs from restriction under the first amendment. While the law restricts excessive spending on political campaigns in fear that the wealth of corporations, unions, and wealthy individuals could give them sway over the candidates and influence results of an election, the Citizen United decision opened the door to unrestricted spending and donations and the possibility that money could end up buying elections.

With donations from corporations reaching $285 million and $50 million from labor unions according to the Center for Re-

sponsive Politics, the idea that large groups and wealthy donors would buy the election seems justified. The results of the elections, though, would seem to quell that notion.

Super-PAC spending from Republican-leaning groups hammered President Obama and other Democrats. According to the New York Times, Pro-Romney superPACs spent $386 million on negative ads, double that which Obama-leaning superPACs spent. Of the “mega-donors” who poured mini fortunes into the elections, many of them supported Republic candidates. According to the New York Times, Chicago Cubs owner Joe Ricketts spent $13 million on anti-Obama super-PACs, while the billionaire industrialists David and Charles Koch sought to raise $400 million on pro-Romney and other Republic groups.

The most notable of them all, though, was Sheldon Adelson. Adelson started out his spending during the Republic primaries, as he financed the super-PAC supporting

"...The Citizens United decision opened the door to unrestricted spending and donations and the possibility that money could end up buying elections."

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Domestic

Front entrance of the Supreme Court building, where the Citizens United case was decided on January 21, 2010. The decision came down to a 5-4 vote and the opinion was given by Justice Kennedy.

Newt Gingrich, Winning Our Future, donating $20 million. However his spending didn’t win Gingrich the primaries so he poured another $10 million into a Romney supporting super-PAC and proceeded to spend a total of $60 million on various Republican candidates. In the end, though, of the 8 candidates Adelson supported, none of them won. In fact, despite all the money these mega donors poured into Republican candidates, the results of the election did not reflect their spending. Barack Obama

won his reelection bid; Democrats retained control of the Senate and Republicans lost 2 seats. In the House of Representatives, Republicans retained control, but lost 4 seats.

In this election, we had billions in outside spending, with some of the largest donations going to Republicans. Conventional wisdom would suggest that with the money they spent, the donors would see the results they wanted. Nonetheless, at the end of election night, many of those wealthy donors were left disappointed. Whether or

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

not everyone supports the candidates that got elected, America should still walk away from this election with a sense of optimism.

Money did not buy the election; 100 million people showed up to the poles and voted for the candidates whose ideas and beliefs they supported. People had feared Citizens United and the Super-PACs the decision allowed for would manipulate the democratic process that represents our beloved ideals of an equal voice and opportunity. The results of the election debased these fears.

5

Domestic

: r o y a M s ’ r o y a M e Th G R E B M O O L B L E A H MIC

By Matthew Harpe

M

ayor Michael Bloomberg’s endorsement of President Obama on November 1st, first published by Bloomberg News, came as a shock to most. As one of the most well known independents in the country, the 10th richest American and 3-term mayor of the nation’s largest city, Bloomberg was heavily courted by both candidates.

While New York City primarily consists of Democratic voters and New York State’s 29 electoral votes were practically considered a giveaway to Obama, Bloomberg refused to endorse a candidate in 2008 and dismissed both of the candidates as containing a lack of substance in their 2012 campaigns. His prior stance made the endorsement more shocking and meaningful. In his article for Bloomberg News, Bloomberg stated that the chief reason behind his endorsement was Obama’s leadership in shaping climate change policy, explaining that, especially in light of Hurricane Sandy (and Irene the year before), the national government needed to further address this pressing situation.

Bloomberg’s strong advocacy for gun reform, immigration reform, and social issues (same-sex marriage and abortion), as well as health care reform, line up closely with Obama’s views on the same topics, and while his economic view is far more centrist, his vote for Obama seemed imminent. Since Bloomberg has always

6

He has increased efficiency, decreased crime, balanced the “budget, and done much more on the world’s biggest stage, in

the world’s greatest city, and (with little chance of becoming President) Bloomberg’s next step is to take his knowledge, talent, and ideas to every city in the world.

”

been a huge proponent of tackling climate change, his sudden endorsement of Obama was rather peculiar. Furthermore, in 2008, when he didn’t endorse either candidate, his views were clearly not reflected in McCain’s campaign; therefore, all signs pointed to his voting for Obama. And, considering that Romney is more centrist that McCain, this election would seem to pose a tougher decision for Bloomberg.

While Bloomberg has made it clear that some of his views oppose those of Romney’s, thus making it ideologically difficult for him to give Romney his vote, it seemed likely that he wouldn’t endorse either candidate, as he has done in the past.

Although he attributed his endorsement to climate change, Bloomberg was equally vocal about addressing climate change in 2008; he had already introduced plaNYC to combat climate change in New York

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

and was the chair of the Climate Leadership Group, a partnership between many large cities to attempt to solve this global issue. Endorsements have often been a political statement Bloomberg has been hesitant to make; consequently, while on November 6th Bloomberg was most likely going to pull the lever for Barack Obama, it seems unlikely that his endorsement of Obama was only motivated by Obama’s environmental policy.

Not coincidentally, Bloomberg’s 12-year run as Mayor of New York City will come to an end in January 2014, and seemingly, he’s starting to prepare for that occasion. What Bloomberg will do after he leaves the Mayor’s office is not clear at all. While conceivably he could still run for President in 2016, which has long been rumored to be his goal, it would be difficult considering his centrist position,

Domestic

the eatest mayors by assisting gr ’s rld wo e th of e on as to continue his legacy other avenue of help, y an or ics lit po in r Mayor Bloomberg is poised he et wh , rm and structure of his role needs of other cities. The fo remains to be seen.

which would require him to run under a third party. Some have speculated that he might consider taking the role of Secretary of the Treasury if Obama offered it to him, as he is well qualified in this area from his experience as a former executive at Solomon-Brothers and former CEO of Bloomberg LP. However, he recently turned down an offer from Obama to be President of the World Bank, not wanting to report to someone, so it seems unlikely that he would want to be the next Treasury Secretary either.

Interestingly, Bloomberg’s political endorsements this election season were not in any way limited to Obama. Bloomberg’s new super PAC, Independence USA PAC, spent more than $8 million to support and oppose various federal and New York State congressional candidates.

Through his super PAC, Bloomberg tried to support gun control, marriage equality, education reform, and other policies of his mainstream social platform by backing initiatives and candidates who shared these views or condemning those who didn’t. In his most widely known effort, Bloomberg spent $2.75 million on replacing an incumbent Democratic congressman from California, Joe Baca, with Democrat Gloria McLeod. Bloomberg didn’t approve of Baca (who was supported by the National Rifle Association) and helped the unknown McLeod, a proponent of

anti-gun laws and marriage equality, rise from 30% in the polls to victory. Overall, Bloomberg claimed victories in 12 out of his 19 endorsements. Bloomberg’s role in national politics this year, both through his presidential endorsement and his super PAC, is significantly larger than it has been in the past.

Bloomberg’s increased political activity seems too well timed to be merely a coincidence, and it is relatively clear that his planning has already started for his official departure from city government; many staffers have alluded to the fact that he has clocks counting down the days until the end of his term throughout his offices. So, while his immense wealth will allow him to continue to distribute money both through his philanthropic foundation and super PAC, it is unlikely the ambitious Michael Bloomberg will rest at this. As less of a national or international figurehead than someone like Bill Clinton, Bloomberg doesn’t have the same ability to travel around the world, speak, garner donations, and attempt to solve international issues. What Bloomberg does have, however, is a very large checkbook and an extensive knowledge and skill in management and problem solving. Bloomberg will most likely expand on what he is already doing; not only will he fund other philanthropic organizations and political campaigns,

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

he will use his money to back campaigns around the world to combat problems he feels strongly about. For example, he currently has committed $600 million to fighting tobacco usage throughout the world, focusing on China’s astronomical number of smokers, and has further put forth $125 million to improve road safety in developing countries, such as Brazil. Locally, he has donated $100 million to the Sierra Club to help lessen America’s reliance on coal, and has set aside $6 million to help Rahm Emanuel and the city of Chicago redesign its business licensing process, which greatly hampers small business. As the mayor of Philadelphia, Michael Nutter, puts it, “Michael Bloomberg is the mayor’s mayor.” He has increased efficiency, decreased crime, balanced the budget, and done much more on the world’s biggest stage, in the world’s greatest city, and (with little chance of becoming President) Bloomberg’s next step is to take his knowledge, talent, and ideas to every city in the world. With so many city partnership connections and almost limitless financial resources, Bloomberg will be able to work with governments and groups in many areas to improve the world city by city. In 2014 Mayor Michael Bloomberg might lose his official mayor title, but he certainly will still be the world’s mayor.

7

Domestic

THE TRANSFORMING

By Gabriel Broshy

B

arack Obama narrowly slipped through his reelection. Though he did reel in 303 electoral votes, he only won 50.5% of the popular vote to Mitt Romney’s 48%, a far cry from in 2008, when he received 53% of the popular vote to John McCain’s 46%. Yet this election had little to do with the incumbent.

While the 2008 election was centered on the promises of Barack Obama, the 2012 election was most about the failures and missing of a great opportunity by the Republican Party. Much needs to change in their approach to be more successful in future campaigns.

Senator Obama ran one of the most effective campaigns in the history of American politics as a fresh, young, new face of the Democratic Party. He preached “hope” and change” in a time when it was desperately needed. His likeable and charismatic personality, relatable story, and race at a time in which there had never been a minority as president in the coun-

8

“The Republican Party nominated a completely non-relatable candidate that only further encouraged the stereotype of the GOP: old, wealthy white men with only their own interests in mind.” try’s history combined to make him a very intriguing candidate. With all of these factors, Obama narrowly defeated senator and former First Lady Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Primary elections to the surprise of many. Whoever won the Democratic nomination came at the absolute perfect time: the former Republican administration had started a controversial and unpopular war and the economy had spiraled down into one of the worst in the nation’s history, with national debt skyrocketing immensely. Obama then proceeded to defeat Senator John McCain by

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

a wide margin in the national election.

Four years and many changes in the U.S. later, the 2012 election could not be more different. The 2012 election had little to do with the charisma or the hope and belief the American people had earlier bestowed on President Obama. The recent election was mostly about the failure of the Republican Party and the large opportunity they missed. Though Obama oversaw the killing of Osama Bin Laden and was very successful in the wars of Afghanistan and Iran, his healthcare reform policies were very controversial and he failed to act on the issues of drugs, gun control, and immigration. But aside from all of his failures, there was one far greater and more significant than all others. The main focus when he was elected was the state of the national economy, which Obama failed to improve. The federal deficit is at its highest since the 1940s.The country’s federal debt has grown from about $10 trillion to more than $16 trillion during Obama’s

Domestic

POLITICAL LANDSCAPE tenure, about a 60% increase. Very little has changed in the country’s unemployment rate. The National Conference of State Legislature publishes updates of the country’s unemployment rate and showed a current mark of 7.9% from the 7.8% it was in January 2009 when Obama took office.

Yet with by far the most pressing issue in the nation having been failed to dealt with, somehow, some way, Barack Obama was able to win his reelection bid.

While the majority of Americans voted with grand ideas of hope and change 4 years ago, many were much less enthusiastic this election. Many Americans would rather give him another chance while recognizing his failures than vote for the other party. And why not?

The Republican Party nominated a completely non-relatable candidate that only further encouraged the stereotype of the GOP: old, wealthy white men with only their own interests in mind. The Republican Party has nominated candidates from this group countless times, many times without success, especially with the nation’s changing demographics. Earlier this year, it was announced that the majority of births in the United States come from minorities according to the Census Bureau. This election, 30% of voters were of minorities, which will surely continue to increase. Of those, Obama collected 93% of the African-American vote, 71% of the Hispanic vote, and 73% of the Asian American vote, CNN says. These are astounding numbers for such a large and expanding percentage of voters. According to the Huffington Post, voters from

ages 18-29 made up 19% of voters, and 60% voted for Obama to 36% for Romney, which was still much less support for Obama than in 2008. They also noted that Obama received 55% of female votes. According to the New York Times, Obama also pulled in 76% of the gay and lesbian vote.

It is clear that the Republican Party must broaden their appeal to account for their poor results with minorities, women, and young voters as well as the country’s changing demographics.

There are two clear ways to do this. The first is to assuage their social conservative principles. They must moderate their stances on immigration, abortion, Planned Parenthood, and gay marriage to adapt to their lack of appeal with such a significant and increasing portion of voters. Whether they agree to such policies is irrelevant: they must come together and adapt to the changing political landscape of the country in order to gain power and popularity, the entire essence and purpose of a political party.

The other change the Republican Party must make is in the candidates they choose. A more relatable candidate is necessary to appeal to these groups and one that embodies the more moderate views they need to broaden their appeal is also essential. Vice Presidential nominee Paul Ryan’s name has surfaced as a possible option for 2016. Though Ryan gained some momentum from this campaign and his youth and charisma could be appealing as a new look to a typically old and archaic party, he is not the ideal choice. His very conservative principles would not be

“The 2012 election was most about the failures and missing of a great opportunity by the Republican Party. Much needs to change in their approach to be more successful in future campaigns.”

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

AP Photo Susan Walsh

enough to overcome in a national election, and changing them would only add to the criticism he began to receive during the election for changing his views.

A couple of potentially interesting names are two people who aren’t even members of the Republican Party. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, formerly of the G.O.P. and currently an Independent, could embody those moderate social views and use his experience and overall solid reputation to garner votes. Though his wealth might be a bit of an issue in relating to the American people, this has not been an issue in his mayoral career.

Bloomberg was considered a possible presidential and vice presidential candidate in 2008 for both parties, but he chose not to run and again didn’t do so this year. He is in the last possible germ of his mayoralty, however. Another interesting possibility is 2012 candidate Gary Johnson. Johnson was a respected Republican governor of New Mexico before leaving the party and going on to become the most successful Libertarian candidate in the history of the party. He also exemplifies these more liberal social sentiments while being a wellliked politician. Though it will likely be difficult to convince these two to return to the G.O.P. and even harder to get Republicans on board, they are interesting possibilities for the Republicans to think about in trying to navigate and adjust through the nation’s changing political landscape.

9

Domestic

The Underdogs Step Up

By Daniel Jin

10

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

A

Domestic

nother 4 years have passed, and it looks like third parties are still failing to win over a large portion of American voters. In 223 years, 57 presidential elections have occurred in the United States, all of which have been won by a candidate from one of the two main parties.

One may ask how, in a country that consists of 39% who identify themselves as independents, this is possible. The answer to these questions is the nation’s lack of confidence in independents. Only 5% of independents said that they would vote for a third party candidate. Many Americans feel they are forfeiting their right to vote by voting for an independent candidate. Most people vote not for whom they think is the best candidate, but for the better candidate out of the two major parties. Many do not even consider a third candidate for election. This year, with only 1.6% of Americans voting for independent candidates, it looks like yet another lost election for independents.

However, there is some hope for the future – this time, we can sense a minor improvement in America’s attitude towards independents. In this election, the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson ran the party’s most successful campaign in its 41-year history, and Maine elected Angus King, a new independent senator. There was even a debate for third party candidates. The growing concern about hyper-partisanship in government is boosting America’s support for independent candidates. Though it may not be in the foreseeable future, a change will come.

Gary Johnson served two terms as the Republican governor of New Mexico, an office that he left with an approval rating of 58%. He initially ran for the Republican presidential nomination, but on December 28, 2011, he announced his decision to withdraw his candidacy and to run instead for the Libertarian nomination. On May 5, the Libertarians officially nominated him for President, after he defeated second place candidate R. Lee Wrights by a wide margin of 419 votes to 152. On Election Day, he won the votes of 1.2 million Americans – 1.2 million who put “principle over politics,” as Johnson wrote on his website.

Though only winning 1% of the popular vote, his campaign made Libertarian Party history. The only Libertarian candidate to win a higher percentage of the vote was Ed Clark in 1980, who finished with 1.1%. Johnson received more than twice the number of votes that 2008 Libertarian candidate Bob Barr received. Now, it may not seem likely, but the Libertarians, the fastest growing American political party, have the potential to fight for not only the presidency but also the status as one of the two major parties.

Though Johnson did not come even close to winning the presidency, his campaign clearly shows improvement from previous years. “Ours is a mission accomplished,” he told Fox News.

While Johnson was far from winning the election, another independent, Angus King, was elected to Maine’s Senate. This is not the first time King has

VOTE The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

“Most people vote not for whom they think is the best candidate, but for the better candidate out of the two major parties.” won a major political office – he served as Maine’s governor from 1995 to 2003, without association to either major party. Now in the Senate, he must caucus with either the Republicans or the Democrats to participate in committee assignments, leading some to believe that he will be forced to lose his bipartisan approach to government. However, he has promised that he will maintain his political independence and advocate bipartisanship. King insists that he is not “bound by the ideology of a party.” Rather, he sees himself as a possible intermediary between the two parties. He has announced that he will side with the majority Democrats, but he will not allow his party affiliation to influence his decisions. He insists that he is not “building a wall between [him]self and the other party.” In fact, one of the main reasons he ran for the senate this year was to break barriers between Democrats and Republicans. However, with the two parties so divided how he will be able to form alliances with both parties is still unseen.

The senator who had preceded King, Olympia Snowe, had served three terms and was an extremely important voice in the Senate. She was recognized in April 2006 by Time magazine as one of “America’s 10 Best Senators.” “Because of her centrist views and eagerness to go beyond partisan point scoring, Republican Olympia Snowe is in the center of every policy debate in Washington,” the article states. She scored an approval rating of 71% from her constituents in a Survey USA poll from March 2006.

Why, then, would one of the most prolific voices in the last quarter century leave Congress after serving the people of Maine for over 40 years?

11

Domestic

Snowe has long been a supporter of bipartisanship, and she has been known as a “Republican In Name Only” due to her constant breaks from the party. “I have spoken on the floor of the Senate for years about the dysfunction and political polarization in the institution,” she wrote in a March 1 column for the Washington Post. Snowe perceives the senate as a means to ensure that all voices of the people are heard – the way the Founding Fathers had meant for it to be.

However, we can easily see that this is not the case today. Ronald Brownstein, a two-time Pulitzer Prize finalist, notes that Congress resembles the British Parliament more than it does the system intended by the Founding Fathers. “Put another way, increasingly in congressional campaigns (especially for the House), it appears that the color on the front of the jersey matters more than the name on the back,” he says. Congressmen today are simply siding with their parties, seemingly incapable to form opinions of their own.

The problem extends even further than the Congressmen; different states themselves are simply siding with one party or the other.

Currently, the government is engaging in a war between the two parties, both trying to fully mute the other. America was supposedly “the land of the free,” but the government is contradicting this – politicians right now make decisions only based on their party and not what most Americans actually want.

In essence, the people’s right to freedom of speech is entitled only to a blue donkey and a red elephant.

For the very reason that Snowe is leaving the Senate, King decided to run for Senate this year. With reform as his mission, he intends to help the two parties “get together and compromise and get things done.” Ultimately, the virtual barrier between the parties is the root of the problem;

a dysfunctional Congress is unable to solve problems because the House, the Senate, and the President cannot reach mutual agreements. Snowe cannot believe that, for more than 1,000 days, the Senate was unable to pass a budget bill. King has pledged to try to make peace between the parties, but that is an incredibly difficult task for a rookie senator to achieve. He would also have a hard time finding support, as most senators stay strictly to their parties’ beliefs. He feared he would be neglected by both parties in the Senate and be perceived as a “strange creature”. However, he has received a warm welcome in the Capitol. “There’s been a lot of positive, I think genuinely warm words,” he said. King’s experience shows that Congressmen are finally willing to accept a true bipartisan lawmaker. This is crucial to the government getting back into shape. Snowe’s bipartisan ways were not appreciated, but from the senate’s view of King it appears that the perception of bipartisanship has changed. Though two independents, Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, currently serve in the Senate, King is arguably the first true independent, at least in the 21st century. Both have been described as being “independent in name only.” Lieberman is a former Democrat who became independent in 2006 for the sole purpose of keeping his Senate seat after losing the Democratic Party nomination to a more partisan candidate. While Lieberman is seen as being more conservative than most Democrats, he is still closely associated with the party and can hardly be considered an independent. Sanders has never been a member of the Democratic party, but his views are almost completely Democratic in every sense. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean said: “The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98

Vote the Third Party!

12

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

percent of the time.” King, on the other hand, is truly independent – he voted for George W. Bush in 2000, John Kerry in 2004, Barack Obama in 2008, and then voted again for Obama this year. Congress’ tolerance of a bipartisan senator shows a huge leap forward in the nation’s path to part ways with hyperpartisanship.

It looks like it will be a long time before a third party poses a legitimate threat to the Democrats or Republicans, but change is inevitable. The nation cannot continue to be divided by only two colors.

With the continuous conflict between the two parties, our government will not be able to withstand for much longer, and, as a nation, we are beginning to realize the dangers of hyper-partisanship. As shown in this past election, America is now more tolerant to independents and third parties. When a third party finally does gain substantial support, it will simply replace one of the current major parties; if the Republicans continue to fail to win over Hispanic voters, they will eventually fade out with the Hispanic minority growing so rapidly. Washington Post columnist George Will said before the election, “if the Republican Party cannot win in this environment, it has to get out of politics and find another business.” If the Libertarians can eventually make a splash on the political scene, this may likely be the case. Furthermore, there have always been two and no more than two major parties in the US. In the current party system, the same two parties are still easily the most dominant, but there is a new sense of hyper-partisanship that drives modern politics. While there have been major disputes between parties in the past, the ongoing feud between the Democrats and the Republicans has elevated to a new level where the government cannot even function properly.

While there has once again not been a significant change in the nation’s perception of third parties and independents, we have still seen some signs of change.

Finally we have a genuinely independent senator, and the Libertarian Party has made immense progress since the 2008 election.

It is still impossible to tell whether or not a true cross-party government will ever be achieved, but it is clear that this power shift will not happen in the near future. Until a third party becomes politically significant, we will continue to be stuck with a divided, hyper-partisan, counter-productive government in which only two voices are heard.

Domestic

THE NEW REPUBLICAN PARTY

LA Times

a edi kip Wi

A

fter this year’s presidential election, it is obvious the Republicans need to make some changes in their policies to win the next election and gain more people’s votes.

To start off, Governor Romney lost the women’s vote by 11 percent. The Republican pro-life view on abortion significantly contributed to the discrepancy in votes. Obamacare covers birth control costs, which is another major reason why women favor Obama. It is a policy that many women saw as an attractive part of Obama’s campaign.

If the Republicans plan on gaining women’s votes, they must plan on changing their traditional views on abortion and means of paying for contraception.

Obama won the majority of voters from 18-29 years old by 24 percent. He also won the majority of voters from 30-44 years old by 7 percent. In order to gain young peoples’ votes, Republican’s must make their party’s prominent leaders young, and make him or her more relatable to the young voters. The Republican Party nowadays is sometimes referred to as the “Old Men’s Party.” Considering this image, Republicans might consider running Marco Rubio, a 47-year old Cuban-American senator from Florida, an important swing state.

Obama won among Hispanic voters

AP Photo

A Vision for the GOP’s Future 44 percent, among Asian voters 47 percent, and among black voters by a whopping 87 percent. It is important to note that all of these statistical statistical victories are by huge margins and make up for Obama’s disadvantage among white voters, where he lost by 20 percent. Obama won among gay, lesbian, and bisexual voters by an enormous 54 percent.

Republican traditional views on immigration may have been responsible for the low polling numbers from Latinos, where the Republicans are mostly against immigrants coming to the U.S. and becoming citizens. Republicans need to change their old fashioned views on marriage if they want a chance of winning back some of the gay, lesbian, and bisexual vote. A major way of showing the new Republican view on immigration would be by approving the D.R.E.A.M act. This is a proposed bill that would provide permanent residency to undocumented residents of good and ethical character who graduated from U.S. high schools, arrived in the United States as minors, and lived in the U.S. for five consecutive years before the bill’s enactment. This would be a very good way for the Republicans to display their new principles on immigration.

Romney won among independents by

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

By Eric Stein

five percent, but this margin was not big enough to win the election, especially because 6 percent more Democrats actually voted than Republicans. Romney could enlarge this margin by changing the views I have stated above, since independents are not affiliated with a party and have many different beliefs, and may fall into some of the categories already stated.

Obama won among those that make $50,000-30,000 by 5 percent and those that make under $30,000 by 28 percent. Obama may have won over these voters by promising that he would not raise taxes on them and by implementing his healthcare plan.

I know Republican views on this topic is probably their most important belief, but if the Republicans want to win some votes among these lower-class people, they should consider changing their policies slightly.

The Republicans must change their views on this to win the next election. The Republicans should definitely consider reaching across the aisle and agreeing with certain democratic views. I know changing all of these views would no longer make the Republican Party the Republican Party, but they should definitely take some of these things under consideration when it comes to the next presidential election.

13

Domestic

Best of Both Obama Must Balance Both Sides

By Mihika Kapoor

Best of Both Parties

By Mihika Kapoor

“T

hank you. Thank you. Thank you so much.” Barack Obama beamed to those surrounding him relentlessly waving blurred red, white and blue, to those who braved the late night wait with eyes glued to the television, to the audience spread out before him, to America.

On November 6th, President Obama won 332 electoral college votes and secured his continued role as President of the United States. So the fog, which had for so many months obscured the next four years, seemed to thin and somewhat ascertain the near future. Unfortunately, however monumental the outcome of the presidential election is, humans, especially politicians, are susceptible to change in thoughts and plans of action.

The coming years are murky as ever, and we can only hope that this country, and our president, makes the right choices. Of course the question remains: what are the right choices?

Moving forward, Obama must incorporate the ideals of both parties, maintaining a liberal social approach, while leaning towards a slightly more conservative economic agenda, in order to formulate the ultimate game plan

14

for the next four years.

As we live in a relatively progressive age, the Democratic Party certainly nails the social policies, which ought to govern our country. Their policies offer undeniable support for all people, “black or white or Hispanic or Asian or Native American or you or old or rich or poor, able, disabled, gay or straight,” as Obama articulated in his reelection speech. The ideals appeal to our young generation, which is intent upon freedom of expression. For the most part, we have an outspoken, liberal youth. In this current age of technological advances, where many people spend a considerable amount of time in front of a screen, such views are broadcasted and shared over the “twitterverse” and tumblr blogs. Hopefully, this is all indicative of the overall social advances we are making as a country and that America is moving towards a position that embraces people as they are born.

America was founded from the egalitarian ideals that all people are created equal; however there are individuals with beliefs that undermine this key value. Some

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

people seem to be taking an altered interpretation, in a way alluding to the Napoleonistic statement that “some are more equal than others,” by discriminating against the LGBTQ community. In an interview with ABC, President Obama made history by being the first American president to support gay marriage declaring, “at a certain point, I’ve just concluded that for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married.” This declaration is hopefully representative of the legal advances we expect to see from his administration in years to come.

His statement affirms the increasing number of liberal views in the country, which embraces individuality and uniqueness.

Democrats do not only support individual expression, but also value individual choice. An equally controversial social issue that has made its mark in a large amount of this year’s debates is abortion. In the standard “prolife” argument the circumstances into which a child would be born are not taken into account, only the fact that the embryo can someday be a child. The “prochoice” view

Domestic

“Obama must tread a delicate line as he enters his next term and works in conjunction with both Democrats and Republicans. “ argues that women have unlimited autonomy with regard to their bodies, once again rightly championing unalienable rights. If taking away women’s decision to have a child does not invade their liberties, then it is hard to know what does.

In terms of country emergencies, Obama has established his credibility in dealing with natural disasters in the wake of Hurricane Sandy. He has shown that he is able to cope with national disasters in a calm and efficient manner. Sufficient warning was given to nearly everyone in danger of the storm, and necessary precautions were taken to evacuate those in high-risk areas. The government tackled the mission to revive everything to its original state with enthusiasm. Republican Governor of New Jersey Chris Christie even supported Obama when he visited the state, describing him as “incredibly supportive.”

Unlike the progressive social reforms Obama supports, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, otherwise dubbed “Obamacare,” presents a doubleedged sword. On one hand, it provides the elderly and those who cannot afford healthcare with everything they need by allowing them to pay only what they can manage. It is in fact the most revolutionary alteration made to the United States healthcare system since 1965. The act has a noble aim to decrease the number of uninsured citizens in the country.

The fact that anyone has the same access to healthcare, regardless of their gender, finan-

on Thin Ice

cial ability or geographical location only reaffirms the Democratic Party’s belief in social equality for all.

However, despite Obama’s best intentions with his various health care acts, they significantly cut into the country’s deficit and further hinder the stagnated economy. The past few years offer no support to the contrary. It may be more effective and cost efficient to cater different healthcare acts to each state, based on need. In this situation, people would be aiding their respective communities, as opposed to blindly pouring large amounts of their salaries toward government funding.

On the track we are on now, health care costs are projected to rise by 6.5% per employee. This poses a problem for small businesses, especially for startups, which are just gaining their footing in their respective fields. According to New Geography, 58% of businesses have said they will not cover these costs for their employees. Furthermore, as of 2013, individuals earning more that $200,000 and couples earning more that $250,000 must pay a 3.8% Medicare tax.

The economic approach taken these past few years has not been as satisfactory as hoped and is not particularly promising for the future. In a generation where startups and entrepreneurs are the new “tomorrow,” investing in large government over small businesses seems to contradict the movement towards innovation. The Obama administration also plans to increase regulations on businesses, an action which will stem growth and deter many from taking job risks. By significantly taxing those who work hard and are financially successful, Obama alienates himself from and lessens the incentive for people to go beyond what they currently have. There has been a shift from the urge to go beyond what one has to the comfort of staying where one is. Those hurt the most are banks due to financial regulation and small businesses due to regulation on independent contracting. As a result, the numbers of startups have begun to decline.

With less startup companies, the

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

market becomes less competitive, which tends to decrease performance quality and ultimately hinder the economy. A successful capitalistic economy relies on competition to drive incentives to exceed the customer’s need. History is a testament to the success of this cycle. No one organization will dominate the entire market, and this prevents the economy from coming to a halt. As companies attempt to overtake their competitors, they also expand as enterprises and employ more people, thus lowering the unemployment rate.

If entrepreneurs are honed and nurtured, their companies’ expansion will provide many jobs for the unemployed. This model has a slightly more Republican approach to the economy. Under this policy, it is likely that there will be a shift toward more innovative opportunities. This way, America will pick itself back up off the ground, with jobs being created by the people, as opposed to the government. Diversity in the job market will also increase, with different people branching into different areas as needs grow, following the long-established system of supply and demand.

Obama must tread a delicate line as he enters his next term and works in conjunction with both Democrats and Republicans. He has the momentous task of reassembling the harm wreaked by the economy. In such a pivotal moment in time, the president shoulders great weights. Taxes alone cannot pick America’s economy back up. The government ought to direct efforts toward aiding small businesses, to help them rise to the top. Although large government-funded programs helped ease the country out of the Great Depression in the 1930’s, it is nearly a century later, and there is a noticeable shift toward self-motivation and individual achievement, which happens to tie in with the current progressive social movement. Repeating the past simply won’t do. As a country, we have to embrace the best of both sides of the political spectrum and, in both the social and economic sense, stay true to the value our generation places on individuality.

15

Domestic

Gay Rights Takes Another Stride A Vote for Equality

By Isaiah Newman

16

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Domestic

O

n November 6, voters in Maryland, Maine, and Washington were faced with ballot measures that, if passed, would fully legalize same-sex marriage. Thankfully, voters in all three states carried the measures, ensuring full protection under their state’s laws for same-sex couples and their right to marry. Gay rights activists across the nation also achieved several other important victories on election night; Wisconsin elected the first openly lesbian Senator to serve on Capitol Hill in American history, and Minnesota voters suppressed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in their state.

In what has been heralded as “a milestone year” for gay rights advocates, election night was surely a satisfying moment.

As a result of expensive campaigns in all three states that legalized same-sex marriage, equality triumphed, which marked this year as a truly historic one for equal rights for people of all sexual orientations. The election demonstrated a growing acceptance of

individual backgrounds and sexual preferences. This is a principle directly supported by the Constitution, particularly the 14th amendment, and by our Country’s entire legal history. It is written directly into the Declaration of Independence, by Thomas Jefferson himself: “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…” Someone who is homosexual is not any less of a human than someone who is heterosexual, and as a result they deserve the same rights and respect from society.

Much remains to be done, however, if marriage equality and acceptance of all sexual orientations is to become the norm in this country. While, for the first time ever, a majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage, according to polls conducted by the Pew Research center, a simple majority is not enough to enact legislation on Capitol Hill or in statehouses across the country.

Thirty states still have constitutional amendments completely ban-

“Someone who is homosexual is not any less of a human than someone who is heterosexual, and as a result they deserve the same rights and respect from society.” homosexuality in this country, a trend that has been upheld by polls conducted on the subject. And while it is not wholly surprising, this gradual shift in American thought is certainly welcome. It provides hope that homosexual individuals across the country can look to further legislative victories in the future and validates the hard work and effort put into those already won.

The promise brought by these electoral victories is encouraging. By supporting the rights of same-sex couples across the country, American voters have supported basic equality for all, and gone against the forces of bigotry and religion-based government. They have upheld the basic principle that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law, regardless of their

ning same sex marriage, and eight states have laws on the books banning it.

The primary rationale for many Americans who oppose this social progress and marriage equality is a religious one; namely, that the bible forbids it in Leviticus 18:22, calling homosexuality an “abomination.” This kind of logic becomes shaky when one stops to consider its implications. If we were to obey the word of the Christian bible in our lawmaking, then not only would we be completely violating the separation of church and state as ensured by the 1st amendment, but we would be forced to obey an archaic set of laws written thousands of years ago. It is thus entirely irrational for state and federal lawmakers to oppose basic rights for homosexuals on religious grounds, and it is a violation of the principles on which this country was founded.

Unfortunately, religious lawmakers in state governments are unlikely to budge anytime soon. It is difficult, if not impossible, to part legislators from a belief system that many of them have held since childhood. However, there is hope for equality among people of all sexualities through our country’s electoral process. American votersw on November 6 showed their willingness and ability to bring about change in their government in favor of equality for all sexual orientations. Hopefully, they will continue to vote for state representatives who feel the same way. And with public opinion on same-sex marriage gradually growing more favorable, it is only a matter of time before the remaining 41 state legislatures legalize it, and same-sex couples gain true equal protection under the law.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

17

Domestic

DEATH OF THE AMERICAN DREAM

By David Hackel

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com

W

ith a bright, red flame sitting in a torch, in her fist held high, the Statue of Liberty once stood as more than a figure for immigrants as they docked on Ellis Island; it was a newfound hope. No matter your background, who your parents were, or your religion—a fresh start was always accessible. And if an immigrant worked hard enough, he could have built a better life for himself, one that was deemed impossible in any other country of the world. Anyone able to make his way to this land considered himself blessed. With that, America built itself as the most promising nation in world, and the American Dream was born.

18

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Domestic

In government, the bill comes at the end of the meal. And as we've seen in Europe, sometimes the freebies get so out of hand that everyone ends up with a check they cannot afford.

However, Barack Obama was recently re-elected as president of the United States of America, and his vision for the future abandons what created the flourishing country of the past.

Immigrants, who once came to America to seek a better life, are coming in fewer numbers than ever. According to USA Today, fewer than half the number of Mexican immigrants came to America during Barack Obama’s first term than they did between 1995 and 2000. To go even further, many immigrants, both legal and illegal, are returning to their homes.

For them, America does not provide for a better life.

So what does America provide?

During Obama’s first term, the number of Americans on Food Stamps increased by 70 percent to 49 million people. The Census Bureau estimates that 49 percent, or 150 million Americans, receive benefits from the federal government. Furthermore, over 5 million individuals receive unemployment compensation. It is now common knowledge that America is a welfare state. Our debt has been downgraded by the investment rating agencies and the fact remains that many corporations can borrow at a cheaper rate than the federal government, despite the government’s ability to print all the bills necessary for debt payback.

What many individuals have yet to understand is the majority of these social programs relegate the financially unstable to their current lifestyle. If you think this is not the case, ask yourself why the growth rate in welfare and food stamps is a multiple of the population growth.

The Affordable Care Act, for example, while being hailed by the left wing, will result in tens of thousands of layoffs and the refusal of financially strong firms

to hire as a result of the added financial burden. For example, Obamacare requires medical equipment companies to pay 2.3% of all their revenues as a tax. Who’s going to suffer: you, your parents and your grandparents. Why? Because these companies will cut their research and development budgets for everything from heart stents to knee and hip replacements to respiratory equipment. After all, the money’s got to come from somewhere. In fact, the layoffs have already been announced and will take place over the coming years. For other firms, it will result in an estimated $1.87 loss per hour per employee, which admittedly, is not much if your father operates a hedge fund, but could very well mean the difference between getting or not getting a job for the common laborer.

America is no longer the place of social mobility it once was. In government, the bill comes at the end of the meal.

And as we’ve seen in Europe, sometimes the freebies get so out of hand that everyone ends up with a check they cannot afford.

Furthermore, increasing social programs cement poor Americans positions as financially deprived for several reasons. One, individuals are not incentiv-

ized to look for work. They are becoming satisfied with life on welfare. Two, the federal government cannot solve poverty. It is simply not feasible. Since Lyndon Johnson was president, the federal government has attempted to “solve” the issue of poverty.

Barack Obama is expanding social programs under the belief an expansion might help those Americans get out of poverty.

It won’t. 49.7 million, or 16 percent, of Americans were recently declared living under the federal poverty line. It becomes quite clear that social programs, although trying to give the best to all Americans, are not working. What these programs do is increase the deficit while creating dependency on government. Living on government funds is not American and not the life envisioned by immigrants as they came to this country.

So, what is happening with our current president? Job growth is not keeping up with population growth. There has been a net-loss of jobs since he took office in 2009. More Americans are dependent on government as social welfare programs continue to grow.

It’s fair to say—America is not well off economically. The American economy has a direct relationship to American

http://endoftheamericandream.com

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

19

Domestic

http://www.theworld.org

jobs, and in turn, the American Dream.

In the American Dream, if individuals worked and studied hard, they would succeed. Now more people than ever are dropping out of the workforce and are depending on the government to provide for them. That is not American.

Looking into the future—America is eventuawlly headed over a “fiscal cliff,” even if congress is able to overcome the most recent event: jolted up tax rates, measures taken by a socialist government. A compromise will never be met if our president refuses to negotiate, or understand what Mitt Romney does, that jobs are created by small business. Obama will not adhere to any Republican ideas if they do not include tax increases for the wealthiest two percent of Americans. Unfortunately taxing the richest Americans will not create a better economy, will not create jobs, and most importantly, will not solve the deficit problem. His refusal to compromise on the most important economic issue since his inauguration in 2009 will, according to the Congressional Budget Office, an independent branch of government, usher in a terrible recession beginning in 2013.

20

The extreme influx of immigrants that took place during the 20th Century has faded with the dream of America as a promise land.

The American Dream has faded into dust. Images of those who went from rags to riches are crumbling. Success is looked down upon, even made fun of.

Mitt Romney’s wealth became the brunt of countless jokes on late night talk shows.

And why? Because he worked hard, built a company from the ground up, and used what America had to offer to his advantage.

That vision is gone. What America had to offer for Mitt Romney, and individuals like Andrew Carnegie, J.D. Rockefeller and the great men who built this nation, is no more. The extreme influx of immigrants that took place during the 20th Century

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

has faded with the dream of America as a promise land. Barack Obama’s vision for the future secures America’s movement away from the intentions of the founding fathers.

In the old days even the lazy uncle worked, if even at a low paying job. Today, there is no such need. He is home, enjoying his flat screen TV, on food stamps, and provided free medical care, while his children are offered college scholarships for being disadvantaged. It would become fair to say the American Dream is on respiration, if only the president were not taxing the medical companies. For soon, they too,

picture-newsletter.com

International

The Iran Debate

DIPLOMACY AND WAR Two Perspectives on How to Deal with Iran’s Regime, Its Nuclear Capabilities, and Iran-U.S. Relations

Laszlo Herwitz James McCarthy

The Iran Debate The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

21

PRO International

A policy of intervention by the United States in Iran is essential in order to uphold the stability of the Middle East and deter Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

By Laszlo Herwitz

S

ince Obama’s re-election, the news media have been discussing the policies the Obama administration would adopt in the second term. A pressing issue in terms of U.S. foreign policy is Iran and its nuclear capabilities. Iran has shown no inclination of backing down, and Israel gets more bellicose by the day.

In order to pacify this situation, the U.S. must continue its support of Israel, its sanctions on Iran, and must keep its promise to use military force if necessary. A policy of intervention-

gin of corruption [Israel] will soon be wiped off the earth’s face” (the Associated Press). This kind of rhetoric, while false in reality because in a war involving only Israel and Iran, Israel would easily be victorious, still demonstrates how unstable the Iranian government is. By continuing economic sanctions against Iran, the U.S. is crippling the Iranian economy. This means that the leaders of Iran must turn their attentions towards averting a national crisis and away from the prospect of building a weapon. The downside of these

spond by raining missiles down on Israel. Even if the strike on Iran did not kill a single civilian, Iran’s allies would not show caution in their attacks and the barrage would very likely leave many innocent Israeli’s dead. However, if the Israel gained U.S. approval for the strike, Iran’s allies would not be as eager to retaliate for fear of harsh U.S. retaliation, which would save a lot of Israeli lives. The only way to resolve the dispute with Iran peacefully, the best possible outcome, is to ensure that Israel feels supported by the U.S. This

As well as sanctions against Iran, the U.S. must continue its open support of Israel and keep its promise to provide military support if necessary. ism is needed because it will deter Iran through crippling its economy, pacify Israel through the continued support, and uphold the stability of the Middle East.

As the world has seen, negotiating and diplomacy with Iran has failed; consequently, only economic sanctions and the threat of military action can deter them from acquiring a nuclear weapon and threatening the safety of Israel. Opponents of military intervention insist that the U.S. has not tried hard enough to negotiate with Iran and that sanctions and threats are premature. However this could not be further from the truth. To this day, all multi-lateral talks with Iran have failed. Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly threatened the security of Israel saying, “This ori-

22

sanctions, some critics argue, is that they fall most heavily on the ordinary citizens. While this is a problem, it also means that the Iranian government might stop building a weapon because the dissention from the people of the country is becoming too great.

As well as sanctions against Iran, the U.S. must continue its open support of Israel and keep its promise to provide military support if necessary.

This open support is necessary to pacify Israel. Israel is justifiably worried by the threats of the Iranian government.

Benjamin Netanyahu has stated on multiple different occasions that Israel is ready and willing to carry out an air strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. If Israel attacked Iran without the support of the U.S., Iran’s allies in the region, such as Syria and Lebanon would re-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

support will ensure that Israel does not feel as if Iran and its allies have backed Israel into a corner, because history has shown the world that when Israel feels trapped it tends to respond with brutal violence and efficiency to protect its land and people.

Possibly the most important reason for continuing a policy of intervention through sanctions and threat of military action against Iran is that a nuclear armed Iran and an Israeli air strike on Iran’s n.uclear facilities will destabilize the Middle East, a region that is already reeling from violent revolutions in two of its countries. Two possible scenarios present themselves if the international community ceased its policy of intervention and deterrence; the first is that Iran gains a nuclear weapon before Israel can strike,

International and the second is that Israel strikes before Iran completes the building of a nuclear weapon. In the first scenario Iran would have the capability of wiping Israel off the map. Despite the fact that such an attack would probably damage Syria and Lebanon, events have shown us that Iran’s government is unstable enough to go through with it anyway. The worst possible outcome of such a standoff would be that Israel, which is considered a nuclear-armed country despite its insisting otherwise, would launch a nuclear-armed missile at Iran, which would plunge the middle east into nuclear war, totally obliterating it. The more likely scenario is that Iran’s gaining a nuclear weapon would create a stand off, which would tip the Middle East even further towards dissolving into chaos and destruction.

The second possible scenario, in

which Israel strikes Iran before Iran can complete a nuclear weapon, would yield no better an outcome. The International Community would be quick to condemn and attempt to sanction Israel, though the U.S. would be able to block most of the sanctions using its veto power on the Security Council.

Iran would then, in conjunction with its allies, launch an all out assault on Israel. Israel would respond in kind, plunging the Middle East into war.

Both scenarios are unacceptable and must be prevented at all costs in order to keep the Middle East stable. Only a policy of continued intervention can achieve this.

A policy of intervention through harsh economic sanctions and threat of military action, as well as open support for Israel, is vital in halting Iran’s attempts to build a nuclear weapon

By continuing economic sanctions against Iran, the U.S. is crippling the Iranian economy. This means that the leaders of Iran must turn their attentions towards averting a national crisis and away from the prospect of building a weapon. because such a policy would cripple Iran’s economy, pacify Israel, and stabilize the Middle East. The U.S. must continue its policy of intervention and convince other countries to do so too

Topnews.com

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

23

CON International

A policy of intervention by the United States in Iran is not essential in order to uphold the stability of the Middle East and deter Iran the prospects of a nuclear weapon.

By James McCarthy

T

he United Nations has recently provided a theater of debate concerning Iran’s nuclear program and regime, but Western conflicts with post-Industrial Iranian affairs have long been at the forefront of Western policy. While oil contracts have long existed between the West and Iran, true hostilities began in 1953 when Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh expelled the current Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in favor of a democratic government, establishing a nationalized oil industry in Iran. The enactment of this policy angered America and Great Britain who for the past half century refused to split the profits from oil sale above 17.5% for the Iranians. And as such Great Britain’s MI6 and the United States’ CIA jointly orchestrated a coup d’état to remove the first and last truly democratic Government Iran has seen throughout its history. The United States then emplaced a pro-Western dictator, who upon establishing OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries) was also removed from power (by the United States) and replaced by the current radi-

cal Islamic regime. Western interventions in Iranian affairs always left the Iranian people in despair, and by such action did the hostilities begin.

The most concerning topic under consideration by Western Governments is Iran’s nuclear program. The Iranian people believe nuclear energy is their right, and it was the United States, which began to suggest Iran become a nuclear state in the 1950’s. The United States introduced and assisted Iran in enriching Uranium until the 1979 revolution where they pulled all of their support for the program. And so it must be stated that while Iranians are not in agreement with their government on a majority basis, the Iranian people will continue to vote in favor of developing their nuclear program. The Iranian people claim that it is unjust that they have been sanctioned for enriching uranium, while their neighbor Pakistan, a notorious funder of terrorists within the Afghan Haqqani network, have continually been given foreign and military aid. (Even while the continue nuclear arms proliferation)

In addition Israel, a nation that continually threatens Iran with attacks, has developed and assembled a predicted 400 nuclear warheads, and when asked to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty, declined stating that signing would be “contrary to its national security interests.” Belligerence taken into perspective, Israel has started 2 wars since its conception 60 years ago while Iran has not started a war in nearly 200 years.

(Last war started by Iran was 4th Russo-Persian war in 1824). Finally, a recently published International Atomic Energy Agency report backed by Israeli intelligence officials has stated that Iran has used its 20% enriched Uranium (its highest degree of enriched Uranium assumed to be for weapon making) for the making of fuel rods to begin cancer and other medicinal research. So if America wishes to overturn the regime in Iran and resonate their message with the Iranian government, they should not focus their criticism on Iran’s nuclear program but rather on issues such as Iran’s oppression of the people’s right to freedom of speech, freedom of choice, and a

Sanctions do not work as not only does the regime neglect the state of the people, but also they are able to use the aforementioned interventionist policy of the United States to rally support for themselves as well as increase the degree of accepted anti-American sentiment.

24

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

International

LET’S END THE WAR IN IRAN BEFORE IT STARTS non-corrupt democratic government, for as we have seen in the 2009 protests such problems will bring together the Iranian people in revolt. (In 2009 due to fraudulent elections, the Iranian people protested against the incumbent regime) The United States and the West have also gauged the effectiveness of sanctions on Iran. Sanctions do not change the course of the regime and only spark protests to change domestic monetary policy rather then to overthrow the government. (Such sanctions include weapon development assistance ban, trade and investment ban, nuclear materials ban, financial dealings ban, asset access ban, and

ban on the import of refined gasoline) Sanctions do not work as not only does the regime neglect the state of the people, but also they are able to use the aforementioned interventionist policy of the United States to rally support for themselves as well as increase the degree of accepted anti-American sentiment. Even while a great majority of Iranians are dissatisfied with the regime, the purpose of the sanctions is to slow the progression of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, (by removing support for the regimes actions) and because the Iranian people do in fact support development of their nuclear program they will not support the West’s attempts to inhibit it. Such

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

sanctions only work to strengthen the regime’s grasp on its people.

The people will rise up against the government without sanctions on the basis of corruption and fraudulent elections, none of which issues were urged on by Western powers.

It must be up to the Iranian people to exact either a sudden change if fraudulent voting occurs in the upcoming 2013 presidential elections, or a long term change if the progressive nature of the Iranian people is properly reflected in its democratic government, either of which will end better for the Iranian people and provide a stabilizing influence in Middle Eastern politics as well as on a global stage.

25

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNITED STATES

A PUZZLING RELATION CHINA

By Jake Haberman

T

he United States’ growing national debt has been a topic of intense discussion over the past few years. Politicians have tirelessly argued about the most efficient way to reduce such a massive amount of debt, but to this day our country still does not have an accepted plan. Let me state a fact: America’s trade debts to China account for a whopping 45% of our trade deficit in goods. In the 21st century, China has

26

emerged as a giant in the world of international trade and commerce. According to the World Bank, its GDP in 2011 alone was worth 7.318 trillion US dollars. It is thus imperative that we rebalance our trade with China in order to reduce our national debt and create future business opportunities.

Before I continue with the rest of the article, I want to remind readers that this article is a commentary of the Chinese

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

government, not its people. That being said, members of the World Trade Organization are required to comply with all signed and ratified WTO agreements.

Some of the most influential WTO doctrines include the General Agreement on Trade in Services, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, and the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. China, although

PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC OF CHINA tilist policies such as counterfeiting and piracy, lax environmental and health and safety regulations, and export restrictions in order to gain advantages over foreign competitors. These policies make it very difficult for American businesses to compete on a fair playing field with Chinese businesses.

China’s current use of such policies obviously hurts the American economy and benefits the Chinese economy in the short run. Their prolonged use, however, will greatly hurt China as a country. For instance, China’s lenient pollution control laws provide China’s manufacturing industry with a huge advantage over the American industry, which faces higher compliance costs. According to Glenn Hubbard and Peter Navarro, typical US companies spend about 3% of their revenues on environmental expenses while their Chinese counter parts spend only

buildup of American dollar reserves in foreign countries. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson stated that this situation is “deeply troubling because heavy selling could create a sudden loss of confidence… and shake the capital markets.”

In an effort to put China in the spotlight, President Obama has stated that he “will not stand by when our competitors don›t play by the rules… and when it is necessary, I will take action if our workers and our businesses are being subjected to unfair practices.» However, the official New China News Agency has repeatedly stated, «It is rash and unfair for the United States to put forward a lawsuit against China before the WTO. In [the] face of such unreasonable and unfair charges, China will make no hesitation in defending its legitimate rights in trade disputes.” The Chinese have also fervently argued that their export quotas and tariffs are in accordance

It is clear that China’s environmental cost advantages in the financial world are and will continue to be wholly counterbalanced by societal expenses.

a member of the WTO, does not comply with many of the standard policies of the organization. The Chinese government continues to use protectionist policies such as import licensing restrictions, forced technology transfer, discriminatory tax policies, and port of entry restrictions in order to safeguard its abundant natural resources and enhance its competitive advantage in the international trading community. China also uses extreme mercan-

about a tenth as much. Nevertheless, Chinese citizens pay a very steep price for this competitive advantage. Mr. Hubbard and Mr. Navarro state, “China is now home to 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities… seventy percent of China’s seven major rivers are severely polluted… and 700 million Chinese ‘have access to drinking water of a quality below World Health Organizational standards.” It is clear that China’s environmental cost advantages in the financial world are and will continue to be wholly counterbalanced by societal expenses.

The United States’ trade deficits lead to both a slower GDP growth rate and a downward pressure on the American dollar. Although a cheaper dollar helps to heighten American exports, it dramatically causes domestic inflation by raising the costs of imported goods. The shocking trade deficits over the years have also led to a dangerous

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

with WTO rules. Nevertheless, it is important for the United States to continue to trumpet free trade. Hubbard and Navarro wisely state that the president and Congress must emphasize a clear-cut definition of free trade. Such a definition should detail that “full compliance with WTO rules, the absence of any illegal export subsidies, a fairly valued currency, strict protection of intellectual property, the absence of any forced technology transfer, environmental and health standards that meet international norms, and free and open access to each country’s domestic markets” are necessary conditions in demonstrating adherence to the standards of such a manner of trade. If any nation does not conform to these mandates, it should be subject to defensive measures by the United States. It is our duty as citizens of America to protect free trade and the prosperity of our financial system. We cannot give any more free passes. It is time to crack the whip.

27

International International

ACT IN SYRIA NOW H ow is it that we can live in a democracy, where we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and allow Syria to indiscriminately murder its own people? The civil war in Syria is already a humanitarian disaster and has the potential to also be a strategic one. As we continue to mind our own business, as if nothing else is happening in the world, the UN estimates that over 408,000 people have fled Syria to Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq and it is estimated that over 40,000 people, mostly civilians, have died in the conflict as of November 2012. Intelligence reports estimate that Syria has several hundred tons of chemical weapons. The likelihood that these chemical weapons will fall into the hands of

28

radicals will only increase as the New York Times has reported that “most of the arms shipped at the behest of Saudi Arabia and Qatar to supply Syrian rebel groups fighting the government of Bashar al-Assad are going to hard-line Islamic jihadists.” Both letting Bashar al-Assad reassert his authoritarian regime over Syria and letting the Islamic radicals take over would be a travesty. We must arm the secular opposition forces now before it becomes too late.

By only providing humanitarian aid to the Syrian opposition we are setting a precedent that we will do little if a dictator terrorizes and murders his own people. Even though on October 4th the UN Security Council President Gert Rosenthal said, “The mem-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

BY BRETT SILVERSTEIN bers of the Security Council condemned in the strongest terms the shelling by the Syrian armed forces of the Turkish town of Akcakale,” we have still not taken any substantial steps to force Syrian President Bashar-al Assad to step down and we have only provided humanitarian aid to the Syrian resistance.

The Free Syrian Army needs our help to take down Assad’s regime. By year’s end the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimates that over 700,000 people will have fled Syria. Regardless of whether Assad fights on until his death or eventually steps down, by only giving nonlethal aid to the rebels President Obama is sending the message to oppressed people in other countries that at best they can count on

International International

We must arm the secular opposition forces [in Syria] now before it becomes too

http://publicintelligence.net/syrian-rebelfree-syrian-army-photos/

severely limited support from the U.S. Supporting the rebels would go a long way towards improving Obama’s foreign policy record, which has been contradictory and ineffective with respect to the Arab Spring and other protest movements. While we played a major role in ousting Hosni Mubarak, an ally of ours, we did nothing to help the protesters in the Iranian Green Revolution. In what was a rigged election, hundreds of thousands of people turned out to protest President Ahmadinejad’s reelection in 2009. This presented an opportunity for the U.S. to try to help remove an anti-American president, who has denied the Holocaust and has repeatedly said he wants to wipe Israel off the map. Instead, the U.S. did not

even express words of moral support. If we had done more to help the protesters, such as passing sanctions against Iran far sooner, the Iranian leadership might have backed down and the opposition reformist candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, might have been elected.

We now have the opportunity to support liberty and to help put an end to the tyranny that has existed in Syria for far too long. If we had a moral obligation to arm the Libyan rebels and to force former President Mubarak to resign, then we have a moral obligation to arm the Syrian rebels. It is unconscionable enough that we allow Assad to murder his own people, but our relative lack of involvement is even worse, considering that Russia and Iran are supplying arms to the Syrian

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Defense Ministry. According to the Guardian, “Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayipp Erdogan, has accused Russia of directly supplying munitions to the Syrian government, after Turkish jets intercepted a plane en route from Moscow to Damascus.” If we truly want to support democracy we cannot pick and choose whom we support and we should not stand idly by while other countries aid dictators in crushing their own people.

Besides benefitting the Syrian people, the fall of the Syrian regime would also benefit the United States by weakening the Iranian influence in the region. According to Michael Doran, senior fellow, Brookings Institution and Max Boot, senior fellow, Council on Foreign Relations, “Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon.” According to Reuters “Assad’s fall would weaken Hezbollah in Lebanon and unleash a Sunni-led campaign to limit the group’s power.” Without a gateway through Syria, Iran’s efforts to support Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly stymied. According to James Rubin, former spokesman for the U.S. state department from 1997-2000, “Iran would be strategically isolated, unable to exert its influence in the Middle East. The resulting regime in Syria will likely regard the United States as more friend than enemy.” By arming the rebels we would be sending the message that we are serious about our threats and that we will not let Russia and Iran ignore Syria’s blatant human rights violations in order to advance their own interests.

Our recent commitment of $30 million in non-lethal humanitarian aid to the Syrian Opposition Coalition is a good start. However, the opposition will not be able to overthrow Assad without military aid and support. The longer we wait the more likely it is that radicals will take over the opposition or that Assad will defeat the rebels. Assad’s remaining in power would be a humanitarian disaster. We have a moral obligation to find and support militarily the rebels who want democracy. In doing so, we will improve our international position, while simultaneously making the world a better place.

29

Features

W O N EVER N R O Why the world must act now or forever hold its peace

By Natasha Moolji

30

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

T

he climate is changing and mankind must react accordingly.

Caused by the rapid industrialization of the modern world, the vast amounts of carbon dioxide that humans have polluted the atmosphere with, and various other factors, the unpredictable climate has altered the world where mankind once found its niche.

The facts are clear. Throughout the past 100 years, global temperatures have increased by approximately 1.33°F. While various scientists attempt to further the idea that this current period of climate change is naturally occurring, considerable evidence proves otherwise.

For instance, throughout the past 650,000 years, the atmospheric carbon dioxide level has not been above 300 parts per million (ppm), a rather healthy number.

Yet, since 1950 that level has skyrocketed.

Features rate, the amount of destructive and costly weather events would surge with it.

Already, pollution in United States bodies of fresh water has increased by 45% in assessed streams, 47% in assessed lakes, and 32% in assessed bays.

We need to do something about this now!

The more time passes, the closer Earth becomes to uninhabitable. Uncontaminated water is necessary for survival; climate change would decrease the amount of clean water available, and lead to an even larger number of contaminated-water related deaths—a number currently greater than 3.4 million yearly. All of these cataclysmic events would devastatew mother Earth, so humans have an obligation to end global warming immediately.

With so many health problems and deaths related to the consequences of climate change, countries must miti-

in its industrialization period. To exclude them from the requirement of mitigating climate change would be to allow the destruction of our world to pleasantly continue. The Chinese economy has been growing more than 8% per year and the coal usage has been climbing faster their than anywhere in the world—more than 10% a year. When coal is burned, nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon dioxide are all released into the once clean air.

Instead the fresh outdoors, the release of those chemicals results in smog, acid rain and a more rapidly change climate. By exempting China from the need to halt climate change would prevent global warming to stop whatsoever. A solution: China should transfer its dependence for energy to solar panels and other natural gasses. If China, and other ‘developing’ nations are exempt from the moral obligation of miti-

Already, pollution in United States bodies of fresh water has increased by 45% in assessed streams, 47% in assessed lakes, and 32% in assessed bays. We need to do something about this now!

As global warming is evident, its existence leads many to pose the question of whether or not developed countries have a moral obligation to mitigate this climate change. The answer is simple—climate change, left unmitigated, would have catastrophic effects, so, in turn, developed countries do their part.

Scientists have researched, and the past half century has given a sample of what the future could bring: disease carrying insects migrating north, more frequent hurricanes, melted polar ice caps, rising sea levels, and an unbalanced ecosystem.

Because global warming results in temperatures to jolt up, desertification would occur and vegetation loss in already hot climates would continue. The number of heat related illnesses and deaths would increase as well. In addition, if climate change were to increase at the present

gate it. Herein lies the foundation for the moral obligation: it would be immoral to let such a vast amount individuals die at the mercy of climate change. The notion that the United States, Great Britain and other developed nations do not sit by and watch people die in the middle east under tyrannical leadership must be applied to climate change. Considering industrialized countries are able to prevent global warming and its impending events, they should do so. Acting now would be more cost effective than adapting to climate change later on as well as saving thousands of lives.

Developed countries are not the only nations with the obligatory task of mitigating climate change but regions considered “developing” have the same responsibility. China plays a large role in destroying our ecosystem, as it is still

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

gating climate change, the issue at hand will not be solved.

When it comes to the matter of mitigating climate change, it would be immoral to just let the situation of the environment digress at its current rate.

Developed nations, as well as large-contributors to the problem like China have the moral obligation to mitigate climate change. Picture the future otherwise: a poisonous, black, cloud endlessly hovering over your head, the requirement to wear oxygen masks whenever outside, New York City entirely submerged in the Atlantic Ocean. Just ponder your own lives and the extremity of the current weather situations you’ve faced: unprecedentedly damaging hurricanes, warm winters, and fiery summers. Face the truth. Come on world, do the right thing. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/

31

Features

PREPARING FOR THE

INEVITABLE

How New York and Other Coastal Cities Can Adapt in the Face of Climate Change

By Will Ellison

I

t is imperative that in light of global climate change and the recent devastation inflicted by Hurricane Sandy, that New York City and other coastal cities take action. Governments must take steps to prepare for and adapt to not only the higher frequency of natural disasters but also the less severe results of climate change.

Some may wonder whether any measures need to be taken. They may argue that Hurricanes Sandy and Katrina were anomalies, and that it is simply a coincidence that the two most costly storms in United States history occurred within less than a decade of each other. (Hurricane Katrina caused $100 billion in damage and Hurricane Sandy will likely cause at least $50 billion.) They may discount that three of the ten biggest floods since 1900 in lower Manhattan have occurred in the last three years. They may overlook that July 2012 was the warmest month ever in US history. They may ignore the freak weather inundating populations across the globe.

But at this point, how can anyone attempt to repudiate climate change? The standard reasoning, that no single weather event can conclusively be connected to global warming, is no longer valid. It has been predicted that an effect of climate change would be increasingly unpredictable weather, which is exactly what we are experiencing.

And the future doesn’t seem too bright. According to Jeff Sachs, Director of Columbia University Earth’s Institute, ocean level has risen one foot in the last century, due to the melting of glaciers and the thinning of ice sheets, and looks to continue to increase. As sea levels rise, the risk of storms increases. It is very likely that the trend of increasingly frequent natural di-

32

sasters will continue, and as the coastlines are the most densely populated parts of the county (50% of Americans live within 50 miles of the coast), endeavors need to occur. About 30% of Americans live in coastal counties, the most susceptible areas to Sandy-style storms. In fact, nearly 4 million Americans live within a few feet of high tide. Klaus H. Jacob, a Columbia University seismologist, predicts that Sandy-style storms could become an annual incident by 2100. He articulated, “We know what we have to do. The question is when do we get beyond talking and get to action.”

We cannot accept the alarming prospect that some parts of New York will be periodically flooded, and instead of attempting to prevent damage, we will only adapt by making infrastructure more able to recuperate. Discussing Sandy, Governor Andrew M. Cuomo warned, “Climate change is a reality. Given the frequency of these extreme weather situations we have had, for us to sit here today and say this is once in a generation and it’s not going to happen again, I think would be shortsighted.”

A panel of scientists and emissaries of private companies has been established by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to study these risks to New York. It estimates that by the 2020s mean annual temperatures could rise by 3 degrees and mean sea levels could increase by 2 to 5 inches in New York. What is more, by the 2080s and 2090s, it is forecast that temperatures may grow by up to 7.5 degrees and sea levels may escalate by 12 to 23 inches. “We’re providing the science by which the City of New York can get ready and prepare,” said Cynthia Rosenzweig, chairwoman of this

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

panel. The mayor elucidated, “Planning for climate change today is less expensive than rebuilding an entire network after the catastrophe. We cannot wait until after our infrastructure has been compromised to begin to plan for the effects of climate change.” Fortunately, according to Rohit T. Aggarwala, the director of long-term planning and sustainability in the Mayor’s Office of Operations, private companies will carry the majority financial burden of the efforts, allowing the government to direct its money to other causes.

There are many important measures that can be taken. We could implement more restrictive building codes for exposed coastal islands and areas. We could ban house boilers, back-up generators and electrical system in basements, the places most likely to be flooded. We could put power lines underground. On top of that, we could improve our infrastructure, whose miserable conditions greatly contributed to the damage caused by Sandy.

This would really help. But it just won’t be enough.

New York and other cities must construct colossal and sturdy storm-surge barriers to prevent flooding similar to those safeguarding London and Rotterdam. We already have a template to adhere to: due to its geography, the Netherlands has been battling the sea for years and has utilized this cutting-edge technology to do so. Even though these sea walls are cumbersome and expensive and even if they end up being somewhat unsuccessful, we need to try.

On top of increased flooding, New York City must get ready for higher temperatures and more rain. Mushrooming temperatures could mean more brownouts and blackouts

Features in the summer due to heavier electricity use on hot days, and rainstorms could mean more flooding.

Various innovative and fascinating solutions have also been proposed.

Architecture Research Offices’ Stephen Cassell suggests establishing a band of wetlands that absorb the might of storm surge, consisting of a series of land-based parks, wetlands and tidal salt marshes, surrounding Lower Manhattan. This would guard the area that was inundated by flooding and power-outages by Sandy due to its low elevation and construction upon an artificial landfill. Additionally, the parks would also function as recreation areas. The firm would also re-engineer Lower Manhattan’s streets to acclimate to storm surges. The streets least in jeopardy would have their asphalt substituted with water-accommodating materials, such as porous concrete, to absorb excess water. Next, the streets in more danger would direct running water into the marshes at the island’s edges and into certain ponds designated to amass runoff water for dry spells. Finally, the most vulnerable streets parallel to the shoreline would drain surge water back into the harbor. “We thought of it as engineered ecology,” stated Cassell. “If you look at the history of Manhattan, we have pushed nature off the island and replaced it with man-made infrastructure. What we can do is start to reintegrate things and make the city more durable.”

Focusing on a different part of the city, architect Kate Orff and her firm Scape/ Landscape Architecture P.L.L.C., has conceived of a strategy to defend the Red Hook and Gowanus neighborhoods of Brooklyn, areas battered by Sandy. Announcing that the “era of big infrastructure is over,” Orff ’s

plan calls for “blending urbanism and ecology.” The tactic will be to erect artificial reefs of rocks, shells and fuzzy rope aimed to stimulate the growth of oysters. These oysters would act as “ecological glue,” alleviating onrushing tides. Concurrently, oyster nurseries protected by chambers sheltering the budding oysters from predators like starfish would be erected along the banks of the Gowanus Canal. Above would be a walkway, penetrated at intervals by hatches that could be lifted to allow viewing of the nature below. Orff expressed, “This is infrastructure that we can do now. It’s not something we have to think about and fund with billions of dollars 50 years down the road.”

Lawrence J. Murphy, an engineer in the global engineering firm CDM Smith, and his partner Thomas Schoettle, had proposed to raise a classic storm-surge barrier across the Arthur Kill, the strait that separates Staten Island from New Jersey, that would work together with similar barriers in the East River, the Narrows and near the Rockaway Peninsula to protect Staten Island, another area thrashed and flooded

by Sandy and extremely vulnerable (it is surrounded not by tranquil rivers, but by oceanic channels like the Arthur Kill and the Atlantic Ocean itself.) The Arthur Kill barrier would include a dam-like structure with tidal gates below the surface that would open and close when required. This would resist against waves up to 22 feet tall, 8 feet taller than the 14-foot tall waves of Hurricane Sandy. A series of locks and drawbridges would accommodate the various ships that cross the Kill. The dam would include a back-up generator in the case of a power-outage. The barrier could even create its own hydroelectric power through

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

tidal generators. Murphy illuminated, “The concept design of the Arthur Kill Storm Barrier has been made with a focus on aesthetics to create a destination. The multiuse path can provide bicycling and walking opportunities. Fishing and bird-watching amenities can also be provided.”

Global warming is not disappearing. Even if mankind ceased emitting carbon dioxide emissions tomorrow, which is impossible due to our carbon-based global economy, higher levels of atmospheric dioxide (that have been accumulating since significant burning of fossil fuels began during the Industrial Revolution) would continue for 50 to 200 years. Thus, volatile weather would linger for 50 to 200 years, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Even if the US were to miraculously join Europe in taking climate change seriously and attempting to act accordingly, China, with the second-largest economy, is now the world’s third largest carbon-emitter and looks only to add more coal-fired power plants.

Hopefully, mankind will get the carbon situation under control, but things will deteriorate before they improve, so thus a paramount concern for our nation’s government at every level is how to adapt to climate change. This measure should be taken in addition to efforts to utilize cleaner energy sources more thoroughly. CNN analyst Fareed Zakaria urged, “On the one hand, the world has to think about how to stop or reverse climate change. But, in the meantime, we will have to figure out how to adapt to what is becoming a new normal.”

There is no price too high, particularly for New York, a chief financial and cultural center of the world. Ignorance is not a solution.

33

Domestic Features

The Bleak Road for Commodities

By Ikaasa Suri

34

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

I

n a world that drinks 1.6 billion cups of coffee a day, eats over two trillion pounds of rice each year and grows over 600 million metric tons of wheat annually, it wouldn’t be a stretch to say that our global population relies on basic agricultural commodities to survive.

But studies conducted by scientists at London’s Royal Botanic Gardens predict that most of these rudimentary crops could be extinct by 2080. And it’s all because of climate change.

Throughout history, agricultural enterprises have coped with changes in climate and weather through alterations in management and in crop selection. However, the projected change caused by global warming is likely to challenge the international community’s capacity to efficiently produce food, fuel and livestock products. Studies show that not only will the reshaping of our thermal environment caused by global warming pose more risks to our planet than previous weather fluctuations did, but also that there is a projected increase in damage costs ranging between 3.2 billion and 18 billion dollars annually.

Hence, climate change is expected to lead to more flooding, hotter heat waves, larger water shortages and also higher expenses. With governments more concerned about the cost of damage due to the lack of any significant way of altering the inevitable results of climate change, farmers and agricultural industries are especially concerned with the changes in temperature and how the frequency and intensity of extreme weather could have significant impacts on crop yields. What is more, both consumers and harvesters fear increased commodity prices and lower quality products internationally.

The ongoing drought that be-

Features gan this past summer, the United States’ hottest one since 1950, is expected to destroy a large portion of the field crops in the US. This will result in higher prices both on the farm and on the shelves. An increase in the farm price of corn has already occurred. Since corn is not only sold as a separate commodity, but as animal feed as well, there are additional projected ramifications. It is forecasted that the retail prices for beef, poultry and dairy products will surge later this year and into 2013.

In India, a one degree Celsius rise in temperature from carbon dioxide escalation and global warming could reduce wheat production. In the absence of adaptation to the change in environment, climate change could lead to a six million ton decrease of wheat production per crop year. Environment ministers in India, after conducting rigorous

Farmers and agricultural industries are especially concerned with the changes in temperature and how the frequency and intensity of extreme weather could have significant impacts on crop yields. studies in the field of climate change, have discovered that this seemingly devastating problem does have a solution.

It’s simple: the magnitude of the impact of climate change on wheat production is due to an increase of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. If we

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

were to decelerate the rate at which carbon emissions travel to our atmosphere, such devastations could potentially be prevented. Adjustment methods such as CO2 fertilization have been suggested. A study, authored by Kevin G. Harrison of Boston College, introduces the benefits of this method. His studies predict that by farming with carbon-based soil, the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is slowed, due to a buildup of the gas in terrestrial vegetation and soil. The less carbon emission there is, the smaller the jump in temperature, and thus the more normal the crop yields.

Unfortunately, not all harvesters will face the same happy ending.

Farmers in the southwestern highlands of Ethiopia, plateaus of South Sudan, and mountains of northern Kenya dread the environmental transformations to come as they rely on agriculture both economically and culturally. The coffee Arabica is not only the backbone of the coffee industry worldwide, but it can be traced back to seventeenth century Ethiopia where it traditionally represented a strong heritage for the country’s previously sustainable coffee production.

Now, it is predicted to be extinct in the wild by 2080. The elimination of wild coffee plants won’t have an immediate effect on their domesticated descendants, but this loss narrows the product gene pool, making all plants susceptible to poor health and eventual extermination. Even without factoring in deforestation, the prospects for the coffee plant are quite bleak.

A loss in certain commodities would lead to large segments of the market disappearing. In the coffee industry, Arabica accounts for seventy percent of global production. After extinction,

35

Features

farmers and scientists find it hard to believe that coffee drinkers would simply switch what’s in their cup without sputtering. Although there are other existing coffee species that are better poised to cope with climate change, experts argue that the texture, taste and strength all vary, none matching up to the delightfully distinct taste of Arabica. The post-extinction shift, when about threefourths of the coffee industry dissolves, could cause a serious economic jolt. After oil, coffee is the second most traded global commodity and its industry employs about twenty-six million people.

Deploying or even preparing for a comeback after such a fall will be a difficult, yet irrefutable, task.

The chief culprit for this entire projected agricultural decline is the rise in temperature. In India, the downtrend in wheat productivity correlates directly with a one degree Celsius jump. In Ethiopia, the world’s third largest producer of Arabica coffee, the mean annual temperature has risen by 1.3 degrees Celsius since 1960. Both areas are specific sectors of focus regarding climate change.

In order to decelerate the impacts of global warming, governments must take the initiative to create adaptation strategies. Preventing or at least prolonging the detrimental hit of extinction can only occur if the international community is proactive.

36

Scientists and environmental activists have already gotten the ball rolling. They have laid a blueprint that the international community must follow.

Not only will prevention maintain a stable food market, but also it is one of the world’s last hopes of preserving wildlife.

It is undisputable how much the human race relies on nature for resources, and it is crucial that we conserve it. Without it, our society would lack the basic necessities of the 21st century. Scientists have identified several core sites, or specific areas, where threatened plants can likely survive until at least 2080. They recommend that these areas be targeted for conservation. Environmental pursuits similar to these have helped species avert extinction and are becoming one of our last resorts in maintaining a stable international economy, trading system and food supply. On top of this, extra precautions are of vital importance in areas where extinction is not yet imminent. Unfortunately, despite all plausible measures currently on the table, scientists can confidently expect the genetic diversity of the aforementioned populations to steadily go downhill annually, regardless of what measures are taken in nature. However, the world population, along with the scientific community, can endeavor to do its best and lessen the celerity of this upsetting and seemingly inescapable ruin.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

“Unfortunately, despite all plausible measures currently on the table, scientists can confidently expect the genetic diversity of the aforementioned populations to steadily go downhill annually, regardless of what measures are taken in nature.

However, the world population, along with the scientific community, can endeavor to do its best and lessen the celerity of this upsetting and seemingly inescapable ruin.”

Features

IDENTIFYING THE CULPRIT The Various Real and Imagined Factors Associated With Climate Change

By Aditya Ram

C

limate change is a serious problem. It kills almost 300,000 people a year and causes crop shortages, the melting of glaciers, and violent weather such a Hurricane Sandy. Climate change has classically been found to be caused by the greenhouse effect.

The greenhouse effect is essentially what happens when pollutants get trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere, stopping heat from escaping and leading to higher temperatures. Regrettably, these pollutants (carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, etc.), commonly referred to as greenhouse gasses, take hundreds of years to escape Earth’s atmosphere. As such, those who pollute have done severe damage to our planet and are the main cause of global warming. Humanity will eventually have

to do something to stop climate change, or the planet will simply return to an uninhabitable wasteland eventually. But we should consider who is to blame for the very expensive and possibly catastrophic problems caused by global warming. So whom can we effectively scapegoat for causing climate change?

The easiest answer is considering who pollutes the most. To answer this, we can look to the list that outlines the countries that are currently the world’s major polluters. China produces about one fourth of the world’s CO2 emissions. In 2010, China produced about 8,240,958 tons of CO2. The United States is in second place, generating about 18% of the world’s emissions. By contrast, the entire European Union,

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

27 countries, only produces 14%. So the obvious answer, that the big polluters should pay, would effectively force both the United States and China to pay for almost half the damage done to the planet. These statistics delineate the emissions of countries in the recent past.

What about over the course of history?

Who has released the most greenhouse gasses over history? Between 1900 and 2004, the US emitted 314772.1 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. In that same time period, Russia gave out a staggering 89688.3 million tons. China released about 89243 million tons, Germany released 73625.8 million tons, and the United Kingdom released 55163.7 million tons. As such, it is evident that the US over the course of the last century

37

Features

“It is evident that the US over the course of the last century or so has not released major amounts of carbon dioxide compared to these other countries. Therefore, we can argue that the US should take little of the blame for global warming. But, we must realize that humans are not the only cause of global warming.”

or so has not released major amounts of carbon dioxide compared to these other countries. Therefore, we can argue that the US should take little of the blame for global warming. But, we must realize that humans are not the only cause of global warming.

Many say that water vapor greatly contributes to global warming.

There is a lot of water vapor in our atmosphere. Concentrations fluctuate wildly, but water vapor forms 66% to 85% of Earth’s atmosphere. As more water vapor evaporates, the greenhouse effect is

38

magnified because of the rising concentration of water vapor, which is a greenhouse gas. Yet, there are a few holes in this logic. One of them is that water vapor only stays in the atmosphere for 9 days after its release. As such, it is not excessively contributing to rising temperatures. More importantly, water vapor has been around for a couple billion years, but Earth has never experienced warming to this degree before. But there are other non-human factors that need to be taken into account.

Another contributing factor

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

is the releasing of the greenhouse gas methane caused by animal, specifically sheep and cow, flatulence. This is one of the most intriguing explanations to global warming. And it is actually true.

New Zealand has an immensely high concentration of nitrogen in the atmosphere above, primarily because of methane emissions from the large populations of sheep below. The one hole in this theory is the same as that in the water vapor one; sheep and cows have been around for a while, and haven’t caused global warming until now. But recently, there has been increased livestock population to feed a larger world population and to provide animal byproducts.

So, domesticated animals are definitely a relatively important factor, so blame for global warming could be placed on the countries with the biggest livestock herds.

However, methane emissions (in part from animal flatulence) account for only 8 percent of greenhouse gas emissions despite the fact that cattle and sheep, the most flatulent animals, are bounteous in the world. Brazil has about 200 million heads of cattle. China has over 146 million sheep. India has about 177 million cows, as one would expect of a country that reveres them, and 64 million sheep. Moreover, the majority of methane emissions come from decomposing garbage in landfills. So animal breeders should not be blamed.

Many like to propose that global warming is simply inevitable due to the cyclical nature of the Earth’s temperature and weather. They say that the Earth

Features goes though cycles of heat and cool, and that that’s how Earth got its Ice Ages and how Earth gets its global warming. This is inaccurate. Earth’s temperature has been rising exponentially recently due to human carbon emissions and does not seem inclined to start going down anytime soon.

A highly controversial theory is that oil companies are attempting to make global warming irreversible so that people will not switch to alternative en-

ergy sources. Gas emissions contribute a lot of carbon emissions to the United Nations’ carbon emissions statistics, and the oil companies, many of which have little or no environmental or alternate energy divisions, would lose a lot of money should the world mobilize to stop global warming. As such, they are exerting their influence (which is considerable – they control the current energy market) to stop global warming mitigation attempts and stay in business even

at the cost of the chaos that is increasingly resulting from global warming.

In the end, the truth is that everyone causes global warming in some little way. Even lighting a candle adds to carbon emissions. We will never find someone to blame for this problem because all countries and people are equally culpable. We just need to get together and fix the planet ourselves. If we don’t, well, our planet is going down a dangerous path.

“Many like to propose that global warming is simply inevitable due to the cyclical nature of the Earth’s temperature and weather. They say that the Earth goes though cycles of heat and cool, and that that’s how Earth got its Ice Ages and how Earth gets its global warming. This is inaccurate. Earth’s temperature has been rising exponentially recently due to human carbon emissions and does not seem inclined to start going down anytime soon.”

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

39

Features

Riding the Winds of Change The Carbon Tax

By Jenna Barancik

I

n these trying financial times, the government’s first priority must be to make sure not to harm the economy and hopefully to fix it. However, when something as potentially dangerous as climate change confronts us, how do we reconcile the government’s economic responsibilities with the need to use renewable energy sources to combat climate change? Green energy subsidies are costly and seldom effective, yet the United States is in a race with other nations to produce technology for clean energy. Having to buy technology from other nations will counter US energy independence, while selling technology to other nations will boost the economy.

Additionally, renewable energy sources could sustain US energy independence while offsetting pollution. Recently, some Republicans stated their open-

40

ness to one solution for combating the immense cost and inefficiency of green energy. The solution makes renewable energy sources more competitive without betting taxpayer dollars on specific companies through green energy subsidies. It allows the free market to drive the research and development of new technology. It even reduces green house gas emissions and has the potential to reduce the deficit. The solution is the evercontroversial carbon tax.

There has never been a nationally implemented carbon tax, although the idea dates back to the 1980s. However, regions of Colorado, California and Maryland have implemented carbon taxes in the past decade. Today, many environmental groups and some conservative groups support a carbon tax.

Lately in Washington, the loom-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

ing fiscal cliff coupled with failure at bipartisan cooperation has forced issues like climate change onto the back burner and long out of the spotlight. However, luckily, a carbon tax could have bipartisan appeal. Republicans could be pleased that no government spending is required, which neatly coincides with Republican ideology. Additionally, with the recent Republican rejection of the Taxpayer Protection Pledge, any carbon tax that would be passed would reduce the deficit, fulfilling a Republican and Democratic goal. Democrats would further wish to support a carbon tax because it would help grow the US cleanenergy industry, which they desire to buttress. Therefore, hopefully, members of Congress can reach across the aisle and start effectively tackling climate change.

Features

Nonetheless, passing a carbon tax will not be easy. Republicans would instate a carbon tax in place of higher income tax rates. Therefore, Congress would not increase taxes on Americans.

While lower income tax rates could stimulate the economy, the Congressional Budget Office, according to the National Journal, estimates that placing a tax on carbon without reducing other taxes could actually reduce the federal deficit by ten to fifty percent. Also, a carbon tax would affect low-income families most if the government does not allocate rev-

energy. Given that dirty energy is cheaper, how do we make renewable energy more competitive without subsidies?

We can put a price on polluting our environment by taxing carbon emissions. Making dirty energy more expensive will automatically make renewables more desirable to consumers. Lessening the disparity in price between dirty and clean energy will incline Americans to choose more responsible forms of energy. Not only will this benefit renewables, but also it will decisively protect the environment by limiting green house gas

subsidy, that company can artificially lower the price of their product. However, with a carbon tax, companies will have to compete without government interference; this will force them to find the technologies that are the most economical for the consumer. Through this process, the renewable energy industry can become self-sufficient.

Doing nothing will hurt the green energy industry and, much more critically, our planet’s environment. However, granting subsidies is doing too much and not the way to select

“Making dirty energy more expensive will automatically make renewables more desirable to consumers. Lessening the disparity in price between dirty and clean energy will incline Americans to choose more responsible forms of energy. Not only will this benefit renewables, but also it will decisively protect the environment by limiting green house gas emissions.”

enues from the tax to counter the effects on low-income families. All these issues demand Washington’s serious attention, but a carbon tax is still the best way to confront climate change today.

We cannot sweep climate change under the rug. However, government subsidies, our previous solution for creating new technology and increasing the use of renewable energy sources, have several drawbacks. Firstly, green initiatives stimulus is costly; Brookings, the Washington, D.C. based think tank, estimates one hundred-fifty billion dollars in expenses from 2009 to 2014.

Secondly, they are risky. When subsidizing a company, the federal government bets taxpayer dollars on that company’s succeeding and thereby adding revenue to the economy. However, as seen with the Solyndra fiasco, these investments do not yield the desired effect. After receiving a $535 million U.S. Energy Department loan guarantee, Solyndra went bankrupt. Rather than Americans benefitting from the investment through job creation and tax revenues, taxpayers suffered a 70% loss.

The free market is much better than the government at selecting economical, and therefore viable, sources of

emissions.

Without subsidies, green energy companies will have to compete with each other to stay in business. This will encourage green energy companies to develop innovative and cost-effective technologies. Under the current system, when a company receives a government

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

the most viable forms of green energy. A carbon tax lies somewhere in the middle; it does not require more money to put in place, nor does it let carbon emissions run rampant. If a carbon tax fails, it can be removed. By contrast, the US will never get back the money profusely given to companies like Solyndra.

41

Features

http://thebreakthrough.org/

NOT OUR PROBLEM T

o all the climate change activists out there: give up. There is a far better use of time. Read a book, paint your nails, or take an economics course. Mitigating climate change is a useless effort because government interference will only hurt individuals economically. In the end, it will be ineffective.

Past systems of trying to lower carbon footprints have failed and horribly damaged the American economy. For example, the United States government has embarrassed itself with poorly thought out attempts at making Cap and Trade work.

Cap and trade is a system, usually put into order on a national level, to lower the collective carbon emissions of corporations, thus mitigating the effects of climate change which are suggested to be greatly caused by the release of green house gases. The system of Cap and Trade works so that corporations have a limited amount of green house gases that they can release. They have to work at a lower level and inefficiently. But, that’s okay, because now it’s a nicer, greener world, right? Wrong, actually. Other nations like China do not have any of these rules and regulations, so all of a sudden the companies pack their bags up and outsource to China or India or another competitor of the USA. It is cheaper; they do not have to worry about being green, and honestly nobody can blame them. America

42

By Miranda Bannister

is a capitalist country, and that principle will follow them every step of the journey to China.

Looking at Europe, which regularly uses the Cap and Trade system, it becomes clear that green house gas emissions did not go down. They went up by 1.9% between 2005 and 2007. So in reality the world continues to produce the same amount or more of harmful green house gases as before, except that United State’s unemployment numbers continue to skyrocket.

Governments giving out large subsidies to green energy companies is also just as pointless. China, the number one polluter in the world, decided that they would invest $18 billion into green energy companies, according to the New York Times.

The Chinese green energy market expanded substantially, but the price of green energy, such as solar, remained four times as expensive as coal. Therefore there was no demand for this huge market to fulfill.

These Chinese companies went into price wars, and most of them are on the verge of collapse. Although China still remains the number one polluter, these companies did not succeed. No environmental difference was made, and thousands of Chinese citizens will lose their jobs that the government paid for with ridiculous subsidies.

Agriculture, along with deforesta-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

tion accounts for 18% of the global green house gas emissions, according to the Deutsche Bank Research reports of 2011.

There is no way that substantial emission reductions would be made through agriculture, because the only suggested methods are ridiculous. The number one suggestion for minimizing agriculturally produced green house gases is revolutionizing the way people consume food. The vast majority of people would have to go vegan, because the majority of crop yields that are harmful in escalating climate change are actually fed to animals. 13 pounds of grain must be fed to produce one pound of edible meat. Therefore, in order to reduce the amount of agricultural byproducts the entire meat industry would have to decrease substantially. Meat production is a growing industry because as the standard of life improves globally, more people have access to meat on a regular basis. Since the meat industry holds up the grain industry, and accounts for over 20% of it, and the grain industry is expected to expand with a 15% increase, it would have incredibly negative effects on the USA’s economy, and the world economy. If this impossible feat of making humanity go vegan were to occur, the meat and even grain industries would collapse, and countless jobs across the USA and the globe would be lost.

Taking a step forward, the future

Features

It is best to allow the free market to correct the effects of climate change.

http://netizennewsbrief.blogspot.com

costs of mitigating climate change are just as bleak. The only way for collective, concise action to be taken would be if governments took the action. Governments have proven that they are clearly not up to the task, with their attempts at Cap and Trade in Europe and America, and China’s venture into green energy. With that said, in order to mitigate climate change, setting aside for the moment this newly earned knowledge of governments’ incompetence, understand that collectively, economic models have shown that this would take 2 to 5% of the world GDP. That is 1.4 to 3.5 trillion dollars that would be wasted on trying to mitigate a miniscule temperature change, estimated at a mere 2 degree Celsius temperature change.

Developed countries, not including China, would have to put in a far higher percentage of their individual GDPs. Developing nations would not have the ability to contribute. Developed nations would be spending so much money, in ways that have

been proven ineffective, in overly expensive green energy that no sane capitalist would buy. Despite the negative effects this would have on developed countries, one might suggest that helping these developing nations by pitching in is the morally sound thing to do. Actually, more harm would be done then help. The USA would damage oil and gas production relations by trying to minimize America’s fuel imports. According to PetroStrategies Inc., 7 out of the top 10 oil producers are in developing nations.

Mind that this oil produced by developing nations is not being guzzled by them, but by developed nations such as the USA, the world’s number one oil consumer. Efforts to stop uses of oil and gas would so damage the fragile economies of other nations as well as the USA’s that it would be completely immoral to fight this inefficient war on climate change.

As opposed to taking steps backwards into poverty, it is best to allow the free market to correct the effects of cli-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

http://www.flickr.com/photos/heatingoil/4285807678/lightbox/

mate change. If governments change the way corporations are made and work then things fall apart. Cap and trade, and the Chinese subsidies’ failure prove this. It has to occur naturally through normal growth in green energy industries. It is also very important in the future to understand how people can grow to fit any changes.

Housing and industry development can be shaped to fit a changing world, in understanding of where and how growth should be conducted. This is not costly, and will help instead of harm people economically and environmentally.

The net loss to all nations for the standard of human life, brought about by wealthier nations giving up being involved in trade and productive economies, far outweighs any of the minor, slow changes in mitigating climate change. Indeed any economist would look at this situation, laugh, and think people were joking about attempting the crazy plans to mitigate climate change.

43

Economics

IS THE IMPORTANCE OF SMALL BUSINESSES UNDERRATED?

By Robert Hefter

H

ow are small businesses important to our national economy?

The Small Business Association (SBA) defines a small business as one that is independently owned and operated, is organized for profit, and is not dominant in its field. Depending on the type of business, the maximum number of employees varies. For example, in manufacturing, the maximum may range from 500-1500 workers and in wholesaling, 100-500. Generally speaking, a small business can be defined as having fewer than 500 employees. By looking at the numbers in the U.S. today, there are approximately 27.5 million small businesses, which greatly outnumbers the amount of large businesses in the country.

Some people may assume that big business dominates the private market and that employment is driven by big businesses, such as Wal-Mart and Apple. This common assumption is challenged by the underlying facts relating to private employment in the United States. Small firms represent 99.7% of all employer firms as well as employ half of all private sector employees. Also, small businesses pay 44% of the total U.S. private payroll. Approximately 52% of workers are employed by small businesses.

A significant factor driving unemploy-

44

ment in the last recession and the slow recovery has been a decline in hiring. There is evidence that small businesses create more net jobs than companies defined as “big.”

Given the importance of small businesses to the national economy and to jobs in the United States, a major question is whether current U.S. policies are helpful or harmful to small businesses and the effect on the economy as a result. Small businesses are generally comprised of entrepreneurs who want to grow their businesses. In order for a small business to hire additional employees at the margin, it must be profitable to do so. That means a businessperson will look at the entire business atmosphere before he or she will hire more employees or grow a business. Many types of government policies will factor into job creation at small businesses. For example, Barack Obama passed the Recovery Act, which aimed to provide tax cuts and create more jobs for people, though this act proved unsuccessful. Last year, the United States continued to decline in terms of the amount of regulations imposed on the private sector.

Today, in the United States, there is a debate on the appropriate level of tax, environmental, energy and financial regulation on business of all sizes. Many of those regulations have a disproportionate impact on small businesses as compared to big business. Also, the uncertainty of the extent to which the current administration will seek to expand the regulatory environment, if at all, will have an impact on the outlook for small businesses. For example, many small business owners are concerned with

the loss of the full deduction of employee healthcare costs under the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) once a company hires its 26th employee. The Obama administration also practices crony capitalism, which means that the government chooses which companies succeed in the market based on close friendships and familial relations.

This provides an unjust advantage for large corporations over small businesses.

Small businesses are, in fact, vital to our recovering economy. Entrepreneurs are this nation’s backbone and lead the country in innovation; in fact, they have produced 13-14 times the amount of patents that a large patenting firm does. Americans do not realize the importance of small business in our struggling economy and how investing in small business is beneficial to the country.

However, we must recognize that there are aspects of large business that are somewhat beneficial to this growing economy as well. For example, large companies can supply goods and services to a greater number of people, they often can sell their products at lower prices because of the large volume and small costs per unit sold, and they frequently operate more efficiently than small businesses. People are attracted to the wellknown brand name, thinking that the quality is better, and thus, large businesses attract more customers.

All economic policies should be analyzed to determine their ultimate impact on small businesses and job growth. Small businesses are essential to adding jobs to a recovery that many people argue is anemic.

Changes in Small Business per Capita; 1999-2009

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Economics

CAP AND TRADE: THE INVERSE EFFECT

By Ryota Ikeda

A

s of now, cap-and-trade is one of the most popular yet extremely unsuccessful methods of reducing carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn helps counteract global warming. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines Cap and Trade as “an environmental policy tool that delivers results with a mandatory cap on emissions while providing sources flexibility in how they comply. Successful cap and trade programs reward innovation, efficiency, and early action and provide strict environmental accountability without inhibiting economic growth.” Essentially, the government would limit the amount of CO2 that companies can emit annually, by releasing allowances that let you release a specific amount of CO2 per ticket. Companies that do not use all their permits can sell theirs to companies that need more. This system is designed to reward companies who use more innovative and green methods. If a company does not comply with the system, they are automatically sent a significant penalty by the government. Although idealistically the theory of issuing permits limiting carbon emission and allowing companies to trade permits sounds foolproof, there are many flaws with the system. For example, theoretically companies will just buy permits, since it is cheaper than converting their entire company to become greener. Cap and Trade is also extremely damaging to the average consumer as well.

While it is true that companies that do not

change technologically will have to pay extra expenses, companies will simply cover those expenses by raising prices on their commodity. The Institute for Energy research has projected that if implemented, “the cost of gasoline [will increase] by anywhere from 60 percent to 144 percent and increase the cost of electricity by 77 to 129 percent,” while four million Americans would also lose their jobs. The organization continues to say that since being enacted within Europe in 2005, the system failed and overall emissions actually increased by 1.9% during the first phase from 2005 to 2007. Cap and trade is not the way to go. Popular does not mean good. Not only does it not decrease emissions, which is what the entire system was designed for, but it takes away millions of jobs and skyrockets energy prices.

Obviously, there is an issue with the system at hand. Even though cap and trade is considered to be the method with the most promise as of yet, given the data, it is clearly a bad idea to implement this fully into the United States. Unfortunately, climate change is a complex issue with many problems. If there were a clear-cut solution, undoubtedly most countries would be using it right now. However, there must be a better solution than cap and trade. The fact that emissions actually rose, while energy prices rose and jobs were lost is a minus all around. There are many proposed ideas floating around right now, some more unconventional than others, some more real-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

istic. For example, Klaus Lackner and his fellow researchers at Columbia University have designed synthetic trees, which take in carbon dioxide at a rate that is 1000 times more efficient than a conventional tree. This research is still rather new, but they predict they could reduce the amount of CO2 in the air by 12%. Another method that has been used internationally is called carbon capture and storage. This method is interesting because it has potential for oil drilling companies to actually help reduce the amount of carbon dioxide, while benefitting themselves at the same time. Judi Greenwald, the vice president for technology and innovation at the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions explains how drilling companies would pump the CO2 deep underground, where it would act as a solvent to assist in extracting oil from deposits. Once the gas is underground, most of it would remain trapped and kept away from the atmosphere. There are many theories right now that could possibly work. Although many are extremely new, the synthetic tree idea proposed just last year and the Carbon Capture and Storage plan submitted this very year can both be very effective in dealing with the growing problem of CO2 emissions. The fact of the matter is that Cap and Trade, which has been attempted for decades and has shown little progress, must be replaced immediately before even more damage is done.

45

Economics

www.namingandtreatment.com

Breaching O the System The Consequences of a Consumerist Culture

By Caroline Kuritzkes and Jenny Heon

46

n November 23, 2012, 226 million individuals flooded stores across the United States, participating in what Americans have come to know as Black Friday. After a day of claiming thanks for family, friends, and education, Americans devote Black Friday to shopping, spending an average of $398 nationwide and extending gratitude for the buying that accompanies the onset of the holiday season. Yet this occasion of mass spending epitomizes the value Americans place on consumerism, signifying that wealth, materialism, and large-scale consumption are ideals so glorified that Black Friday is essentially a national holiday. But is a consumerist culture something that Americans should be celebrating?

Many economists believe that consumerism stimulates the American economy - that as Americans buy consumer goods, money circulates in the market and ends up in the pockets of suppliers, who in turn spend money and propagate further economic growth. As a larger sector of the population procures capital, this wealth is then transferred to the U.S. government in the form of taxpayer money and invested in American manufacturing, infrastructure, and public institutions, so that the cycle repeats itself and the economy flourishes. But this consumerist theory is precisely in line with the capitalist economic system that the United States embodies; just as Americans compete in the free market for the acquisition of wealth, so they contest in the spending of their earnings. Whoever can buy the biggest car, the most lavish house, the most fashionable clothes, and the most novel technology is clearly the most comfortable and powerful, and perhaps the happiest. Enticed by advertising and glorified by the media, we desire and envy the brand-name shoes Kim Kardashian wears, the expensive furniture in Justin Timberlake’s living room, and the enormous pool in Kanye West’s backyard. We aspire to obtain these items for ourselves, so we feel as important as celebrities seem to be or as jubilant as the woman smiling in the Target advertisement. Though our relish of a particular item may wane over time, the consumer product stands as an emblem of wealth, status, and security; a prideful reminder that in the United States, the dominant superpower, Americans have the capacity to fight not only for their survival, but far beyond: for their comfort.

But even though consumerism may generate economic gains for the United States, it supports a capitalist system that propagates our prosperity at the expense of other nations’ economic well-being, especially in the developing world. By its very nature, a free market economy relies on participation from countries across the globe,

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

Economics promoting a system of winners and losers where the U.S. is destined to come out on top. Yet its very success as an economic power is what dictates its influence in institutions like the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and thus, in the global economy. As these organizations advance the spread of capitalism, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua, Guatemala, and Costa Rica enter agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA, submitting to free trade so that the IMF can pay off these countries’ colossal war debts. Ironically enough, these very war debts were inherited from dictators financially supported by the United States itself. Rather than bailing out developing countries from self incurred debt, the IMF is simply paying off money owed to the United States, lent in the first place in the support of dictatorial regimes during the 1970’s. This side of the bargain, therefore, is hardly a concession on the part of the IMF.

“The consumer product stands as an emblem of wealth, status, and security; a prideful reminder that in the United States, Americans have the capacity to fight not only for their survival; but far beyond: for their comfort.”

Latin American countries also rely on both the revenue generated from tariffs (levied on U.S. imports, particularly on agricultural products) and the protectionist economic strategy enabled by quotas, tariffs, price controls, and other trade barriers that promote local industry and agriculture.

The NAFTA and CAFTA agreements, however, in the pursuit of expanding free trade, eliminate the trade barriers that many Latin American countries so heavily depend upon, thus opening foreign markets to U.S. subsidized agricultural products that are so cheap they stamp out all competition from local Latin American farmers.

The U.S., with its consumerist culture and overabundance of food, emerges victorious from the capitalist system as it gains money from selling its excess agricultural crops to nations forced into the free trade market by the IMF. On the other hand, the developing world simply cannot compete; farmers

are driven to poverty and Latin American countries suffer economically. These free trade “agreements” are hardly bargains at all, but rather a vicious cycle: Latin American nations concede any prospects of economic success, the United States gains even more economic power and influence in the global economy, while the IMF continues to pander towards U.S. economic interests.

Although consumerism and the capitalist system it supports have positively affected the U.S. economy, they not only bear dire economic repercussions for the developing world, but also yield grim environmental consequences on a global scale.

From advertisements to parents and teachers, we constantly hear about the new recycling techniques that prevent pollution; the phrase “reduce, reuse, recycle” is practically second nature. But what happens to all the other trash that we idly hand over for people to take away? Most people do not take time to consider where exactly this “away” is. Each year, 195 million tons of trash disappears to what we know as dumps, but are now called “landfills,” a euphemism developed to sound more environmentally friendly. As these landfills grow from the massive buildup of our household and industrial trash, hazardous wastes form as the accumulated trash slowly decomposes into gas or waste water. This gas can be composed of harmful chemicals that can damage the environment, while the waste water (often referred to as leachate) contains hazardous chemicals that can travel great distances in the form of groundwater and eventually reach human civilization. Furthermore, heightened restrictions on where the landfills can be formed has created a dearth of available space for our trash. The EPA has restricted the building of landfills not only near civilization but also on faults,

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

wetlands, floodplains, and many other regions. If we continue to create so much waste and the EPA holds fast to its restrictions, we will eventually be downing in our own trash.

This situation seems pretty drastic, but there is a simple solution. In order to avoid the looming growth of our waste, we simply must stop creating so much of it.

This may seem idealistic, if not impossible; after all, we can’t just keep everything. But herein lies the root of the problem. We have too much trash because we are addicted to the materialism ingrained in our consumerist society. If we were to stop buying in excessive amounts, we would generate less trash and curb the unchecked proliferation of waste in our landfills. Instead of focusing on properly disposing of our trash through long, expensive processes like recycling, we should focus on the root of the problem the need to buy.

The simple action of buying on Black Friday fuels a capitalist system that destroys economies worldwide, generates severe environmental repercussions, and sustains a vicious cycle; a game that only economic superpowers, like the United States of America, have a chance of winning. It’s time that Americans realize the consequences their actions represent and understand that the destructive global effects of consumerism outweigh the prospects of further U.S. economic growth.

As Americans, we have a responsibility not only as U.S. inhabitants, but as global citizens. It is up to us to abandon the consumerist society: to relinquish our values placed on wealth, competition, and materialism that our parents and government have instilled within us, and to contemplate how our ideology affects people across the globe.

47

Economics

A Post-Industrial Era

By Lauren Futter

A

s I watched the Presidential debates in October, I was struck by the particular rhetoric used by President Obama. “You pointed at a coal plant and said, ‘this plant kills,’” chastised President Obama of Mitt Romney’s energy policy as governor. “With respect to something like coal, we have made the largest investments in Clean Coal Technology.” While this statement may appear to be President Obama bolstering his record, it also represents a defense of outdated Fordist economics.

Fordism originated in the early 1900’s as a means of describing the industries forming in the United States that utilized Henry Ford’s assembly line model.

In a Fordist economy, people man machines and work in assembly lines to make a product. This economic system was successful and prevalent for decades. Now, however, the United States is in a state of transition. It is no longer

48

the industrial economy it was fifty years ago but, rather it is transitioning to an economy in which students fresh from college gain specialized service jobs that are often information and communications based. In this brave new economy, people are expected to constantly be creative and think outside the box.

President Obama’s reference to the coal industry harkens back to an era of manufacturing superiority that no longer exists in the United States today.

The United States has to realize that it cannot compete with foreign countries’ increasing cheap labor supply.

Moreover, laws such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, which sets a minimum wage makes labor in other countries even cheaper by comparison and gives American employers a financial incentive to outsource labor. While these laws are beneficial to a productive and

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

humane society, they minimize the advantages the United States has in certain industries. As a result, the United States must continue to use the government to intervene in the economy to promote industries that would better serve the American people.

While the United States can no longer compete with other countries on the industrial front, it can compete in terms of creativity and ideas. For a society to advance, the economy needs to continually evolve. Currently, the United States has some of the best schools in the world and can educate students on how to act and behave in an evolving economic climate by encouraging them to “think outside the box.” However, the United States is still stuck with the mentality of keeping manufacturing jobs within its borders at all costs. Yes, for a strong domestic economy, a coun-

Economics

“The United States must continue to use the government to intervene in the economy to promote industries that would better serve the American people.”

United States Manu-FACT-uring: U.S. manufacturing yields 12.2 percent of the U.S. GDP, an annual value of $1.8 trillion.

try cannot wholly rely on other countries, but a country also cannot ignore those factors that give it its competitive advantage. Currently, the United States’ advantage lies in creative innovation, not manufacturing. No matter what restrictions the United States puts on outsourcing “American” jobs to foreign countries, the people who will be hurt are the consumers, the very ones that the government is trying to protect.

While this new economic system has the potential to positively influence the environment, social interactions, and industry, it has been met with resistance. This dissent stems from middle-American voters who currently hold jobs in the oil industry and other manufacturing jobs. The faction of middle American voters who argue that this new economy would put them out of work and would be harmful to the economy. While it is true that they would initially lose jobs in the oil and coal sector, these jobs would quickly be replaced by information, technology jobs, or jobs related to clean energy.

Similarly, some opponents of outsourcing have argued that it can prove equally detrimental because of protests by workers in countries such as China and India, which have repeatedly stalled production of goods. These protests stem from feelings of unfair labor standards. The existence of unfair labor standards is the result of a false belief that even with poor factory standards,

workers can continue to increase productivity and maintain a high output of goods. If the United States invests in increasing the standard of living in manufacturing countries, the United States will see a net increase in productivity.

According to the Economic Policy Institute, this investment would also yield many other intangible benefits such as cleaner air and water further helping the economy.

Ironically, even the example of “clean coal” that President Obama chose to use is outmoded. “Clean coal” is a fallacy.

The concept of clean coal contemplates the use of technology that seeks to purify coal, but this has been proven to be impossible. Coal by its very nature is a dirty business. President Obama’s references to clean coal were plainly a means of gaining key votes swing states. However, this has led the national conversation in a dangerous direction. The U.S. government, as a whole, needs to decide what its national identity will be going forward. The U.S. and other states defined the 20th century as one of progress and innovation through industrializing. How the world defines the 21st century is completely open, but if we continue to live in an industrial past we will ignore a brighter and better future.

The U.S. is no longer the industrial nation it once considered itself to be.

Now, in the postindustrial economy, the U.S. needs to redefine itself as a global player.

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

9% of the workforce - 12 million Americans - are employed in manufacturing.

As the world’s largest manufacturing economy, the U.S. supplies

18.2%

of

global

manufacturing products.

On average, U.S. manfacturing workers earn $77,060 each year (taking benefits into account).

www.nam.org

49

Economics

MANIPULATED The Implications of China’s Currency Tampering

I

n light of the recent Presidential Election, the Chinese currency manipulation has been exposed and brought into view for many Americans as a source of some of our economic complications. Over the past decade, China has been keeping its currency, the Yuan, artificially depressed against American dollar. Not only does China consistently deny the manipulation of their currency to cheat trading partners but also, claims that the management of their currency is to solely ensure the domestic stability of the Chinese economy. While the Chinese benefit from their own manipulation, its consequences are profoundly harmful in the United States.

The Chinese government devalues the Yuan against the US dollar by selling and printing immense amounts of its own currency and buying up foreign reserves of the U.S. dollar. The Yuan’s value is then held down to the dollar, a maneuver known as pegging, rather than freely streaming throughout foreign exchange markets. This, in turn, makes American exports more expensive and Chinese exports even cheaper.

The cheaper exports provide an unfair trading advantage, via enticing international buyers and producers while stifling competitors.

Last year, the U.S. trade deficit with China, exacerbated by their currency manipulation, extended to $295 billion or about 43% of the whole U.S. trade gap.

50

By Jacob Zurita The trade deficit has been growing rapidly throughout the past few years, in October of 2010 China exported $25 billion in goods to the United States but imported only $7 billion of American exports. Also in last year, a report released estimates our trade deficit with China is to blame for a loss of 2.8 million American jobs since 2001, which includes roughly 1.9 million manufacturing jobs. Addressing currency manipulation,

to innovative intellectual property. China’s artificial growth is also unsustainable and holds future consequences for the global economy. The United States and various other countries worry this high-speed inflation could spread across the world. Prices on necessary goods would rise, decreasing the ability for consumers to purchase them, as other countries’ economies are still falling behind. China’s economy could

The trade deficit has been growing rapidly throughout the past few years, in October of 2010 China exported $25 billion in goods to the United States but imported only $7 billion of American exports.

according to the Economic Policy Institute, could support the creation of 2.25 million American jobs.

Companies in China are able to take advantage of the cheap labor, currency manipulation, illegal subsidies and patent theft; these “normal” policies are the government’s formula to initiating explosive artificial growth. Massive Corporations, such as Apple, outsource jobs to China and share technological operations, which are then copied in another area with no respect

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

also burnout and go into a sharp economic decline, impeding itself and the ability of a full global recovery from today’s economic woes.

The Obama Administration has done little to halt and convince China its actions are unfair and in violation of the rules of the ITC. The administration’s weak attempt to pressure China in 2011 resulted in a slight increase in flexibility of the exchange rate. Yet since then, the Yuan has crawled but a few percentage points. Many economists

Economics http://www.freakingnews.com

estimate the Yuan is currently undervalued by about 40% and the academic study Law of Yuan Price: Estimating Equilibrium of the Renimibi conducted at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania by Joshua Klein Lipman found the Yuan to be undervalued by 37.5%. The extent to which the currency is depreciated undermines American manufacturing, exports, and our own job-creating efforts.

effectively deciding to not finance the U.S., interest rates would skyrocket and our ability to sell debt to other countries would become fearfully difficult. Many countries can not afford or are not interested in doing so. A glimpse at what happened to Greece echoes the worst possible consequences for the United States.

The Obama Administration must be firm with China, but not attempt to co-

important to note a trade war would also have a global impact as the world’s two largest economies slowly shut down. The unemployment rate in America could hit double digits while massive amounts of workers in China would lose their jobs. Exporters throughout China and the United States would take the brunt of a trade war, producing less than originally intended to and eventually reaching bankruptcy. Many

Last year, the U.S. trade deficit with China, exacerbated by their currency manipulation, extended to $295 billion or about 43% of the whole U.S. trade gap. The trade deficit has been growing rapidly throughout the past few years, in October of 2010 China exported $25 billion in goods to the United States but imported only $7 billion of American exports.

The Obama Administration most likely has not acted on labeling China a currency manipulator and taken harsher measures to ensure China follows regulatory rules as proposed by Mitt Romney due to the our dependency on China. China’s central bank, the People’s Bank of China, is the largest independent holder of American Public debt; holding 26% of foreign held securities or over 1.1 trillion dollars. If China or other major debt holders stopped purchasing our debt in bonds the United States,

erce the government into changing their policies. Another possible consequence of acting too harshly with China is a trade war, which could create a ripple in our economy as China imports many of our common everyday items. The average spending per household in the United States could hit a severe low. However, we do have some power and influence over China, as a fullblown trade war would be absolutely devastating to both sides. Neither country wants a trade war, allowing for negotiations. It is

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

industries dependent on flourishing trade would become lethargic, such as the freight industry.

Since countries and people have voluntarily traded with each other throughout history it has been mutually beneficial for both. Currently the United States is at a disadvantage and needs to construct a defined trade policy, intolerable of cheating rather than allowing foreign countries to have a free ride. An effective policy will reduce our trade deficit and create jobs.

51

AN IMPRACTICAL

Science and Technology

UTOPIA LENN UCHIMA

E

arlier this fall the government of Incheon city, South Korea announced plans for the construction of a new gambling, leisure, and entertainment park. The project has an unprecedented magnitude with estimated costs of building now reaching over 317 trillion won, or $288 billion US dollars, which is more than the entire GDP of Singapore.

The park, dubbed 8city, will be built on top of the two islands Yongyu-Muui off the coast of Incheon and near Incheon International Airport. The intention is to capitalize on the rapidly growing market of Chinese tourists and to breathe new life into South Korea’s slowing economy. Accord-

52

ing to an Incheon official, “350,000 people will reside in 8City. It will attract about 134 million tourists annually, providing jobs for over 930,000.” Yet this assumes, however, that building such a city is beneficial, or even feasible, for the country. The sheer scale of the entire project has already created skeptics among local analysts, and for good reason.

Early conceptual art depicts the city as a visually stunning, futuristic metropolis shaped into a figure 8, hence its name. The plans itself are just as grandiose, including casinos, hotels, shopping malls, theme parks, ski slopes, health towns, concert halls, a marina, a Formula One race-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

track, and most notably the MegaStrip, which will be the largest single architectural unit in the world at a full 200 meters high, 880 meters wide, and 3.3 kilometers long. In total, 8city will span 80 square kilometers, three times the size of Macau, another gambling and tourism based city that overtook the Las Vegas Strip in gaming revenues in 2007. The massive project is expected to take 20 years and will not finish in until 2030.

Nevertheless, Incheon will begin the first phase of development for 8city in the first half of 2013 by purchasing the necessary land from its owners, much of which is actually submerged in the sea. Through

Science and Technology ties such as theme parks, hotels, and convention centers. The construction of urban infrastructure is scheduled to take place from 2021 to 2030, at which point 8city will be completed. Kempinski Group, the international luxury hotel chain overseeing the project, has pledged to raise 3.8 trillion Won (about $3.5 billion) in order to implement the first stage. In addition, Incheon has signed a contract with Korea Investment and Securities to raise billions of dollars in funds for construction over the next two decades.

Yet several problems regarding these plans are already cropping up on the horizon. As

news.com.au news.com.au

the construction of 8city will rely completely on foreign and domestic investors for funds, whether or not there is going to be a sufficient amount of demand for the city’s non-gaming components to attract these investors is a major concern. Macau, located in China and just west of Hong Kong, received over 28 million tourists from mainland China last year, yet its non-gaming revenue is but a mere 11% of its total revenue, clearly displaying consumer preferences. This throws the future profitability of all of 8city, where non-gaming attractions will be a major component of its commodities, into question, as it is also aimed towards Chinese tourists. Such doubts could seriously hinder fundraising for 8city, especially amid a gradually slowing world market. South Korea itself reached 2.75 trillion US dollars in debt this summer and its economy grew only 0.2% during the July to September quarter, the slowest rate in nearly three years as the Eurozone economic crisis hurt investment activity.

Moreover, if and when 8city is completed, it intends to make the majority of its profits specifically from high spending Chinese tourists; in fact, the ‘8’ in 8city is considered a lucky number in China.

Indeed it seems to be a foolproof plan, as Chinese tourism is well on its way to becoming the biggest in the entire world, and statistically is also the highest spending of all. It is thanks to this that Macau has just had a record-breaking month in October, making 3.5 billion US dollars off casino revenues alone. South Korea intends to ride this success wave with 8city, but by the year 2030, things might not work out so well for one reason in particular. The problem lies in the fact that the wealthier “high roller” tourists from China are now spending increasingly less at casinos and gambling resorts in response to a weakening economy. MGM Resorts International and Caesars Entertainment Corp., two of the biggest gaming companies in the world, have posted losses in shares of 4% and 1.2% respectively.

Furthermore, the recently instated new leadership in China under the Chinese Communist Party seeks to exacerbate this decline through several new reform policies. Efforts to combat corruption look to be especially detrimental to the likes of 8city, which rely on how much money their visitors are able to bring and spend. China limits how much of its Yuan currency a citizen is allowed to take outside of its borders, the current amount being equivalent to fifty-thousand US dollars. The fact of the matter is that gamblers for years have had illegal methods of circumventing such regulations, and it is on these tactics that many casinos like the ones in Macau have come to rely on. The new leadership has announced its intentions to better enforce the law. UnionPay, China’s payment pro-

news.com.au news.com.au

cessing system, has lowered the daily transaction limit from 5 million Yuan ($801,000) to 1 million Yuan ($160,000). Restrictions on travelling permits needed by travelers may also be established.

Regardless, Incheon, and indeed the whole nation, appears to be commit-

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

8citysouthkorea.com

ted to guiding 8city to success. Plans to make the visa process for Chinese tourists entering South Korea faster and more convenient are starting to be implemented.

A Presidential Council on National Competitiveness has also stated its intentions to purge cheap, low quality tour programs for Chinese visitors and to expand no-visa entry for Chinese transiting through the country. All in order, it seems, to set the proper stage for the day 8city bears its fruit.

Yet even before any of this, South Korea absolutely must be certain of 8city’s true potential, or the lack thereof. Designers will have to focus only on the amenities guaranteed to succeed, and leave out of the plan those that are not, and when considering the new policies against corruption and gambling, it may be wisest to scale back gaming a great deal. By turning 8city into a resort predominately for entertainment rather than one like Macau would both increase its economic stability in a world that generally looks down on gambling and cut some of the total costs. 8city also looks to be too dependent on Chinese tourism as well, and will most likely do best expanding its targets to as many as possible including locals, whom are, as of now, now to be allowed access to the various facilities. Doing so may pique the interest of more foreign investors as well.

All in all, 8city on the surface appears to be a great, monumental undertaking of the likes many will remember for generations to come. The immense scale and spectacular design seems like the epitome of the “build it and they will come” mentality. Upon closer inspection, however, the truth is much more tenuous, and one cannot help recalling the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building in the world, currently suffering a less than glorious fate. With $288 billion dollars riding on the success of this enormous undertaking, should 8city fail, South Korea will not emerge unscathed.

53

physicsism.blogspot.com

Domesticand Technology Science

A QUANTUM BREAKTHROUGH ELIZABETH XIONG

54

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

T

he government should cut spending on scientific research in particle physics and space programs, instead investing it in quantum computers. Research in quantum computers has reached the stage in which a significant breakthrough is possible in the near future, and the U.S. is losing its competitive advantage. Finding a real application with current knowledge on quantum mechanics and particle physics is more appropriate than further advancement in our understanding of the universe.

This year Serge Haroche of France and David J. Wineland of the U.S. both received the Nobel Prize in Physics for their breakthrough research in the study of the elusive quantum particle, a branch of science made up mostly of abstract theory.

Haroche and Wineland managed to independently find two separate ways of observing quantum particles, which are mutable in nature and lose their original qualities upon observation. Quantum mechanics is characterized by the quirky behavior of atomic and subatomic particles that make up the world at microscopic levels. They can run contrary to intuition and logic, as demonstrated by the principle of superposition, the fact that a quantum particle can exist at two energy states simultaneously.

Haroche’s and Wineland’s research is only thelatest of many discoveries in quantum computing. Today’s computers are based on the binary system of 1’s and 0’s, indicated by electrical charges. Quantum computers, however, rely on qubits, rather than bits, that can have the value of, according to the superposition property, 1 and 0 at the same time.

What does this mean? Quantum computers would then have the ability to parallel process, perform millions of computations simultaneously, instead of sequentially as with the current computer. The speed of today’s computers are measured in gigaflops (with the average computer ranging anywhere from one to a hundred gigaflops), but a 30-qubit quantum computer would run at 10 teraflops (with one teraflop a thousand times as fast as a gigaflop), as much as a thousandfold faster. Computers harnessing the power of quantum particles would be exponentially more powerful than today’s computers. A 250-qubit could contain more bits of information than atoms in the universe,

Quantum computing is on the

Domestic Science and Technology cusp of a significant breakthrough that could revolutionize computers in the same way computers have revolutionized society since their invention. However, the government must play a role in assisting research.

At this point, quantum computing is still a relatively new theory, formed in 1982.

Because constructing quantum computers is such a large-scale program, the government should aid the exploration until the

Quantum computing is on the cusp of a significant breakthrough that could revolutionize computers progress made becomes substantial enough for private investors to take over.

There are several advantages for the government to invest in quantum computers. Above all, quantum computers hold the key to the future with their unlimited potential. Within the thirty years the theory has been researched, the quantum computer has progressed in leaps and bounds.

The newest model, D-Wave, is a quantum computer that can solve sudokus and other puzzles, demonstrating that quantum mechanics can be applied to real world computer science. Despite the breakneck progress in quantum computer theory, a practical use for quantum computers has yet to be found. Projected practical uses for quantum computers include factoring large, thousand-digit numbers, factoring being the basis for modern cryptography.

“Other potential applications for quantum computing,” according to IBM, “may include searching databases of unstructured information, performing a range of optimization tasks and solving previously unsolvable mathematical problems.” By investing in quantum computers, the federal government can assist the research even further.

Federal support in technological innovation has happened in the past, with the formation of the Internet. Although there has been dispute over the true origin of the Internet, computer scientists such as Vint Cerf, considered one of “the fathers of the Internet,” agree that the “United States via ARPA started the project.” Then, in 1995, Internet was privatized and began to flourish. From there, it progressed into the

The Horace Mann Review | Vol. XXII

omnipotent and widespread tool it is today.

But in the end, the government’s huge investment of time and money into the Internet was the key factor that triggered the project, and in the same way government should devote part of its budget to quantum computers. With the aid of the government, scientists can perform extensive research on quantum computers, eventually reaching a breakthrough point where private investors will feel confident in supporting research as well.

Investment is necessary now to maintain the U.S.’s competitive edge in science and technology internationally. The U.S. has always been a key player in innovation in technology, but by not investing in quantum computers, it may be losing its spot. As of now, Australia is the leading country in quantum computers, with Australian scientists making significant advances. Furthermore, this development in quantum computers began with the investment the Australian government began making in the 1980s in such computers.

The funds for investment in quantum computers should come from cuts made to the government’s budget on research in particle physics and NASA. As of now, over $1.4 billion is spent on particle physics alone, mostly in abstract theory such as the form of matter after the Big Bang, quarks, and the Large Hadron Collider. In the 20th century, it made sense to devote so much effort towards particle physics and our theoretical understanding of the universe because nothing was known. But now that we have discovered enough to apply the theory of particle physics to the real world, research on quantum computers would be a more pertinent way to allocate spending.

Additionally, NASA is another program for which the government could cut spending to fund quantum computer exploration. The fiscal year request for NASA for 2012 is $18.7 billion, and yet significant advancement in space is nonexistent, except for the Kepler telescope. Billions are poured into the space station each year, and yet there is no new substantial information coming from it.

In conclusion, the federal government should invest in quantum computers because of the power in quantum particles and to maintain competitiveness internationally in technology, while cutting funds for NASA and particle physics research to afford the investment.

55

THE REVIEW STAFF MOURNS THE LOSS OF THE 20 CHILDREN AND 7 ADULTS KILLED IN THE NEWTOWN SCHOOL SHOOTING

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Components/Slideshows/_production/ss121412-newton-school-shooting/ss-121215-newtown-kc-06.jpg