Issue 4 - The Other Side

The

Horace Mann Review

The Other Side

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Horace Mann Review

The

A p r i l 2 0 0 8 : I s s u e I V, Vo l . X V I I

Global bal

the

about

How Eco-Activists have Lied to the World

Give Me My Trans Fats!

Science

3 Evolution of New York City: The changing public perceptions of New York over time

By Dan Temel

5

11

By Brenton Arnaboldi

By Antonia Woodford

Give Guns a Shot

9

Global Warming:

How Eco-Activists have lied to the world

Posh Persona:

What public school students think of Horace Mann and private schools

By Kevin Lin

15

Saving our Stem Cells:

With exaggerated benefits and questionable morality, federal funding is a bad choice

By Aradhna Agarwal

19

By Dan Shapiro

24

Wiretapping is Patriotic

By Starlyte Harris

Democracy Dies: Why we need to stay in Iraq over the long term 25

13

Ethanol Scam:

Ethanol costs the nation’s environment, economy and farmers

By Nick Herzeca

Third Party, Not Third Place

By Will Dubbs

17

Pro-Life Paradox:

The motivations and rationale behind anti-abortion groups

By Jason Sunshine

21

By Spencer Penn

Issue 4- The other side

Letter From the Editor

Dear Reader,

The Horace Mann Review Volume XVII , Issue 4

A Journal of Opinion on Current Events, Politics, Public Policy, and Culture Kunal Malkani Editor-in-Chief

Lindsay Gellman Editorial Director

Tal Shachar Production Manager

Jake Sloane Managing Director

Rachel Siegel Copy Chief

Ted Sumers Photography Editor

Thomas Hwang Venkat Kausik Alice Kissilenko Zach Malter Ben Mishkin Senior Editor

Neal Poole Director of Technology Nick Gerard

Webmaster William Kim Production Assistant

Ben Jacobson Kimya Zahedi Senior Columnist

Charles Stam Anoushka Vaswani Chairpeople of the Board Associate Editors Aradhna Agarwal, Maya Chung, Will Dubbs, Katie Dubbs, Nancy DaSilva, Rumur Dowling, Starlyte Harris, Nick Herzeca, Henry Hoglund, Kevin Lin, Spencer Penn, Dan Shapiro, Jason Sunshine, Dan Temel, James Yaro Contributing Writers Nick Herzeca, Belle Yoeli, Eliza Harkins, Nancy DaSilva, Will Dubbs, Dan Temel, Rumur Dowling, Spencer Penn, Katie Dubbs, Jarett Bienenstock, Jason Sunshine, Victor Ladd, Sonja Perl, Aradhna Agarwal, Miguel Alonso-Lubell, Dan Shapiro, Justin Katiraei, James Yaro, Belle Yoeli Faculty Advisors Mr. Gregory Donadio TheReview@horacemann.org The Horace Mann Review is printed throughout the academic year.

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

Welcome to the fourth issue of The Review. Unlike our past issues, rather than focusing on a single topic, this issue is inspired by the idea of exploring “the other side.”

Speaking generally, Horace Mann, as an affluent private school in New York, seems to have a very defined political identity, in which most students share a politically outlook more liberal than the rest of the nation. This issue aims to examine opinions that at Horace Mann can often be dismissed out of hand without due consideration.

By challenging certain assumptions, we hope to spark thought on some of today’s fundamental political problems.

This issue features two articles that look at how others view us, as New Yorkers and as private school students. The issue opens with Dan Temel’s look on how New York’s image to the rest of the country and the world has changed over time. Kevin Lin looks at what public school students think of Horace Mann and private school education.

New York has recently enacted a ban on trans fats in the name of public health.

Antonia Woodford looks at whether such measures will improve the health of the nation or if they are simply a step on the road towards government severely restricting our freedom to choose. Starlyte Harris looks at the Bush administration’s wiretapping program and considers whether such measures are invalid infringements on civil liberties or necessary steps in a War on Terrorism. Dan Shapiro looks at whether state gun control laws help or hurt in combating gun crime— and concludes that right-tocarry laws in fact lead to safer communities with less violent crime. Will Dubbs looks at the significance that third parties play and the positions they hold, which he argues are more independent of political influence than mainstream parties.

The War in Iraq is one of the defining issues in the presidential election, only recently ceding the top spot in importance in light of the economic downturn. Spencer Penn draws on historical precedence to argue that the best strategy in Iraq is neither an immediate withdrawal nor a gradual drawdown, but rather a long-term campaign to defend the nascent democracy.

Two of the most polarizing issues in United States politics are abortion and stemcell research. Often, each side holds such a fundamental belief that the other side’s arguments are completely rejected, often in an emotional response. Jason Sunshine looks at the religious and secular rationale for the pro-life position and Aradhna Agarwal examines the scientific and moral criticisms of embryonic stem cell research.

Even where the major presidential candidates or politicians share the same position, many others may challenge their fundamental assumptions. Nick Herzeca looks behind the recent ethanol craze and concludes that ethanol makes little environmental or economic sense. Global warming is believed by many to be an indisputable fact.

Al Gore compared those who question global warming to those who still believe the world is flat. However, many scientists continue to question the fundamental basis behind many of the policy proposals touted by politicians. Brenton Arnaboldi looks at the various scientific arguments for why global warming is not a product of human emissions and is not a problem.

We hope you enjoy the issue. As always, please contact us with comments, questions, or responses to any of the articles.

Sincerely,

Interested in subscribing? The Editorial Board is pleased to offer mailed subscriptions this volume. Email us at TheReview@horacemann.org for information. Thank you for your support.

© 2008, The Horace Mann Review

Kunal Malkani

Page 2

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

The Evolution of New York City

N

ew York’s exponential growth during the 19th and 20th centuries was a testament to immigrants’ trust that moving to the metropolis would result in a better life. Many immigrants and American citizens from the Heartland held New York City in the highest regard, believing it to be the commercial and social center of the United States, the first checkpoint on the road to success.

New York prospered following the First and Second World Wars; however, during the 1970s, the city became less relevant in the manufacturing and garment production industries, causing many residents to lose their jobs. With unemployment and crime rampant, the city teetered on financial instability. Mayor Abe Beame pled to the federal government for financial help to bail out America’s city, but his requests

“As the city transitioned into the last two decades of the 20th century, Wall Street experienced a rebirth, and urban culture in the outer boroughs flourished.” were rejected by President Gerald Ford in a highly publicized affair that altered the public perception of the great metropolis.

Michigan-bred Ford failed to see why the federal government should bail out a struggling city losing its relevance in the national market, and his decision was lauded by fiscal conservatives around the nation.

The former home of high-class socialites such as Mrs. Brooke Astor had morphed into a city full of dive bars, peep shows, and an unmanageable number of homeless citizens. The nation’s conde-

Page 3

By Dan Temel scending view of the city was even present in the films of the day, as movies such as Taxi Driver and Death Wish characterized New York as a world filled with violence, corruption, sleaze, and sin, in stark contrast to the glamour and opulence of New York portrayed in earlier films. Once the center of New York nightlife and theater, Times Square had become one of the most dangerous areas of the city, the center of the city’s prostitution and gambling rackets, with over 2,300 crimes committed there per year. In the late 1970s, under the guidance of Felix Rohatyn, an investment banker from the Lazard Freres brokerage house, the city began to restructure debt and experience economic revitalization.

The summer of 1977 provided New Yorkers with the realization that the city was on a downward spiral to destruction, so politicians and citizens worked together to revitalize the city. As the city transitioned into the last two decades of the 20th century, Wall Street experienced a rebirth, and urban culture in the outer boroughs flourished. Crime dropped and homelessness declined under Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

However, racial tensions in lower class and working class neighborhoods brewed, as exemplified in the 1989 film Do the Right Thing, which portrayed the tensions between an Italian pizzeria owner and his mostly African-American customer base.

Irish and Italian New Yorkers feuded with African American and Hispanic citizens, while residents of working class neighborhoods actively campaigned against the gentrification of their homes. With shows such as Friends and Seinfeld glorifying upper middle class life in New York City, the nation began to accept the city as a reincarnation of its wealthier past. Tourism increased dramatically between 1984 and 1999, with the city receiving over 36.4 million visitors from both domestic and international locations in the final year of the

By Dan Temel

WiredImages

1970s

Taxi Driver

Motortrend

1980s

Do the Right Thing

Do The Right Thing Real Guide

Sex and the City

1990s

Issue 4- The other side

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 millennium. Over 15.6 billion dollars were spent by visitors in 1999, and consumer confidence was rising. Residents in the city felt safe again as police corruption was weeded out and crime was drastically reduced.

Popular culture in the late 1980s exposed the increasing gap between the affluent and the poor in New York City, as shown in Coming to America and Trading Places. Coming to America, starring Eddie Murphy, was one of the first major motion pictures to be primarily based in the outer boroughs of New York City, especially Queens and Brooklyn. Studio executives projected stereotypes of New Yorkers by including graffiti-ridden subway stations and cars, brash citizens that interfere in others’ conversations, and immigrants portrayed in a stereotypical light. Trading Places showed the state of homelessness and poverty for Vietnam War veterans. These portrayals furthered stereotypes about New York, and also exposed the somewhat stereotypical views of even liberal Hollywood executives.

The tragic events of September 11th, 2001 slowed the city’s international tourism market with a fifteen year low of 4.8 million international visitors in 2003. Downtown New York then began to rebuild, and New York City was back on track. Mayor Michael Bloomberg launched a series of initiatives that promoted consumer spending and prevention of environmental decay. European tourists returned once again, flocking to New York City boutiques and stores due to favor-

able exchange rates. New York City was once again the capital of industry and society in the United States, and was labeled the “safest big city in America.” Times Square was rehabilitated as the center of the thriving metropolis, with family-friendly corporations such as Disney placing flagship stores in the area.

While tourism rates certainly serve as a prime indicator of domestic and international opinions of New York City, not every citizen of the United States looks favorably upon the Big Apple. One particular case provided an outlet for dissent against New York City. The tragic death in a Phoenix airport of Carol Gotbaum, daughter-in-law of New York City Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum, launched a slew of hateful posts on the blogosphere. Mrs. Gotbaum’s death occurred under undetermined causes after being detained in an airport holding facility for raising her voice at an airport employee.

Responses from the blogosphere on the incident were more personal than expected, with some bloggers calling the ordeal a “Jewish media conspiracy” and “insurance fraud.”

One particularly opinionated blogger, under the alias of Moronhunter, railed against “stupid, pathetic, weenie [sic] New York liberals” for supporting the Gotbaum family in their crisis on a Village Voice comments page.

Other comments revealed the apparent stereotypes of New York liberals and showed a great distrust of the Jewish population of the city as well as the country. The sharp backlash to this controversy shows that there is

still resentment towards New York City and its liberal tendencies, backlash to the unbalanced distribution of wealth in the city.

Theories concerning the diminishing middle class in New York City took hold in the Heartland of America, with many citizens feeling little apathy for perceived “upper class” individuals. Television shows such as Gossip Girl and Sex and the City do little to dispel these notions, as characters are often perceived as “snobby and closed-minded.” These shows only highlight stereotypes of members of certain neighborhoods such as the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side. Characters such as Gossip Girl’s Blair Waldorf, with the quintessential New York surname, express their disdain for other neighborhoods in the city, claiming they are too dirty and seedy. For non-New Yorkers who have never visited these enclaves themselves, television instills them with a skewed perception of the city.

Popular television shows such as King of the Hill have shown characters with particularly strong anti-New York opinions. King of the Hill, created to be a satire of American thought and family life in Texas, features an episode where protagonist Hank Hill, an average Texas propane salesman, learns that he was born in New York City, thus soiling his ‘true Texan heritage’ and barring him from receiving a license plate denoting his birth in Texas. After finding out that Hank was born in New York, his friends mercilessly mock him, questioning his political views and stance on certain issues such as the economy and job placement. While this show is fictional, its satirical nature does give some insight into the fact that Americans from the Midwest and South often view New Yorkers as ‘liberal capitalists’ and criticize them for only looking out for their own interests.

Whether it is known for being the first capital of the nation, the home of socialites such as Mrs. Astor, or a gentrified ‘playground for the wealthy’, New York has always represented everything that is uniquely American, a mesh of cultures living in coexistence. Many Americans can trace their ancestry to the halls of Ellis Island, and have a sentimental spot in their heart for New York, best shown through the sympathetic response to the events of September 11th. However, negative opinions of New York will remain until the media portrays it more sympathetically and captures the diversity and complexity of the city.

Page 4

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

w

Recent bans on trans fats, encouraged by nutritionists who pioneered their widespread use, have been embraced by the media and the national government. But the Center for Consumer Freedom contends that the bans will not only be ineffective, but also compromise our right to eat what we want.

w in w. di ap la z a.c om

Give Me My

W

ith the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention classifying one third of U.S. adults as obese, health officials around the nation have spent the last few years sounding the alarm on what they consider a rampant “obesity epidemic.” Obesity is cited as a drain on the health care system and taxpayer dollars; some even link it to global warming, claiming that an extra billion gallons of gas per year are used to transport fat travelers that take up more space on airplanes and automobiles.

Rather than opting for an emphasis on physical exercise or increased health education, local officials in New York and around the nation have devised more drastic measures: prohibiting restaurants from serving food with unhealthy ingredients and requiring restaurants to display calorie counts for their dishes.

While some people are relieved that city leaders have stepped in to solve our dietary woes, others have reacted with outrage, especially at the notion that the government should serve as our paternalistic supervisor.

One of the most fervent critics of such restaurant legislation is the Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF), a nonprofit group of restaurants, consumers, and food corporations. The group counters that one’s health is a matter of personal responsibility and opposes any attempt by the government to limit personal choice, or “consumer freedom.” Laws that seek to police the public’s eating habits will simply pave the way for an over-regulated “nanny state,” the CCF cautions, to the point that one day, one may no longer be able to enter a restaurant and order a dessert because the government will have judged that such fare is not good for us.

In December 2006, New York became the first U.S. city to mandate the elimination of artificial trans fats in all restaurants.

The Board of Health voted unanimously to phase out the fats over an 18-month period. Restaurants were obliged to substitute oils, margarines, and shortening used for frying and spreading that contained more than 0.5 grams of trans fat per serving, by July 2007.

Restaurants were granted an extra year – until July 1, 2008 – to re-

Trans Fats!

By Antonia Woodford

“If [obesity] is a disease, this is going to be the only disease in the country that you could solve by taking long walks and keeping your mouth shut.”

- Rick Berman, Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom. www.indiaplaza.com

Page 5

Issue 4- The other side place the trans fats used in recipes for baked or deep-fried goods.

Though trans fats are naturally found in animal products such as milk, beef, and lamb, most of the trans fats consumed in a typical diet are produced industrially. Trans fats are unsaturated fats that have been partially hydrogenated (hydrogen atoms have been added to them, making them more saturated), increasing their shelf life and making them semi-solid. Trans fats have been commonly used to cook fast food, fried food, and baked goods since the 1990s, when activists proclaimed them to be suitable alternatives to saturated fats. Yet trans fats have fallen under increased scrutiny since then: the American Heart Association (AHA) affirms that trans fats raise levels of “bad” cholesterol,

“Trans fats have been used to cook food since the 1990s, when activists proclaimed them to be suitable alternatives to saturated fats.” lower levels of “good” cholesterol, and contribute to heart disease.

Although it acknowledges that trans fats are unhealthy, the CCF argues that the hysteria surrounding them is exaggerated, a product of the “scare tactics” of hypocritical food activists. Saturated fats have all, if not more, of the detrimental health effects of trans fats, and they make up 14% of the average American diet. By contrast, trans fats only make up 3% of a typical diet, and 25% of these come from natural sources. Concern over saturated fat intake is what originally drove many restaurants and consumers to using trans-fat-laden oils. Yet the same activists who promoted this switch 15 years ago are now attacking trans fats with a vengeance.

Opponents of New York’s trans fat ban have realized its potential to cause a reversion to saturated fats, especially since the media have lessened their negative coverage of saturated fats. The AHA itself expressed its disapproval of the ban on the grounds that it might have “unintended and adverse consequences, such as restaurants returning to the use of oils high in saturated or animal-based fat if healthier oils are in short supply.” The short time frame allowed by the ban compounds this problem. Large fast-food corporations face the biggest challenge, since the recipe changes they make in New York will also be applied internationally. “It will be a matter of years before the crop supply is adequate to produce enough transfat-free oils for some restaurant chains,” noted Sheila Weiss, Director

“Saturated fats have all of the detrimental health effects of trans fats, and they make up 14% of the average American diet.” of Nutrition Policy at the National Restaurant Association (NRA).

The CCF and the NRA both took issue with the inflexibility of the ban and its narrow approach to improving health. Many of New York’s 24,000 restaurants were already voluntarily working to make their meals healthier, Weiss said. Not only does it take a lot of time to grow, harvest and process new crops for alternative oils, but restaurants need to ensure that the taste of their food is preserved. Partially hydrogenated oils make pie crusts flaky, cook-

ies soft, and French fries crunchy. The CCF bemoaned the potential disappearance of classic New York foods like black-and-white cookies if suitable alternative ingredients cannot be found in time.

Furthermore, “there are serious legal concerns about a municipal health agency banning a product or ingredient the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] has already approved,” the NRA declared in a December 2006 statement. In fact, the FDA cautions against a complete removal of trans fats from one’s diet, since trans fats in trace amounts are ubiquitous and “such extraordinary dietary changes” could “cause an inadequate intake of some nutrients and create health risks,” according to the FDA website.

Added to this is the lack of scientific consensus about the extent to which trans fats are harmful. Most experts agree that they increase the risk of heart disease, but claims linking them to cancer, diabetes, obesity, liver problems, and infertility have been alternately embraced and repudiated. One type of trans fat, conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) has the potential to fight cancer, enhance immunity, and rid the body of artery-clogging plaque, Science News magazine reported in 2001.

The CCF maintains that the way to promote a healthy lifestyle is not by banning access to certain foods but by encouraging eating in moderation and physical exercise. Nutritional education is a positive step, but government regulation of food infringes upon consumer freedom, argues lobbyist Rick Berman, executive director of the CCF. Berman frequently derides the premise on which trans fat bans and other food legislation are based: that America is expe-

“On average we consume the same amount of trans fats per day as in the 1960s, according to the Harvard School of Public Health.” riencing an “epidemic” of obesity. “If [obesity] is a disease, this is going to be the only disease in the country that you could solve by taking long walks and keeping your mouth shut,” Berman said on an episode of 60 Minutes.

Addressing the problem of childhood obesity, the CCF points out that children’s caloric intake has remained the same over the last 20 years. What has changed is that children now pursue increasingly sedentary lifestyles.

Similar facts hold true for the entire population: on average, we consume the same amount of trans fats per day as in the 1960s, according to the Harvard School of Public Health. Yet technology, like cars and elevators, has cut down on the amount of physical activity we perform to move around, and TVs and computdessertyears.files.wordpress.com

Page 6

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Rick Berman, under fire: The Executive Director of the Center for Consumer Freedom has been criticized by numerous supporters of government regulation of consumer spending. www.fortenbras.com

“Berman’s a real bottom feeder.”

- Center for Science in the Public Interest Executive Director Michael Jacobson

“Anyone who criticizes tobacco, alcohol, fatty foods, or soda pop is likely to come under attack from Berman’s front groups.”

- PRWatch.org

“[Even] a stopped clock is right twice a day.”

-VegSource Interactive Inc. President Jeff Nelson

“… I find most of his business views anti-safety and antihealth. Indeed, he has been a one-man wrecking crew on important issues.”

-National Safety Council Public Affairs Executive Director Chuck Hurley

“It ought to call itself the Center for Corporate Freedom.”

-Jeff Cronin, the Center for Science in the Public Interest.

ers lure us inside the house rather than outside. We must make getting an adequate amount of exercise our personal responsibility, and government regulation of restaurants can only go so far in curbing obesity.

The New York City Board of Health provoked even more controversy with its January 2008 mandate on menu labeling.

This legislation requires all restaurants with more than 15 outlets nationwide to post calorie counts for all their meals, including beverages, in menus by March 31, 2008. Lawmakers reasoned that calorie information would make customers think twice before ordering certain dishes and help them make balanced choices. In addition, restaurants embarrassed by the high caloric content of their meals might be convinced to modify some of their recipes.

A similar law was passed in 2006 but was struck down by a federal judge on the grounds that it had to be reworded. The New York State Restaurant Association (NYSRA) has filed a lawsuit to challenge the new version of the regulation. Since the law compels chain restaurants to put the equivalent of a message on their menus, the NYSRA argues that it infringes on restaurants’ First Amendment rights.

The NYSRA also takes issue with the fact that the law applies

Page 7

only to chain restaurants. “If it were really true that putting calories on the menu boards was going to save hundreds of thousands of lives, you don’t stop at 10 percent of the restaurants,” said NYSRA lawyer Kent Yalowitz. While chain restaurants can provide this nutritional information relatively easily due to their standardized portions, many of them already provide such information online. The NYSRA argues that restaurants are willing to inform their consumers but do not judge menu labeling to be the most effective method of doing so. Menu labeling would make menus considerably more complicated and would likely add to customers’ confusion. After all, the labeling would simply be a number, with no distinction between foods high in “good” calories and ones high in “bad” calories.

In restaurants that allow customers to customize their orders, the calorie lists would either have to be incredibly long and detailed, or they would have to be approximations. As a result, the numbers would either be inaccurate or too time-consuming to sort through.

Furthermore, research has not proven that menu labeling would help reduce obesity. In a statement submitted to the court on behalf of the NYSRA, Dr. David Allison, the soon-tobe president of the Obesity Society, suggested that the labeling might actually be detrimental to patrons’ health. Allison warned that high-calorie labels might only have a short-term effect in preventing overeating; people might eat less at the restaurant but become hungrier, so that they would eat even more later. Or, the labels might guide consumers to eat many low-calorie foods which in total contain more calories than a single, high-calorie meal.

The CCF echoes the arguments of the NYSRA and Allison in criticizing New York’s menu labeling law. As in its case against trans fat bans, the CCF reiterates that lack of physical activity is a more important contributor to obesity than the number of calories a person consumes. So far, some research suggests that cutting down on calories alone is not a sure-fire way to lose weight. Birds, for example, tend to gain weight when food is scarce, and our ancestors that were hunter-gatherers developed adaptations to store as much fat as possible in the rare occasions that they had access to an ample food supply.

The CCF also points out that providing people with more knowledge about food won’t necessarily alter their behavior. Though the government has required nutritional labels on packaged foods since the 1990s, American’s haven’t shifted to a healthier eating regimen. The nutritional information we are presented with is often meaningless, since even experts cannot agree on the relative health benefits of many foods. Menu labeling could also make restaurants even more vulnerable to obesity lawsuits. Chain restaurants serve meals in fairly standardized portions, but in no way can they make sure that each burger is served alongside exactly the same number of French fries for each patron.

Above all, the CCF sees menu labeling as another indication that the government does not trust citizens to think for themselves and make their own choices. “There’s a huge difference between personal responsibility and dietary paternalism,” wrote Berman in a 2007 newspaper editorial. “Legislators and nutrition activists want to turn personal meals into public affairs, wedging legislation between you and your waistline.”

Such legislation will cut away at Americans’ right to “guilt-free” eating, the CCF cautions. Whether we like it or not, every visit to a fast-food outlet will become a guilt trip as we contemplate calorie counts plastered on the menus. People who have no reason to worry

Issue 4- The other side

Trans fats at HM

N

ew York City’s trans fat ban applies not only to restaurant meals but also to food served in cafeterias and hospitals, said Bill Mueller, Director of Dining Services for Flik at Horace Mann. Nevertheless, the December 2006 legislation had a nominal effect on the HM cafeteria, which has been trans-fat-free since Flik’s arrival in 1997.

“In terms of the oil that we cook in, we haven’t used anything with trans fats in it for about 11 years,” said Mueller. Instead, the cafeteria uses two types of non-hydrogenated oils: one that is 100% canola oil and one which is 90% canola oil and 10% olive oil. These oils have more mono-unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats, considered “good” fats, and less saturated fat, than other cooking oils, in accordance with the Flik Food and Nutrition Philosophy.

Executive Chef Jerry Kalicharan said he eliminated all oils containing trans fats from the menu when he began working at HM in 1997. “The cafeteria had been using trans fat oil; it’s like lard, everyone used to use it,” he said. “I got rid of it immediately when I

got here.” Having cooked “upscale” food for law firms before coming to HM, Kalicharan was already accustomed to using healthier oils, he said. However, “the switch from trans fats was difficult” initially for many people who ate at the cafeteria, he said. “We made so many changes, and some people didn’t like it.”

The packaged snacks sold in the cafeteria such as chips, cookies, and granola bars have also been trans-fat-free for 11 years, said Mueller. Company policy does not allow the cafeteria’s purveyors to purchase goods containing trans fats, he said. Although the media’s disparagement of trans fats is relatively recent, “We always try to be ahead of the curve,” Mueller said of Flik. “We’re always health-conscious in what we provide to students.”

Kalicharan said he is strongly in favor of both New York City’s trans fat ban and its menu-labeling bill. The menulabeling bill, which requires chain restaurants to display calorie counts, does not apply to privately-owned food providers such as Flik, he said. However, the bill “is very helpful,” he said. “If you’re on a diet, you can observe how much you take in. Some people really don’t know what they’re putting in their mouths,

what ingredients are put in the food.”

For example, “some chefs love to cook with heavy cream and butter,” which are high in saturated fat, Kalicharan said. The HM cafeteria substitutes vegetable margarine for butter. Except for the fried food, all the cafeteria’s offerings are prepared fresh daily, said Kalicharan. “We cook everything from scratch, and we use no artificial ingredients. The entrées are all-natural.”

Kalicharan said he would like to eliminate, or at least minimize, the sale of fried foods such as French fries and mozzarella sticks. However, he said that the cafeteria’s menu is ultimately dependent upon students’ tastes. The cafeteria’s responsibility is to provide healthy options, added Mueller, but it is up to the students to make good choices. “If I know the students will stop eating fried food, I will have more healthy selections for them,” said Kalicharan. “But that’s not the case.”

www.vincenzosfamilypizza.com

about their weight may actually be adversely affected, Berman notes; while the media has deplored the “obesity epidemic,” the number of Americans with eating disorders, such as anorexia, has almost tripled.

Ultimately, the debate boils down to this: given that obesity is a health risk caused by personal decisions, is the government obliged to limit our freedom of choice? Many activists have drawn an unwarranted comparison between government regulation of smoking and government regulation of food. Although the CCF would defend one’s right both to smoke and to eat to excess in a restaurant, the harmful effects of smoking extend to more than just the individual.

Secondhand smoke from one person’s cigarette endangers everyone in the restaurant; overeating poses no such communal threat.

Thus, the government can justify smoking bans because they prevent individuals from exposing the greater community to danger.

The most fervent health activists have claimed that obese individuals do, in fact, constitute a threat to the rest of us: they “steal” money from the health care system. Yet a team of Dutch scientists has disproved this common assumption. While obese

and overweight people incur more medical costs than slimmer patients, they also die significantly sooner. In a study published in the journal PLoS Medicine, the team found that obese people have higher yearly health costs than smokers and “healthy-living” people until the age of 56; however, “healthyliving” people end up with the greatest lifetime health expenses.

We can reasonably conclude that eating should remain a very personal affair. People ordering unhealthy food in a restaurant harm only themselves, so they should be free to decide what they eat. Berman has been criticized for asserting that the government’s micromanaging of our food will never stop, until the point when a server can deny us food outright. Ironically, lawmakers in Mississippi have proposed a bill to allow exactly that.

If passed, House Bill 282 would prohibit state-licensed restaurants from serving obese customers. Such a law would not only be humiliating, but it would suggest that American citizens are incapable of making their own decisions. In at least some areas of our lives, consumer freedom is still a cause worth fighting for.

Page 8

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Posh Persona

By Kevin Lin

Public School Students Reveal their Views of Horace Mann and Private School Life

T

c

Pub li

Page 9

P

here are few, if any, Horace Mann students size fields and a five-building complex that contains a cafeteria, who, caught up in the grind of life, tests, and library, theatre and multiple computer labs. Most public schools extracurricular activities, stop to think of have only one building to place their facilities in, and the majorhow our public school peers see us. “We hate ity of New York public schools do not own a field, resorting inyou,” said a sophomore from Hunter College stead to using nearby parks as recreational space. Since the Board High School. “We think you’re a bunch of privileged, intellectual of Education funds public schools in NY, and there are so many snobs.” She breaks into a grin. “Of course, I am schools in the city to fund, only a limited percentonly kidding.” But, as extreme as the state- age of the total budget could be allocated to a ment sounded, it might not have been as far specific school (an average of $14,119 per from the truth as people might think. student in New York, $13,755 in NYC).

Say “private school” to any public Thus, due to the lack of appropriate school student, and more likely than not, monetary support, public schools usuimages of an aloof enclave of wealthy ally have less to spend in improvement school-goers are instantly conjured up of their facilities than do private schools in the student’s mind. In fact, to provide funded by their students’ tuitions. some informal testimony on the matter, I In order to attract parents and stuconducted a survey among some public dents to the independent school in the school acquaintances first place, several posit o tive gauge aspects their reacare used to tion at my atpromote its tending private appeal, one beschool. A majoring the size of the ity of them instantly average class in the assumed I was rich. school. A smaller class “Oh, you go to private would usually translate to school,” said one student a more intimate and personal from Brooklyn Technical High learning atmosphere for students, School, with an air of distaste. as teachers would have more time to “Wait, so you’re loaded, right?” asked spend with each individually. Truthfully, another from Stuyvesant High School. while private schools like Horace Mann tend A comparison between public and to have 15 or 16 students in a room per lesson, independent schools reveals a reasonable bapublic high schools have an average of 25 students sis for their assumptions. Differences in the in one class, with numbers sometimes approachfacilities, funding, class sizes, and course seing 30. The result of the inflated student numbers lections, among several other factors, provide is a less effective learning environment. While ample space for animosity from public school there are more classmates to interact with and to students. First of all, there is a considerable learn from, the teacher, who could not possibly discrepancy in the facilities of public and primeet personally with every student, has a hardvate schools. Horace Mann has an entire set of er time pinpointing which students need help tennis courts, a separate building to house two while progressing with the rest at a steady speed. gyms and a swimming pool, as well as two fullIn order to be effective in the class, truly Richard D. Kahlenberg

r

e t a iv

Issue 4- The other side stellar educators are required. However, with school funding determined more and more by standardized performance tests, teachers are given less elbowroom for creativity. They are told to teach the tests, or to follow standard formulas that produce high test scores, but low retention rates. Thus, potentially inspiring teachers who join the profession for a chance to express personal creativity and to work with children could find themselves ultimately disappointed by a soul-crushing bureaucracy established in the public systems under the wrong incentive. Educators al-

“Thus, potentially inspiring teachers...find themselves ultimately disappointed by a soul-crushing bureaucracy established in the public systems.” ready pressured by poor salaries, few benefits, student disciplinary issues and heavy teaching loads, are further oppressed by restrictions on material and pushed towards jobs elsewhere. Thus, public schools, under the quotas enforced by the Board of Education, find themselves hemmed in by required minimum standards and forced to adopt curricula that they do not agree with.

In private schools, teachers are given a good amount of freedom to plan their own syllabi and to use their own creativity to run the class any way they wish. Few statewide or citywide standards have to be met, and the school does not need the government to provide money. Thus, private schools provide a good environment for new teachers to gain experience and to experiment.

A greater the variety of teachers generally translates to more extensive course selections. Teachers who are knowledgeable enough to specialize in multiple courses bring unique classes to the school. While public schools have the standard Pau l

Pet er

son

/El

en a

L la

ude

t

foreign languages of French, Spanish and Italian, few offer Latin and Japanese, and almost none have Russian, German or Korean. Many students of the public school system expressed envy at the wide range of foreign languages offered; in addition, few have even heard of a Theatre Production and Design class at a high school. Aside from La Guardia High School, which specializes in the arts, only a small smattering of schools offer more art classes than the usual drawing and painting.

The key distinguishing factor between the school systems is the high tuition for private schools. There are a large number of gifted and talented students in the public school system who would thrive given the possibility to attend an independent school. The only reason all the gifted students of New York City do not flock to a school like Horace Mann is the high price tag that accompanies the improved facilities, the wide range of classes and the better teacher quality. The cost of tuition for Horace Mann itself is more than $30,000, and the average cost of private non-sectarian schooling in 2000 was recorded at $12,363, widening the socioeconomic divides between public school students and private school students.

It is easy to see how public school students came to view private school students as wealthy and exclusive. Of those who were interviewed (two students from Hunter College High School, one from New Explorations in Science, Technology and Mathematics, one from Stuyvesant High School and one from Brooklyn Technical High School), four of them stereotyped students in private schools as children who were somewhat spoiled.

The student from Brooklyn Tech stated that she believed all privately educated students were driven back and forth by chauffeurs, had iPhones and wore clothing sets that cost thousands of dollars. Doubtlessly, these generalizations were drawn from the cost of tuition and the image of the stereotypical upscale child.

“She believed all privately educates students were driven back and forth by chauffeurs, had iPhones and wore clothing sets that cost thousands of dollars.”

However, not all those who go to private schools, or those who go to Horace Mann even, fit into that specified pigeonhole. Many private schools in New York are extremely inclusive in their selection of attendees, accepting even students who are not so financially well off. Financial aid is given out to those who need it, and in 2005 - 2006, 18% of Horace Mann students received more than $6,000,000 in financial aid. Thus, the stereotypes of private schools and its students are, for a good amount of its intended targets, false.

Fortunately, many public school students feel neutral about private schools. Just as we are occupied with our own Riverdale, Hackley and Poly Prep, public schools have their own Townsend Harris, Hunter College and Stuyvesant High to worry about.

Page 10

www.stardate.org

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

about w w sp w. ac et od r .o ay g

Global bal

the

By Brenton Arnaboldi

How Eco-Activists have Lied to the World

I

n the words of environmental champion Al Gore, “the debate [regarding global warming] in the scientific community is over.” Should it be? Is it really over? Is global warming really a catastrophic setback?

Gore and the other environmental alarmists insist that greenhouse gases are the primary source for global warming, claiming that the recent warming trend results from the trapping of heat in the lower atmosphere by these gases. Eco-activists quiver at the “planetary emergency” supposedly due to global warming, with melting polar caps, rising sea levels, more storms and harmful weather, and the expansion of tropical diseases. However, restrictions proposed by environmentalists regarding the emission of carbon dioxide, chlorofluorocarbons, and other pollutants are not only useless, but harmful as they cause widespread panic and scare over untrue or exaggerated effects of global warming.

Global warming is not caused by the accumulation of greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide; natural causes are the primary determinants to climate change. From 1998 to 2007, the mean global temperature remained constant even though carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere increased by 4%. According to Russian scientist Khabibullo Abdusamatov, the temperature should have increased at least .1 degree Celsius (.25 degrees Fahrenheit) if there really is a direct correlation between carbon dioxide quantity and temperature. In other words, greenhouse gases have been shown not to influence changes in global temperature.

In addition, history shows us that general increases in global temperature have occurred before the burning of fossil fuels and defor-

Page 11

estation. The period between 900 AD and 1300 AD, which is referred to as the Medieval Warming Period, saw temperatures rise about 1 to 2 degrees Fahrenheit. During this time, the levels of CO2 and greenhouse gases remained constant, as industrialization did not emerge until more than half a millennium later. If the temperature increased without human influence, how are most scientists so quick to assume that man-made emissions are the cause of the present warming trend?

After 1300, the world plunged into the Little Ice Age, which would last for more than 500 years, to around 1815. Over the course of the 20th century, the temperatures have increased around one degree Fahrenheit—to a level still below global temperature averages in 1300.

However, most of this warming occurred between 1900 and 1940, a time at which greenhouse gases were not being emitted into the atmosphere at a significant rate. From 1940 to 1970, temperatures actually became cooler, although during this period the emission of fossil carbon emissions increased by 220 %, from 1.25 billion tons to 4 billion in 1970. So while man-made emissions more than doubled during this time period, global temperatures actually decreased. Environmentalists conveniently choose to ignore climate changes that have taken place in the past, insisting that greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming.

The only evidence they cite is the direct relationship between carbon dioxide levels and temperature over the past century; however, these graphs do not take into account pre-industrial warming changes.

Global warming is really caused by changes in solar activityradiation emitted from the Sun. The amount of radiation, somewhat surprisingly, directly corresponds with the number of sunspots, which are regions of the Sun that are darker than their surrounding areas

Issue 4- The other side because of their lower temperatures. Although sunspots are cooler regions than the other parts of the Sun, solar radiation increases because bright regions known as faculae tend to form near sunspots, totally canceling out the cooling effect. Astrologists have observed sunspots with telescopes since 1600, during the Little Ice Age. At the time, there were roughly 30 sunspots; between 1650 and 1700, sunspots were virtually non-existent. This decrease in number of sunspots, known as the “Maunder Minimum,” brought uncommonly cold temperatures. Since the Dalton Minimum in the early 1800s, the amount of sunspots has steadily increased, reaching a high of 250 at around the year 1950. This rise in sunspots directly relates to the temperatures increase that has occurred over the past century. Based on the data solar radiation due to sunspots, not increased levels of green-

“In stark contrast to the image of global warming painted by eco-activists, global warming will be beneficial to the global community.” house gases in the atmosphere, is responsible for global warming.

However, there is another, perhaps more pressing problem with the current global warming craze: while eco-activists continually warn others of “chaos” and “disaster” that results from global warming, the actual effects of global warming are almost the opposite. In stark contrast to the images of global warming that environmentalists plant in the minds of the general public, global warming will prove to be beneficial to the global community.

Once again, history provides us with overwhelming evidence.

During the Medieval Warming period, when global temperatures rose to roughly equivalent levels to predicted temperatures in 2100, societies around the world prospered greatly. Warmer temperatures resulted in more productive harvests, which resulted in less famine, longer life expectancies, increased trade, and cultural enhancement.

During this warm period, the Vikings navigated across the North Atlantic and settled in Greenland and Iceland, two areas in the vicinity of the Arctic Circle. At the time their arrival, both islands were lush with vegetation, providing plenty of usable and arable land. Both colonies prospered for a couple hundred years until the world plunged into the Little Ice Age in 1300. A slight cooling spelled complete disaster for Greenland’s Norse inhabitants; poor harvests resulted in crippling famines, and the Scandinavian colony had completely collapsed by the mid-15th century.

Global warming should not be viewed as an apocalypse, but should rather be seen as a blessing. Crop production will be enhanced by numerous factors associated with global warming. The growing season will be lengthened, allowing more time for cultivation. In addition, a warmer climate means that CO2 levels will be higher, as oceans and other bodies of water will release carbon dioxide. An abundance of carbon dioxide will benefit plants and vegetation for a variety of reasons. First of all, plants regularly use CO2 in photosynthesis to make glucose, so more carbon dioxide translates into the production of more glucose. In addition, plants use the excess carbon dioxide to utilize water more efficiently by restricting the departure of water through the pores, or stomata.

Tests and experiments show that doubling carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would increase agricultural production by 52%. In

fact, global warming has already made a positive impact on agriculture, contributing to the world’s grain production soaring from 700 million tons in 1950 to more than 2 billion tons in 2004.

Contrary to what many eco-activists claim, global warming will bring less severe weather as well. Environmentalists argue that climates would become destabilized by the increase of temperatures, resulting in more droughts, floods, and other storms.

However, global warming would actually reduce the amount of storms. Once again, during the warm era of the Medieval Warming Period, it was noted that weather patterns had become much more stable and predictable, as the number of floods, droughts, and storms decreased dramatically. In fact, the weather became much more erratic after 1300 as the world plummeted into the Little Ice Age. The disasters environmentalists associate with global warming actually increased during a time of global cooling.

Global warming will limit stormy weather because an increase of the sun’s radiation will affect the polar regions more than the areas near the equator. Therefore, the temperature gradient from the equator to the poles is not nearly as large, as radiation is more equally distributed throughout the world. Temperature differences are not nearly as drastic, which means that fewer storms arise. The relative absence of storms occurs because contact between cold and warm air masses becomes infrequent.

Therefore, global warming brings less unpredictable weather.

Eco-Activists also assert that tropical diseases such as malaria will expand into temperate regions heated by global warming. However, tropical diseases will not spread into areas far from the equator because global warming will not have a tremendous impact on tropical climates near the Equator. Therefore, the range of malaria-causing agents such as mosquitoes will hardly broaden, and the spread of tropical diseases should not be a major concern.

“Since the polar ice caps expand, not recede, with warmer weather, sea levels should actually drop as a result of global warming.

Lastly, global warming will not cause the rise of sea levels. Scaremongers claim that the melting of polar ice caps will lead to higher ocean levels and the drowning of coastal areas. While this proposition initially seems to be correct, recent studies say otherwise. Global warming, believe it or not, will actually increase the size of polar ice caps since warmer air brings more moisture to the atmosphere. The ice caps build off of snowfall, so more moisture and precipitation means more polar ice. Since the ice caps expand, not recede, with warmer weather, sea levels should actually drop as a result of global warming.

Eco-activists and the majority of politicians continue to denounce global warming as an international crisis. Hans Blix, the UN’s chief weapon inspector from 2000 to 2003, once said, “I am more worried about global warming than I am of any other conflict.” This statement is simply ridiculous, and it shows how willing influential figures are to listen to the exaggerated and misleading claims of environmental alarmists. Global warming does not come close to a greater threat to mankind than the possibility of nuclear warfare. Rather than seeking out ways to stop global warming, the world should better spend resources taking advantage of the natural warming trend.

Page 12

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII Energy Justice Network

Cars.Blogs.Ca

Ethanol Scam

How politicians have touted ethanol at the expense of the nation’s environment, economy, and farmers

A

By Nick Herzeca merica is in the midst of an energy crisis. Oil prices have soared above $100 per barrel, and each barrel the public consumes puts American dollars in foreign markets and destroys our environment. American politicians and scientists have frantically searched for the miracle solution to our perilous energy crisis. The answer: ethanol. Ethanol has been deemed the silver bullet to solve America’s seemingly unsolvable energy crisis.

After all, ethanol would decrease greenhouse gas emissions, lower dependency on foreign oil, and put money back into the hands of the American farmer, according to the proponents. “Everything about ethanol is good, good, good,” said Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, a fervent advocate of ethanol use. These misconceptions about the benefits of ethanol are at the heart of the ethanol problem.

Ethanol produced in the United States is derived from corn that is used mainly as feed for livestock. Ethanol has been used as a fuel source since 1908, but it was not until the oil embargoes of the 1970s that ethanol became a visible American fuel source. The oil embargoes of the seventies brought America’s foreign oil dependency to the public forefront and ethanol was promoted as a solution. Similar to the seventies, today America faces an oil crisis, and once again it has made the mistake of deeming ethanol the miracle solution.

Despite public perception that ethanol is a green energy source, there are many environmental problems associated with ethanol production. A study recently published in the academic journal Science Rolling Stone Magazine states that corn-based ethanol, the type of ethanol currently being produced in America, will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas Mini-powerplants are required to generate ethanol because it is so emissions, contrary to the proponents’ estimate that it would reduce energy-intensive. Filling up an SUV requires enough corn to feed them by about one-fifth. What is the reason for such a stark contrast one person’s calorie needs for a whole year.

Page 13

Issue 4- The other side between these two estimates? Earlier estimates did not take into account the increase in greenhouse gas emissions caused by the destruction of natural ecosystems necessary to grow corn to convert to ethanol. This process not only releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere when the ecosystems are burned and plowed with petroleum fertilizers but also deprives the planet of natural ecological sponges that absorb carbon emissions. Also, planting one acre of corn requires the equivalent of 110 gallons of gasoline to fertilize, harvest, and transport the corn.

“When you take this into account, most of the biofuel that people are using or planning to use would probably increase greenhouse gasses substantially,” said Timothy Searchinger, lead author of an ethanol study and a researcher in environment and economics at Princeton University. “Previously there’s been an accounting error: land use change has been left out of prior analysis,” he added. According to Joseph Fargione, a scientist at the Nature Conservancy, the clearance of grassland for corn production intended for ethanol releases 93 times the amount of greenhouse gas that would be saved by the fuel made annually on that land. The increased production of ethanol would decrease existing forestland, and increase harmful carbon emissions.

Not only is ethanol detrimental to the environment, but it is also an inefficient source of energy. The ratio of the amount of energy produced to energy consumed in the production for ethanol 1.3:1. Gasoline, on the other hand, has an energy output to input ratio of 5:1. “Corn ethanol is essentially a way of recycling natural gas,” says Robert Rapier, an oil-industry engineer who runs the R-Squared Energy Blog, because it takes nearly just as much energy to produce as it yields. Also, ethanol contains one-third less energy than gasoline does, which means that you burn three times more ethanol to get the same amount of energy as gasoline would provide. It would take so much corn to meet our energy demands that, as University of Minnesota economists Ford Runge and Benjamin Senauer point out, filling the gas tank of an SUV requires enough corn to feed one person’s calorie needs for a whole year. Even if the United States dedicates its entire corn supply to ethanol production, it would only replace twelve percent of our current gasoline use.

One of the biggest reasons for the growing support of ethanol is that it is perceived as a viable economic solution to our energy crisis. Gas prices have soared in recent years, and the oil supply is dwindling, making long-term price increases seem inevitable. However, recent increases in ethanol production have actually hurt the econo-

“Even if the United States dedicates its entire corn supply to ethanol production, it would only replace twelve percent of our current gasoline use.” my. America’s current ethanol production yields only 3.5 percent of our total fuel consumption, yet it consumes nearly twenty percent of the entire U.S. corn crop. Driving so much of our corn crop towards the production of ethanol has caused the price of corn to double in the last two years, because of the smaller supply of corn devoted to food. Most fuels that contain ethanol are a blend of 10% ethanol and 90% gasoline. Corn products dominate the American food industry, and this rise in corn prices could prove to be very costly. Over onethird of everything on American grocery store shelves contains corn products, so these products will increase in price, making it more difficult for low income families to feed themselves. Since livestock

are fed 60% of the corn in the U.S., the rising price of corn due to ethanol production as an alternate energy source has caused the price of beef, poultry and pork in the United States to rise in 2007.

Since the U.S. exports two-thirds of the world’s corn supply, the effects have been felt around the world. Tortillas, the main food source of lower income families in Mexico, have increased in price by 400%. Due to corn’s role as a feed for livestock, pork prices in China have increased 29%. These damaging, interna-

“While increased corn prices are good for corn farmers, they are devastating for livestock farmers, who use corn as a main source of feed.” tional effects of ethanol have increased the threat of world hunger.

Not only has the increase in ethanol increased food prices, most notably cereal, it also poses a major threat to American farmers.

American farmers are starting to feel the repercussions of increased ethanol production. While increased corn prices are good for corn farmers, they are devastating for livestock farmers, who use corn as a main source of feed. Increasing the price of corn as a feed increases the cost of owning livestock for farmers. Many dairy farmers use corn as feed, and because of the increase in the price of corn, there has been a transition away from dairy farming, causing the price of dairy products to soar. Karl Chittenden, a farmer in Columbia County, New York, said that the increase of corn prices has forced him to sell his dairy cattle, and replace them with beef cattle, which primarily feed on grass. He also said that this has become a growing trend in the last year among the upstate New York farming community. Mr. Chittenden is lucky that he has enough land to allow his beef cattle to graze on grass, but other small-scale dairy farmers will have to pay the price for ethanol’s increased production. Ethanol’s production has not just affected corn prices, but also other crops that we eat.

Farmers who used to grow wheat instead decide to grow corn, due to its increase in price, which has caused the price of wheat to double this year. Also, the increase of corn prices has caused farmland prices to reach their highest levels in twenty-five years, since the cost of farming livestock has increased. If ethanol becomes America’s main source of fuel, the American farmer will suffer, and so will the consumer.

This year’s presidential election has been a catalyst for ethanol support. During the Iowa caucuses, in the largest corn-producing state in the nation, former ethanol critics such as Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain praised the “benefits” of ethanol. Earlier this year, Sen. Barack Obama pleased his agricultural supporters in Illinois by coauthoring legislation to increase production of biofuels, such as ethanol, to 60 billion gallons by 2030. A few weeks later, Democrat John Edwards pledged to up the ante to 65 billion gallons by 2025. Politicians often support the popular solution, without considering its negative ramifications, evidenced by this ethanol scam. This political bandwagon sings the praises of ethanol, but as with many political issues, it is imperative to delve into the facts to get the truth. The deforestation of American woodland for corn production causes the production of ethanol to increase the emissions of greenhouse gases. The increase in corn prices due to emerging ethanol production has increased the threat of world hunger, and has put many farmers at risk. The ethanol craze is just another rash, forced solution to a difficult problem.

Page 14

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII Philip Macdiarmid

SAVING OUR STEM CELLS EXTRACTED BY ARADHNA AGARWAL

I

n 1998 scientists developed a technique of isolating and growing embryonic stem cells from their first week of development. Eight years later, the issue of embryonic stem cell research has grown into a scientific, political, and religious controversy. Stem cells, found in all multi-cellular organisms, have the ability to differentiate into over two hundred types of specialized cells. Adult stem cells, in contrast, are found in adult tissue and do not harm a person when extracting the cells; these cells, however, did not have the ability until recently to differentiate into every stem cell type. Because of this ability, embryonic stem cells could theoretically potentially replace any defective organ or body tissue. The problem, however, is in order to obtain the embryonic stem cells, the embryo and the potential child must be destroyed. Alternatives to using embryonic stem cells, aided by the United States

Page 15

ABC of AU

government’s response, are both unshackled by ethical constraints and proven to be just as promising as embryonic stem cell research.

Though some claim that the embryo killed in the process of extracting stem cells is not “alive,” overwhelming evidence shows that the embryo is distinctly human. “I don’t think it should be considered an individual,” said Dr. Sundar Jagannath, a pioneer in blood stem cell transplantation, “but yet, the potential is that it could be later on be implanted and be made into the individual.” At the point of stem cell extraction, the embryo does not have any of the vital organs or definitive limbs. Yet this embryo will become a human being; members of conservative groups find the embryo basically “a living, breathing, baby child.”

An innate reaction of all organisms to discomfort, pain demonstrates that animals are “feeling” – that they respond to external

Issue 4- The other side stimuli. For a long time many experts were under the presumption that newborns did not feel pain because of the belief that newborn’s immune systems were not properly developed. Recent studies by Kanwaljeet Anand have shown, on the contrary, that not only do newborns feel pain, but fetuses can feel pain at the age of 20 weeks, with a considerable amount of repetitive evidence that even embryos at the age of 8 to 10 weeks may be able to feel pain as well.

For this reason, the killing of a blastocyst (the beginning stages of embryo development) it is no different than killing a living child.

Leniency on policies dealing with embryonic stem cell research will be disastrous. Conservatives are severely concerned that scientists would pay money for the use of embryos and people would conceive simply for monetary benefits. “Sometimes you have to put some harsh rules and then people will [negotiate],” says Dr. Jagganath. “If you [make] it all easy, then I tell you there will be rogue scientists who will do whatever he wants to do and then it will be too late.” Similar to the pressure to use the atomic bomb by the government in World War II, scientists might be pressured by the government to produce results that would involve unconventional methods. All of these issues would be completely disrespectful to the potential child in question.

Pressure for scientists comes not only from the government, but from society. The number one source of suppression of embryonic stem cell research has been society’s unwillingness to accept the gruesome aspects of embryonic stem cell research. The continuation of embryonic stem cell research to a greater scale has primarily been inhibited by our society’s ethical concerns. Over one third of Americans are strongly opposed to the continuation of embryonic stem cell research; conservative and religious groups are among the groups that are the most vehemently opposed. “For [the scientists],” says Steve Bowers, a conservative blogger, “it is all about another excuse to justify the further devaluation of human life.”

Despite the view of liberals, the federal government’s response has been reasonable in terms of their stem cell policies and has become more lenient as the years passed. The Dickey amendment was passed in 1995 which prohibited any federal funding for embryonic stem cell research that resulted in the death of the embryo. When scientists discovered a way of isolating embryonic stem cells in 1998, the Clinton administration reconsidered their policy, but the amendment that they tried to past was delayed because the entering Bush administra-

tion wanted to reconsider the policy. Later in 2001, the Bush Administration agreed to provide federal funding only to the existing stem cell lines. These policies were very sensible because they prompted scientists to explore alternatives to embryonic stem cells, producing extraordinary and promising results. Without the limitations of embryonic research, scientists would have continued pursuing the field of embryonic stem cell research, killing innocent children. Says Dr. Jagannath, “there will always be other ways to find a solution.”

Restrictions on embryonic research meanwhile have pushed scientists to explore other options. The issue with adult stem cell research that have made embryonic stem cell research a more desirable field is that adult stem cells cannot differentiate into every kind of cell type and are difficult to work with. However, unlike embryonic stem cells, adult stem cells have proven to show results – despite their setbacks. They have been used very successfully in bone marrow transplants and treating immune disorders, diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Though they have not been able to treat diseases such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s disease, the progress in the field of adult stem cell research has been at a much faster rate than that of embryonic stem cells. “At this particular time, science will still progress,” says Dr. Sundar Jagannath. “Even studying cancer [with other methods] will give us more insight in understanding – you don’t have to [use] the embryonic stem cells.”

In November of 2007, two groups of scientists discovered a way of reprogramming virtually any cell in the human body into a cell able to function as an embryonic stem cell. With this new breakthrough, there is very little reason to even consider embryonic stem cell research.

“The induced cells do all the things embryonic stem cells do – it’s going to completely change the field,” says Professor James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Scientists used the “new” adult stem cells to create heart and brain tissue which was considered by many scientists to be impossible. Less than two weeks later, the heart muscle tissue created by these new adult stem cells started beating.

The negatives of embryonic stem cell research have heavily outweighed the positives and are continuing to do so as new discoveries emerge. The price of life is too great a price to pay, especially when there are safe, effective alternatives. It may take some time before all scientists accept these alternatives, but embryonic stem cell research has always been a field destined for death.

Corbis Images

David Kennedy

Adult stem cell research offers similar treatment than embryonic stem cells without the moral hazards.

Page 16

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

26-32 Days

37-42 Days

48-51 Days

56-60 Days

Pr -Life Paradox

Fetal Development

E

very year, unintended pregnancies disrupt the lives of countless young women. Consulting a doctor and aborting the pregnancy may be the best choice for some of these women. But there is vehement opposition to abortion from people who identify themselves as pro-life and reject a women’s right to choose. Their rationales, family backgrounds, levels of education, and jobs may vary. They do, however, hold one common belief: abortion is murder. Pro-life advocates contend that a fetus’s fundamental right to life is more important than a woman’s right to choose what she does with her body. As the 2008 election looms, abortion politics are becoming evermore pressing. The next president will likely select multiple Supreme Court nominees, and the appointment of a pro-life justice will bring the Court one vote closer to overturning Roe vs. Wade. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, abortion will likely be outlawed in many parts of the country, satisfying pro-lifers.

The opposition to a woman’s right to choose stems from both moral and scientific standpoints. In theology, a fetus becomes a person when the soul is created. However, scientifically, the debate becomes more complicated. The scientific debate revolves around the question of when a fetus becomes a “person.” Pro-lifers point to the fetus’ early developments to argue that abortion is murder. The heart starts beating between 18 and 25 days, and the brain and all body systems are present, but not developed, by 8 weeks and begin functioning a month later.

At 8 weeks, the baby is able to fall asleep and wake up, suck his or her thumb, get the hiccups, and cough. At the end of 9 weeks, the baby has unique fingerprints. By 12 weeks, the baby is sensitive to heat, touch, light, and noise; all body systems are working completely. Therefore, the baby is fully developed before the mother even notices pregnancy.

Pro-lifers point to the fetus’ early developments to argue that abortion is murder. According to pro-lifers, a glob of protoplasm is just as human as anybody else. Separating ‘more or less human,’ and giving anyone the ability to ‘murder’ those considered ‘less human’ because

Page 17

they serve little economic or social use can easily justify any degree of inhumane action. As one pro-lifer, Dr. Willke, put it, “A human will now be allowed to exist only if he measures up to certain standards of independence, physical perfection, or utilitarian usefulness to others.” Moreover, because fetuses are not dead, they are, by default, alive.

For women who do not have the financial means to raise a child, there are services that can help shoulder the burden of child care and enable the women to keep the baby. According to pro-life advocates, having inadequate finances to raise a child should not be an excuse to abort because of these services. Pat Evans, the director of Birthright, a pregnancy crisis center in Annapolis, Maryland, said about a typical single mother, “She probably gets $225 a month on welfare, and there’s food stamps, WIC [nutrition aid to women, infants, and children], and medical assistance.” The aid is tremendously helpful for young women struggling to pay the price of motherhood and makes raising a baby possible for anyone, according to pro-lifers. Additionally, there are privately funded pregnancy centers like the one run by Pat Evens scattered all across America, and they offer women free emotional and financial support.

For most pro-life activists, the battle to outlaw abortion is a grassroots effort. Many organizations such as the Pro-Life Action League maintain a presence outside abortion clinics to provide sidewalk counseling, a practice so pervasive that it has been outlawed in some communities. Protests such as the “Face the Truth” tour are designed to sway prospective abortion patients into looking at other alternatives. At these rallies, pro-life activists protest abortion by “holding pictures of beautiful unborn babies and huge graphic signs of aborted babies.” “We line the roads at major intersections, to show Americans the truth about abortion,” according to the Pro-Life Action Group. A “Face the Truth” tour can dissuade a pregnant woman from aborting her child. Dave and his girlfriend, a young Chicago couple, were told by an abortion clinic that their unborn baby was ‘like a little ball.’ They were convinced. Dave agreed to pay for the abortion. As they drove through downtown Chi-

Issue 4- The other side

Biblical Pro-Life Justification RGrugo

The Catholic Sun

The Catholic Sun

“For you created my inmost being. You knit me together in my mother’s womb....Your eyes say my unformed body.”

- Psalm 139:13-16

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves...defend the rights of the poor and needy.”

-Proverbs 31:8-9 “You shall not murder.”

-Exodus 20:13

cago, they passed a “Face the Truth” rally. After seeing the pictures of aborted babies and being counseled by some of the activists, Dave and his girlfriend decided to keep their baby. The Pro-Life Action Group considers this a major victory. The motivation for many participants is religious, a response to Jesus telling his followers to “go forth and teach.” There is one common goal among organizations like the Pro-Life Action Group, protecting the rights of the unborn.

In the current abortion debate, there are few organizations as outspoken against a woman’s right to choose as the Catholic Church.

The basis for this is the Bible’s declaration of the sanctity of human life. However, the Vatican has been strongly against abortion for only the last 200 years of its 2000 year history. Between the 5th and 16th Centuies, the Catholic Church’s position on abortion evolved. St. Thomas Aquinas, Pope Innocent III, and Pope Gregory XIV believed that a fetus does not have a soul until “quickening,” or the first time a mother feels her baby kick. Therefore, abortion before quickening was acceptable. The tides began to turn when Pope Sixtus V of the 16th Century opposed abortion at any stage of pregnancy. By the 17th Century the Church adopted a permanent position of “simultaneous animation,” the notion that an embryo acquires a soul at conception rather than any period of time into the pregnancy. The concept of simultaneous animation has stuck since then.

The grandfather of the Church’s current position, Pope Leo XVIII, issued a decree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman’s life. The church required excommunication for people who aborted at any stage of pregnancy. In the book “Gospel of Life”, Pope John Paul II calls on people to pay special attention to abortion because it is an attack on the most vulnerable and defenseless persons, the unborn. He detested the fact that not only is the procedure allowed but also it is promoted as a ‘right.’ Additionally, he condemned that it happens within the family, the ‘sanctuary of life’ and a place of love. Fundamentalists were generally pro-choice until about 1980, when they started organizing against abortion. Most other

Christian denominations as well as most other religions support a woman’s right to choose.

The Republican Party has been the staunchest political advocate of a pro-life agenda.

In the Republican Party platform, adoption and abstinence are encouraged and abortion clinic referrals are condemned. Republicans, backed by the Catholic Church, want to add an amendment to the Constitution banning abortion. According to the party, “…the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution, and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.” Under this amendment, abortionists would be committing a crime. The Republican National Coalition for Life newsletter stated, “we assert that no human being, born or unborn, can be considered the property of another, and we repudiate the Roe v. Wade decision which presumed to give some individuals the so-called “right” to terminate the life of others.” Though pro-lifers are usually Republicans, there are, however, several groups such as the “Democrats for Life of America,” which are composed of entirely pro-life Democrats.

The pro-life standpoint, while is seemingly more moral than the pro-choice standpoint, is a gross violation of the personal rights of women.

Those who believe the government should have the right to decide what a woman does with her body should examine the liberties we as Americans hold dearly. Especially for victims of rape or incest, or when a pregnancy puts the mother’s life at risk, the ability to abort that pregnancy is paramount. In a situation where the baby is being born into a household where the mother does not have the means or the will to raise a child, who is the government to say she has to keep it?

Is that really beneficial for the child? If a mother does not feel she is fit to be a mother, for whatever reason that may be, she should be able to abort her pregnancy. What a woman does with her body is not the government’s or anyone else’s business. Those who believe abortion is murder should simply abstain from having the procedure.

Page 18

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Give Guns a Shot The Case Against Gun Control

By Dan Shapiro

G

uns, for many, are as defining an issue for both political parties as the Iraq War, the Patriot Act and abortion. Republicans say they are protecting our Constitutional rights and our personal security by advocating laxer gun laws. Democrats claim to ensure our personal security by keeping guns away from criminals and lowering the crime rates. Envision living in a small house, in a dimly lit neighborhood. You have three children sleeping in the two rooms adjacent to yours.

One night, you hear a rustling on the first floor; a man has snuck in through your back door with a knife at hand. What do you do? Most people would probably call 911, but what they do next depends on the individual. Many Americans would slowly get up, walk over to their closet, and pull out their family firearm.

Clearly, guns in homes are hazardous to young children, and

www.redstatepatriot.com

Page 19

many deaths yearly are caused by negligent gun control. Despite the risks, guns are a necessity for large proportion of the population. According to statistics, there is one police officer on duty for every 23,000 people in this country. It is unreasonable to believe that one policeman can protect each of those 23,000 people effectively.

The constitution does not guarantee protection from murder or crime. It does, however, provide a means to protect oneself with the right to bear arms. Moreover, law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals over 2.4 million times each year, or 6,575 times a day, according to the National Safety Coun-

“Allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths� cil a non-profit, nongovernmental public service organization. This means that each year firearms are used 60 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives, meaning that guns save more people yearly from crime than innocent people they hurt.

It is important to recognize that the debate is not banning of firearms, which a rare few support, yet it is arguing against simply putting more laws in place. It is interesting to realize that there are already over 20,000 gun laws on the books that are ignored by criminals. In the Columbine High School tragedy, at least eighteen existing anti-gun laws were broken. Does anyone really believe the shooters cared that they were breaking those anti-gun laws?

By definition, does any criminal care that he or she is breaking the law? What can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights? The answer to most Americans is none, and with the ability to carry a firearm, comes a sense of safety.

That sense of safety is not unfounded. The more people allowed to carry firearms the lower the crime rate is. There are 40 “Right

Issue 4- The other side To Carry” States – states where individuals are permitted to carry a firearm on their person at all times: 36 have “shall issue” laws, which require that carry permits be issued to applicants who meet uniform standards established by the state legislature. Alabama, Connecticut and Iowa have fairly-administered “discretionary-issue” carry permit systems. Vermont respects the right to carry without a permit. Alaska, which has a shall-issue provision for purposes of permit-reciprocity with other states, adopted a no-permit-required law in 2003. Of the 10 non-RTC states, eight have restrictivelyadministered discretionary-issue systems; two prohibit carrying altogether. More RTC, less crime. Violent crime rates in 2004-2005 were lower than anytime since 1976. (Crime victim surveys indicate that violent crime is at a 31-year low.) Since 1991, 23 states have adopted RTC, the number of privately owned guns has risen by nearly 70 million, and violent crime is down 38%. In 2005 RTC states had lower violent crime rates, on average, compared to the rest of the country (total violent crime by 22%; murder, 30%; robbery, 46%; and aggravated assault, 12%) and included the seven states with the lowest total violent crime rates, and 11 of the 12 states with the lowest murder rates. Studying crime trends in every county in the U.S., researchers John Lott and David Mustard found that “allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crimes and it appears to produce no increase in accidental deaths.” They found that in states that had RTC laws and in which they went into effect at a county level, murders fell by 8.5%, rapes fell by 5% and aggravated assault fell by 7%. “Approximately 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and over 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided yearly,” they said if states that had not instituted RTC had done so.

Although these numbers are quite persuasive, the main argument against gun control is the Second Amendment. Originally, the

What can more anti-gun laws do other than to further penalize and harass honest American citizens who wish simply to enjoy their Constitutional rights?

Second Amendment was put in place to enable the citizens of America to protect themselves from danger. Along with this right comes the idea of democracy. With the right to bear arms, the citizens remain unshackled from the federal government giving them more freedom.

History has shown the importance of the right to bear arms in protecting freedom and limiting the power of government. Freedom came to Eastern Europe in 1989 thanks to the self-restraint of the Soviet army. Freedom could have come a generation ago, but was repeatedly crushed by the Red army: in East Germany in 1953, Hungary in 1956, and Czechoslovakia in 1968. One reason why the Soviet army succeeded in those bloody episodes of subjugation was that the people of East Germany, Hungary and Czechoslovakia lacked the arms with which to fight a guerilla war. Had the Poles and Czechs and Hungarians been as well armed as the Afghans, Eastern Europe might not have had to wait until 1989 for permission

Crime Rate by State by Concealed Carry Laws State

Concealed Carry Laws

Crime Rate*

Alaska

No Permit Required No Permit Required Right-to-Carry Right-to-Carry Residential RTC Permits Only Right-to-Carry Right-to-Carry

513.2

396.5

California New Jersey New York

Residential RTC Required Residential RTC Required Restricted RTC Restricted RTC Restricted RTC

Illinois

Not Permitted

551.5

Wisconsin

Not Permitted

241.5

Vermont Alabama Georgia Florida Georgia Washington Colorado Florida

119.7 431.7 448.9 708.0 448.9 345.8

708.0 526.3 354.7 445.8

*Rate is violent crimes per 100,000 inhabitants, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation from the Kremlin to be free. The best testimony to the power of an armed populace is the drive with which the Warsaw Pact dictatorships enforced gun control. When the Communists took over Bulgaria on September 9, 1944, they immediately confiscated every weapon in private possession.

In East Germany, private gun ownership was outlawed, although citizens were allowed to rent hunting guns for oneday periods. In Hungary after World War II, the Communist Minister of the Interior, ordered the dissolution of all pistol and hunting clubs, as well as of other organizations, which might prove a threat to the Communist takeover.

Rajk claimed he acted “in order to more efficiently protect the democratic system of the state.” History has provided us with the knowledge that when guns are stripped from the public, the rights of the people are stripped as well, causing a tyrannical movement.

The debate for more gun control is one that seems neverending. Yet as the world becomes more dangerous and technologically advanced, it seems to many that it is a necessity in life to carry a gun, not just to protect against criminals, but also against the very government which writes and implements gun legislation.

Page 20

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Democracy Dies Why we need to stay in Iraq in the long term

By Spencer Penn

I

n the midst of the 2008 Presidential election, the issue of withdrawal from Iraq has risen to prominence on the political forefront. Seeing the vast monetary and human costs of the war, the creation of a timetable has become the source of much controversy. As the general populace has become tired of hearing bad news from Iraq, the Democratic Party has embraced the policy of a quick exit from Iraq. All of the major Democratic candidates for president pledged to establish a firm withdrawal plan. However, the benefits of indefinite occupation of Iraq have not been fully recognized. Although it is tempting to make a quick departure from Iraq, in order to ensure that an effective and stable democracy is established indefinite occupation of Iraq is the only viable plan of action for America.

In 1979, Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim, ascended to the position of Iraqi President after arresting and killing his leadership rivals. Following the establishment of a Shiite Muslim theocratic state in Iran, Hussein carried out a number of attacks against Iranian soldiers and civilians with chemical weapons, bringing about the Iran-Iraq War. In 1990, with Iraq in a post-war poverty, Hussein successfully invaded oil-rich Kuwait. This illicit occupation lasted for about a year, ending with UN and US military intervention.

By the time of the 2003 US incursion into Iraq, Saddam Hussein had killed thousands of soldiers and civilians. The war in Iraq, with originally sound intentions, benevolently removed an oppressive dictator. A series of transitional governments were instituted in Iraq in an effort to stabilize the country. On January 31, 2005 the Iraqi Transitional Government was formed in order to draft a permanent constitution. Its completion was met with strong backlash from the Sunni minority, who felt that this new constitution would not fully protect their people from the hostilities of Shiite (majority) radicals. A constitutional referendum in which over 63% of eligible Iraqis cast ballots was held on October 15, 2005; there was strong backing from the Shia community, but overwhelming rejection from the Sunni population. Finally, nationwide parliamentary elections on December 15 elected a new government. Now, with intense US intervention as a crutch, the new government seems to be functioning at some level, but insurgent violence has not subsided. As of now, three general options exist in Iraq: immediate withdrawal, phased withdrawal, and indefinite occupation.

Page 21

www.foxnews.com

Cleric Muqtada al-Sadr does not hold any official government position, but is one of the most powerful men in Iraq.

History shows that immediate withdrawal is most likely going to fail if implemented in Iraq. In 1914, the German Empire (at that time a monarchy) entered into World War I. Following their defeat, Germany signed the Treaty of Versailles (1919) and was forcibly converted to a system of democracy.

The people of Germany, now called the Weimar Republic, lacked identification with the Weimar Constitution, and in turn lacked confidence in the new system of parliamentary democracy.

In the years that ensued, several political parties quarreled for control of Germany. From the people’s failure to embrace democracy, and additionally the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, the Nazi party came to power. In the Third Reich, Hitler became a self-instilled dictator. Not long after, Hitler started World War II, in which he was responsible for the murders of about eleven million people in the Holocaust and over sixty million military and civil deaths in total.

Iraq is a country without a democratic heritage. This form of parliamentary democracy is completely foreign to the country, as well as to the entire region of the Middle East. The progression of German democracy went from: dictatorship, to war, then to short-lived democracy, to chaos, to the Nazi party

Issue 4- The other side

The Iraq War: In Photos www.naturalfamilyblog.com

US Army

US Army

Notwist

Above, a U.S. soldier checks the underside of a tank mine. Top left; a man shows his purpled-stained finger after voting; middle left; U.S. soldiers give candy to Iraqi children; bottom left, President Bush meets with Prime Minister of Iraq Nouri al-Maliki.

(far more oppressive than the original dictatorship). The setup in Iraq is almost identical to that which existed in Germany.

Democracy originally failed in Germany not only because they had no democratic heritage, but also because there was little stability in the post-WWI antebellum. Following the Treaty of Versailles, which put Germany in an economic and social slump, different political factions formed and several paramilitary groups were created. Democracy must be grounded in

“If America withdraws its troops within the next year, the democracy in Iraq will be jettisoned in exchange for a totalitarian regime.� stability. The most important facet of a successful democracy is a unbiased vote, free from duress. The strong paramilitary presence in post-WWI Germany certainly had an extreme influence over the flawed voting system. Without a peaceful populous, the majority group (often with the largest paramilitary force) simply rises to power and commences to kill off all the other opposing parties.

These effects of a divided population are only be exaggerated in Iraq. In Germany, the political factions, although of differing

opinion, were still of the same general ethnicity. In Iraq, there are two distinct and large religious groups, the Shiites (an over 60% majority) and the Sunnis (about 35% minority), both of whom have fought one another for centuries. Additionally, there are several other religious minorities, including the Kurds, Assyrians, Mandeans, Iraqi Turkmen, Shabaks, and the Roma. The two largest terrorist organizations functioning in the world are Hezbollah (Shiite) and Al-Qaeda (Sunni). Although Hezbollah is not a major force in Iraq and Al-Qaeda is losing Sunni Support, hostilities between the Shiites and Sunnis have manifested themselves recently in a large number of massacres and civilian murders. The bottom line is if America withdraws its troops immediately or within the next year, the tenuous democracy inducted in Iraq will be jettisoned in exchange for a Shiite totalitarian regime, in all likelihood worse than the previous.

Along similar lines, phased (gradual) withdrawal over a given period would yield similar adverse results. In the early 1970’s the Republic of Rhodesia (now called Zimbabwe) withdrew from the UK following a unilateral declaration of independence in 1965.

Although most British withdrew from Rhodesia, many stayed in an effort to reinforce democracy there. The Republic of Rhodesia fell into the hands of an apartheid government. The white minority-ruled government did not fully represent the will of the people.

Although Rhodesia did experience several years of positive economic growth, this prosperity was soon ended with the outbreak

Page 22

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII of a civil war. In 1980, minority rule was ended, all British forces were withdrawn, and free elections took place in February of that year. The victor, Robert Mugabe, became president of Zimbabwe in 1980, and has won every subsequent election. Unfortunately, he has turned from an icon of liberty and hope to one of the most notorious dictators in the world; his corrupt administration has been accused of human rights abuses, including mass land redistribution, as well as election tampering, for which Zimbabwe has been suspended from the Commonwealth of Nations. In recent years, the Zimbabwean people have suffered from a corrupt government, famine, poverty, the lowest life expectancy of any country, disease, human rights violations by the government, and hyperinflation.

Democracy had another notable failed example in America in the South during the Reconstruction Era. Following the election of 1876, President Rutherford B. Hayes gradually withdrew Union soldiers from the South as part of the unwritten Compromise of 1877 in which the North agreed to remove troops from the South in exchange for the presidency. The North’s hopes for racial equality, temporarily enforced, were soon lost to the Jim Crow Laws.

Because the reduced military presence no longer had the power

“Although indefinite occupation may be costly, the stability created by indefinite occupation prevents the rise of military dictators.” to combat white supremacist groups, the goal of racial equality in the South fell away as African Americans became disenfranchised.

Gradual withdrawal is likely to have similar effects on Iraq. The US supported government would fail, leading to the rise of another Hussein-esque dictator. Currently, the number of troops stationed in Iraq is barely capable of securing a stable democracy while simultaneously combating the guerrillas and terrorist organizations that have rooted themselves there. If a portion of US troops were removed in a phased withdrawal, our influence there would not be enough to prevent radicals from overtaking the government, converting it back to dictatorship.

Long-term occupation, in contrast with withdrawal, has been proven effective in a number of situations. In August of 1945 Japan agreed to an unconditional surrender, following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Japan was forced to accept a new constitution, creating a parliamentary democracy and limiting the role of the Emperor to basically that of a symbolic unification figure. The revamped governmental structure included an executive, judicial, and legislative branch (a bicameral parliament called the National Diet). Seeing as the new democracy had become mostly self-sufficient, the seven year long Allied occupation of Japan ended in 1952, but America maintained standing armies in Japan.

Even today a great number of US military bases remain in Okinawa and over 40,000 US troops are currently stationed in Japan. Over decades Japan became a vibrant and peaceful democracy with the world’s second largest economy, according to its nominal GDP. Although indefinite occupation is costly and time-consuming, it is the only option that has been proven successful. A long-term or indefinite military presence allows for a democracy to take hold. Because democracy is formed on the foundation of domestic stability, it

Page 23

Profile: Nouri al-Maliki

Shihab20

Nouri al-Maliki is the current State Prime Minister of Iraq. His mandate lasts until 2010. His tenure as Prime Minister has been disappointing; he has made little progress in quelling violence and social conflict.

is extremely important that violence and guerilla upheaval be prevented. Although indefinite occupation may be costly, the forced stability created by indefinite occupation prevents the rise of military dictators.

Perhaps most importantly, private-sector foreign investment in Iraq, which would significantly benefit its economy, will increase dramatically if the US military keeps the peace. There is no better assurance for an investor than having the US military protecting their investment. These private-sector investors will help create much-needed infrastructure and employment in Iraq. If investors feel that their property in Iraq would be safe from governmental or guerilla seizure, they are more likely to create factories, schools, and other utilities. This influx of investment into Iraq could stabilize the economy, encourage industrialization, and significantly improve the quality of life for the Iraqi people.

Additionally, a strong military presence helps to prevent violence between the different religious peoples in Iraq. An issue that withdrawal, regardless of the timetable, does not solve is the fact that cultural divisions would suppress democracy. If the US withdraws, the Shiite majority will likely begin electing Shiite politicians with an anti-Sunni agenda. Without the US military to maintain order,

“A strong military presence helps prevent violence between the religious peoples in Iraq.“ the Shiite insurgent leaders, now backed by the Iraqi government, will begin a mass genocide of all non-Shiite religion. Withdrawal is tantamount to murder. The way democracy can be effective in Iraq is if the US military is present in order help the Iraq government move in a positive direction away from sectarian divisions and warfare.

The US has made a huge investment trying to create the first democratic Muslim country in the Middle East. Over $691 billion of taxpayer money has been spent, while an ever-rising death toll has surpassed reached four thousand. Although it is easy to give up and promote rapid withdrawal from Iraq, it is imperative that the US continues to militarily support Iraq. From long-term occupation rises democracy, but from short-term occupation rises tyranny.

Only if the US vies for long-term occupation of Iraq is democracy feasible. If we leave now, Iraq will most definitely regress back into dictatorship. If the investment in an Iraqi democracy comes to fruition, by way of indefinite military occupation, Iraq may come to play a paramount role in the global war against terror in years to come.

Issue 4- The other side

wire

tapp

ing

By Starlyte Harris

A

fter a year of debate, the Senate voted on February 12, 2008 to expand the use of U.S. spying powers. As we have increased our use of cellular phones, we have simultaneously increased the potential liability that results from the use of the mobile devices. Phones pose a major threat to the speaker’s privacy because the government can easily identify the time, duration, originator, and recipient of the call. Under acts such as the Protect America Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, the government seemingly compromises civil liberties in exchange for citizens’ safety. It is, however, in the best interests of Americans to tighten security, even at the expense of privacy. By removing the requirement for search warrants, the government can eavesdrop on the conversations of suspected terrorists. From the information obtained, officials can quickly foil terrorists’ plots. Wiretapping is an essential element of government, since it allows for a safer America.

In response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the government passed several laws to ensure the homeland security of Americans. Under the Protect America Act, signed into law on March 9, 2006, the government can access telephone and email dialogue. The government’s monitoring of these conversations allows for lawful interception of terrorist plots against the United States in order to save American lives. Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, government agencies obtain information that allows them to protect the American people. The act allows government to have easier access to records, thereby better equipping the government with the tools to maintain security.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urges the Senate not to pass a bill that authorizes warrantless wiretapping or grant immunity to telecoms. However, the requirement of a warrant destroys the benefits of wiretapping. With a warrant, the government must delay surveillance of the suspect. In the interim, the terrorists would be able to further their plots, thereby posing a greater danger to our country.

Ramin Talale

The government, moreover, should force telephone companies to follow orders of sharing communication records. The companies’ cooperation allows law enforcement agencies to easily access information to use for intercepting terrorist attacks on the U.S. In exchange for their compliance, they receive immunity from lawsuits regarding their compliance with wiretapping. The bill passed by Senate February 12, 2008 assures legal protection against companies in relation to wiretapping.

The predominant argument against wiretapping is the issue of violating Americans’ rights. Yet, under current laws, government can only listen to conversations involving suspected terrorists, therefore putting the average American at no risk. The gain of security is more important than the loss of privacy of potential terrorists. Some have also argued that wiretaps create police states since the government acts without consent of the conversation’s speakers. This claim, however, is unfounded because government officials are not controlling the people in society; rather they are protecting the public from dangerous terrorists. Our national security will be jeopardized unless our agents can obtain information about future terrorist schemes.

The Bush Administration’s wiretapping authorization has been successful. Officials credit the policies with the successful apprehension of Lyman Faris, a truck driver who pleaded guilty in 2003 for planning to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge. During the 1994 Aldrich Ames case investigation, the Clinton administration similarly exercised its inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches. Ames was arrested on charges of conspiracy to commit espionage for Russia and the former Soviet Union.

Government spying programs are essential for maintaining the nation’s security. These agencies should be able to access and share information to attain a higher level of security.

Bush’s wiretapping program achieves the goal of protecting our citizens. It is necessary and proper to intrude into Americans’ conversations in order to save lives. We must sacrifice some rights in order to ensure maximum safety for us and our families.

Page 24

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

Third Party, Not Third Place

By Will Dubbs

T

hroughout United States History, a two-party electoral system has determined elections, from Federalists and Anti-Federalists, to DemocraticRepublicans and Whigs, and later to Democrats and Republicans. Third party candidates, however, often have a significant effect on the outcome of elections. With Ralph Nader’s recent announcement of his intent to run for President and the recent successes of third party candidates such Ross Perot, voters should be aware of their impact on the electoral process.

A significant third party campaign was launched in 1912

“While the mainstream media outlets often ignore third party candidates, Nader’s results in 2000 clearly show that he influenced the election by ‘stealing’ votes.” when Theodore Roosevelt lost the Republican nomination to Howard Taft. Storming out of the Republican convention with all his delegates, he then founded the Progressive or Bull Moose Party. Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election due to the split in the Republican Party, but Roosevelt received more popular votes and electoral votes than any third party candidate in US History.

In 1992, businessman Ross Perot entered the race as an Independent Party candidate against Republican George H.W. Bush and Democrat Bill Clinton. Perot’s moderate and pragmatic views gained him popularity when Bush began to lose support and Clinton’s campaign suffered from scandalous allegations. June 1992 saw Perot leading the polls with 39% of the vote, compared to Bush’s 31% and Clinton’s 25%. In the election, Perot received 18.2

Page 25

% of the popular vote (with no electoral votes) and became the most successful third party candidate since Roosevelt and the Bull Moose Party. A report by Dean Lacey of Ohio State University and Barry C. Burden of Louisiana State University claimed that Ross Perot “stole” votes from the other two candidates by running on a platform similar to theirs, especially on social issues.

Consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as a Green Party candidate in a number of states due to discontent with the Clinton administration in 1996, 2000, and 2004. Nader rode on Perot’s previous supporters and endorsements from two major unions, The California Nurses Association and the United Electrical Workers. While Nader only received 2.74% of the national vote, Nader’s campaign website shows that 25% of his voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore, and the rest would not have not voted. While the mainstream media outlets often ignore third party candidates, Nader’s results in 2000 clearly show that Nader influenced the election by “stealing” votes as Ross Perot did in 1992. Nader and Perot are two examples of influential third party candidates, but there are many others with different effects on election outcomes.

The Libertarian party was founded on a policy of promoting a laissez-faire economy in 1977. Today, the Libertarian party supports a Lockean policy of limiting government intervention in the economy and promoting government protection of civil liberties. Libertarians believe that the political spectrum is mapped out in an untraditional chart called the “Nolan Chart.” Left-leaning Democrats are in the top left, ring-wing Republicans in the bottom right, Libertarians in the top right, and Populists in the bottom left. Although Libertarians have conservative social views, such as on gun control, and Democratic economic policies, such as their nonintervention platform, the Nolan chart emphasizes that their party is not a mixture of both philosophies but rather a new one all together.

Issue 4- The other side While the Libertarian party is not as influential in elections as the Democratic or Republican parties, it has been a significant third party group. After the presidency of Richard Nixon, it believed that the Republican and Democratic parties diverted from the Founding Fathers’ original goals.

Its most successful election year was 1980, when Ed Clark and David H. Koch financed their campaigns with millions

“Despite the fact that all five of the independent candidates could have influenced the election in 2000, third party candidates are still overlooked.” of dollars and earned 1.1% of the vote. This gained the Libertarians access to ballots in all fifty states, becoming the first third party to do this since the Socialist Party in 1916.

The Libertarian party ran more candidates and gained more votes than other third political parties. In 1988, future Republican Texas congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul received .47% of the popular vote. The Libertarian party is currently petitioning Paul to run on the Libertarian ticket in 2008. Although Libertarian Michael Badnarik received .34% of the popular vote in 2004, he polled nearly as well as Independent Ralph Nader, and Green Party candidate David Cobb. In the 2006 elections as well, the Libertarian party candidates received 2.04% of the popular vote, while Green Party candidates received only 1.41%. While the Libertarian party has run the most candidates, other third political parties have influence as well.

Just as the Libertarian party supports Conservative views, the Constitution Party advocates a Bible-based platform that party members believe embodies the original intent of the writers of the Constitution. Its platform is “opposed to entangling alliances - via treaties, or any other form of commitment - which compromise our national sovereignty, or commit us to intervention in foreign wars.” Also, members of the Constitution Party believe in a “moratorium on immigration to the United States” because immigrants would “impose an improper burden on the United States, any state, or any citizen of the United States.” Like the Libertarian party, the Constitution Party supports limiting the role of the federal government through abolishing federal taxation, which they deem unconstitutional, and by eliminating federal health care and educational programs, which they deem unconstitutional under Article 1, Section 8 and the Tenth Amendment. It supports a non-interventionist

government, going further than the Libertarian party by advocating that the United States withdraw from any international organizations, including the World Bank and the United Nations.

Despite its overlap in policy with the Libertarian party, Constitutionalists have failed to receive a similar amount of support.

Due to a lack of funding and publicity, the Constitutional party has not received as much support as either the Green Party or the Libertarian Party. One difference is that it is composed of many different, statewide, parties. In Connecticut, it is known as the Concerned Citizens Party; in Michigan it is the U.S. Taxpayers Party; in Nebraska it is the Nebraska Independent Party; in California it is the American Independent Party; in Nevada it is the Independent American Party. Some of the smaller parties, such as the Montana Constitution Party, have distanced themselves from the national party, while Libertarians are more unified. Most recently, the Constitution Party had a candidate elected to the Montana state legislature. By contrast, the Libertarian party has had 16 members in state legislatures.

Members of the Constitution Party have included Pat Buchanan, who in 1996 threatened to run if Bob Dole did not choose a pro-life running mate, and conservative U.S. senator Bob Smith.

Following its example, third parties that are not united under a national party have little success in a presidential election.

Although most Americans believed the 2000 election was solely between George W. Bush and Al Gore, presidential candidates included Pat Buchanan (Reform), Harry Browne (Libertarian), John Hagelin (Natural Law/ Reform) and Howard Phillips (Constitution). According to the Official Election Results by the Federal Election Commission, the difference between Gore and Bush was .009% in the key state of Florida. Constitution Party candidate Howard Phillips, who had the least amount of popular votes in Florida, received .023% of the vote, which could have drastically changed the election. Despite the fact that all five of the independent candidates, including Green P a r t y candidate Ralph Nader, could have influenced the election in 2000, third party candidates are still overlooked.

With the addition of Ralph Nader in the 2008 election, presidential hopefuls John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama should be aware of the history and potential influence of a third party candidate.

Page 26

Horace Mann Review, VOL XVII

The Horace Mann Review 231 West 246th Street Riverdale, NY, 10471