the POLITIK PRESS 11/25/13
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
the
POLITIK PRESS
Volume XIV, Issue XI
Volume XIV, Issue XI
1
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
the
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
POLITIK PRESS A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Alex Clearfield & Rachel Cohen MANAGING EDITOR Colette Andrei ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Katie Botto Christine Server CREATIVE DIRECTOR Victoria Scordato MARKETING & PUBLICITY Rebecca Grenham Audrey Moss WEBMASTER Sihao Lu FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David
HEAD WRITER Ari Schaffer MARYLAND EDITOR Adam Roberts COPY EDITOR Peter Lee STAFF WRITERS Akshai Bhatnagar Mike Bodner Adrian Carney Henry Chen Virgil Doyle Dylan Etzel Rosellen Grant Sarallah Salehi Eliza Schultz Geordan Williams Chris Winer
VOLUME XIV, ISSUE XI NOVEMBER 25th, 2013 2
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
INSIDE THIS ISSUE WEEK IN REVIEW: Government Surveillance ..............................
Page 4
Abigail Sia ‘15
MARYLAND DESK
................................................
Page 5
THE POISIONS OF WAR IN A DEMOCRACY: MODERN DAY McCARTHYISM ...........................................................
Page 6
MARTIN O’MALLEY? FOR PRESIDENT?
Adam Roberts ‘14
Sarallah Salehi ‘16
THE ENCROACHING LEVIATHAN:
THE DECLINE OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IN EUROPE .............................. Page 7 Alex Dragone ‘16
THE RACIAL IMPLICATIONS OF MEDICAID EXPANSION .......
Page 8
Akshai Bhatnagar ‘15
UNHRC ELECTIONS: THE BEGINNING OF MORAL DECLINE? ... Page 9 Mira Haqqani ‘17
SOCIETY CANNOT AFFORD TO AVOID VACCINATION .......... Page 10 Shannon Libaw ‘15
3
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
WEEK IN REVIEW: Government Surveillance By Abigail Sia ‘15, Contributing Writer Supreme Court Refuses to Hear Petition Against NSA Phone Records On Monday, the Supreme Court refused to hear a challenge to the National Security Agency’s collection of telephone records. The petition was filed by the Electronic Privacy Information Center in an attempt to stop the NSA from collecting millions of telephone records from Verizon customers. The petition was unusual and was not expected to reach the Supreme Court because it had bypassed the lower courts, claiming that only the highest court could review a decision passed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (a U.S. federal court established in 1978 to oversee requests for surveillance warrants against potential foreign intelligence agents located outside the United States). The Supreme Court rarely considers cases that have not made their way through the lower courts, as was the case here. Other lawsuits filed after Edward Snowden’s initial document leak remain unaffected by the court’s refusal to hear this specific petition.
Latest Snowden Leak Alleges Australia Spied on Indonesia’s President New tensions in the relationship between Australia and Indonesia arose on Monday after Edward Snowden leaked a new batch of implicating documents. The documents allege that the Australian government took steps to spy on the phone calls of Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, First Lady Kristiani Herawati, Vice President Boediono, and other senior officials in 2009. Some documents from Australia’s spy agency (Australian Signals Directorate) indicate that government agencies tried to listen and track Yudhoyono’s phone calls on his mobile phone. Previous surveillance allegations have already strained the delicate relationship between the two states, including cooperative efforts on the issue of seeking asylum in Australia and anti-terrorism. Also reflective of these ongoing tensions, Jakarta summoned Australia’s ambassador on November 1 over claims that Australia’s embassy in Jakarta was used as part of a US-led spy network in Asia. On Wednesday, Indonesia suspended its coordinated military cooperation with Australia as it began to reevaluate its relationship with its key ally and trading partner.
Chinese Government Steps Up Surveillance on Ethnic Minorities Reports surfaced on Wednesday describing how China has developed technologies that allow the government to focus its surveillance on communications using minority languages. The past few decades have seen significant growth in minority populations because they are not subject to the one-child policy. With this new system, Beijing will be able to monitor phone calls, text sent over the Internet, and messages hidden in images or graphics. The technology is reportedly even capable of translating every major ethnic minority language in China, even Arabic and Japanese. The Chinese government claims that such measures are necessary to prevent social unrest, especially in areas such as Tibet where intelligence officials do not know the local tongue. Beijing’s new technology is a notable addition to China’s already-extensive cybersurveillance structure which monitors online communications. However, human rights groups have raised concerns over the increased surveillance, worrying it may lead to further suppression. PP
4
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
MARYLAND DESK
Martin O’Malley? For President?
I
by Adam Roberts ‘14, Maryland Editor
t certainly sounds implausible. Would the former mayor of Baltimore and current governor of Maryland actually be able to beat Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden in the Democratic primaries? Probably not— Martin O’Malley lacks the organization, name recognition, and fundraising ability necessary to effectively compete with either of those two Democratic heavyweights. Yet despite his chances, O’Malley seems set on pursuing a presidential campaign, and has good reason to do so. First, his odds really aren’t so bad. He has an extremely popular record as a political figure, which has bolstered his national profile among influential Democrats. Given the importance of name recognition in presidential primaries, this is indeed a crucial asset. At the 2012 Democratic National Convention, O’Malley was even granted a prime speaking role alongside bigger names like Bill Clinton and Cory Booker. While O’Malley’s speech was not lauded like Clinton’s or Booker’s, it still helped to position him as a rising star in the Democratic Party. On the issues, O’Malley is generally seen as a pro-business, socially liberal politician. During his mayorship, he was infamous for his widespread use of city money to provide incentives for developers and to purchase property for private development. Years later in Annapolis, he managed to pass the gas tax, which now provides the state with money to invest in infrastructure development. Concurrently, his tenure as governor was marked by socially liberal policies like the passage of gay marriage and the abolition of the death penalty. With his pro-business attitudes and socially liberal agenda as governor, he could carry great appeal to urban residents along the Eastern Seaboard, who are both the party’s main fundraisers and a major voting bloc. Additionally, he does not face much competition among other second-tier candidates like New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, and Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick. Warren has consistently said that she is not running, which seems to make
sense since she was only just elected in 2012. That leaves Cuomo, Gillibrand, and Patrick as potential opponents. Cuomo is very moderate, but his pompous attitude and authoritarian governing style make him a weak presidential candidate. Gillibrand would be strong, except that she would be fighting a losing battle with Hillary for the same constituency (women, moderates, suburban and rural Democrats). Deval Patrick is a decent governor, though he lacks the legislative success of O’Malley. Thus, O’Malley shines above them all. But at the end of the day, O’Malley would be a long shot for president. Therefore, he probably has other reasons for running in 2016. Most obviously, he could be hoping to increase his national presence for a future presidential run in which he would have a head start as a stronger candidate. Should he run a respected 2016 campaign, many Democrats may look for him to run again in 2020 or 2024. This is a common practice in presidential campaigning. Mitt Romney last served as governor of Massachusetts in 2007, ran an unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2008, and then successfully received the Republican nomination in 2012. With the help of a well-run 2008 presidential campaign, Romney was able to increase his national profile for 2012, despite the fact that he had not held elected office in five years. Then again, O’Malley may not be running for president at all. He could reasonably be using his presidential run to gain the vice presidential nomination or to gain a prestigious cabinet post. Many believed this was what former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was doing when he ran for president in 2008. After an unsuccessful campaign, he endorsed Obama in the Democratic primaries, and Obama then rewarded him with the position of Commerce Secretary And then in 2004, young North Carolina Senator John Edwards ran a surprisingly strong presidential campaign that led John Kerry to choose him as his vice presidential nominee. It would not be unreasonable to see O’Malley getting a cabinet post or even the vice presidential spot. PP
5
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
THE POISIONS OF WAR IN A DEMOCRACY: MODERN DAY McCARTHYISM by Sarallah Salehi ‘16, Staff Writer
A
merica has a keen penchant for the word “war.” This word describes, arguably, one of the few enduring threads in our country’s relatively short history. In fact, periods in our national history where this word does not apply are the exception, not the norm. Born out of a violent war that released it from the coercive grip of an imperial power, the United States, from its very founding, kindled an intimate relationship with war. However, arising from war is also one of the most defining features of our nation: democracy. Are these two characteristics then intrinsically linked, fraternal twins of sorts? Today, it is clear that there is no greater imperative facing our nation than the halting of this hitherto consistent theme. The enormous implications of its continued perpetuation spell dire consequences for our nation’s economic, social, and, above all, democratic character. The government, in the name of fighting the neverending “War on Terror”, continues to mercilessly degrade our cherished civil liberties to protect us from an unknown enemy in some far off land bent on our destruction. Nobody truly knows whom this enemy is or why they wish to do this. More troubling, it doesn’t seem that anyone genuinely cares to find out either. Instead, the public is told that this foreign enemy “envies” our freedom and democracy. The story usually ends there, no more questions from the American public and no more answers from the government. So what price have the American people paid to protect their freedoms from this ever-present threat? In financial terms, the cost of conducting the War on Terror has been devastating. The percentage of our yearly budget officially set aside for military spending is 20 percent, almost 1 trillion dollars. The active conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have the cost the nation almost 6 trillion dollars, all of it coming at the expense of the public. Meanwhile, every other component of the budget is being attacked as superfluous and deemed necessary of further cuts. Almost 1 in 5 children in the country lives at or near the poverty line. Government spending on the most important pillars of American society, the education system and social safety net, is either stagnant or being slashed, leaving the needs of an increasingly desperate population unfulfilled.
The fates of our civil liberties, on the other hand, failed to receive even scant debate in both the Congress and White House before being dismantled. With the unprecedented powers delegated by the Patriot Act, FISA amendments, and the frightening passage of Obama’s NDAA bill, the ability of federal officials to arbitrarily target and detain individuals posing a “national security risk,” whatever this means, was solidified. This was before the revelations of Edward Snowden. From him, we learned just how pervasive state power has truly become: a situation where almost every telephone and Internet communication of the citizenry is recorded and stored for future use; Illegal doesn’t even begin to describe these operations. What was the response from the American public and media to these absolutely flagrant violations of privacy? It lay somewhere between lukewarm and complete indifference. For those who opted to speak out against the wrongdoing, whether it was a government official or journalist, the consequences were either reciprocal criminal charges or outright castigation and the stigmatizing label “traitor.” The Obama administration ensured that everyone understood their unyielding decision to suffocate dissent by invoking the Espionage Act a record setting 7 times; this scapegoat tactic had only been used 3 times in our entire nation’s history before Obama. Following the firm reaction from the administration, any curious souls remaining at the powerful corporate-controlled newspapers and media outlets soon fell in line and the discussion has since been stuck on the wholly absurd question of “How can society ensure things don’t get any worse?” The palpable fear of dissent against coercive state power that currently permeates all crevices of American society is eerily similar to the anti-communist purges of 1950’s. With apologists from all corners ensuring us that the “experts” are simply looking out for us, most Americans seem to have been lulled back into the deep sleep that led us to the present disaster in the first place. We need to wake up before the nightmare gets worse. PP
6
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
ENCROACHING LEVIATHAN: THE DECLINE OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM IN EUROPE by Alex Dragone ’16, Contributing Writer
T
he economic crisis of 2007 shook America to its core, but it also savaged our friends in Europe. The continent was faced with a shattered economy, soaring unemployment, and a wave of protests and riots. The country that has suffered the most has been Greece. Before the crisis, the Greek government attempted to turn their republic into a welfare state with a high standard of living, like its Western European cousins. Greek sovereign debt soared, but the allure of future economic prosperity and an expansive welfare system pushed aside any concerns.
and other crimes, and arresting the party’s leadership. Golden Dawn’s popularity has grown since the crisis, winning seven percent of the national vote in the 2012 parliamentary elections, the same ones in which SYRIZA saw success. This was the first time Golden Dawn won parliamentary representation in its almost thirty year history. While we can decry the rise of these extremist parties, keep in mind that they did not seize power in a vacuum. Rather, the Greek people voted for them because they wanted a more powerful state to fix the country’s woes.
As we know, that prosperity never came, and Greece was faced with an economy laying in shambles, a huge debt, and an army of panicked creditors. In the face of this failure of governance, the Greeks took the streets demanding a solution. Tragically though, the solution the Greeks demanded was a more powerful government. The past few years in Greece have seen the rise of two statist parties. SYRIZA – the Coalition of the Radical Left – is a far-left party that is now the second largest party in Greece after quadrupling its seats in the Hellenic Parliament in 2012. It advocates defaulting on Greece’s sovereign debt to its foreign creditors. Besides being an immoral policy, the effects this would have on Greece’s credit are cataclysmic. In general, it advocates for a more socialist economy with tight state controls.
This sad state of affairs is not just a Greek problem however. In the 2013 Bundestag elections in Germany, the Free Democratic Party – a classical liberal party advocating for less powerful government, a free market economy and individual liberties – failed to receive over five percent of the vote, getting no seats in the Bundestag for the first time in the party’s sixty-four year history. In France, the classical liberal party, Liberal Alternative, has existed since 2006, and has yet to seat any deputies in the French Parliament. In Great Britain, the Liberal Democrats – the nominally classical liberal party – have become champions of the welfare state, but still struggle to remain relevant, receiving just above ten percent of the vote in the 2010 parliamentary elections.
The other party that has seen recent success is the Golden Dawn, a far-right party that has been labelled ultranationalist, fascist, and Neo-Nazi. Their main proposal is to restrict immigration to Greece with the goal of leaving more jobs available to native Greeks, as opposed to North African and Middle Eastern immigrants who are often willing to work for lower wages. They envision a resurgent and proud Greece, led by a powerful Greek government. Their rallies involve men marching in uniform down the streets, bearing banners with the party logo that closely resembles a swastika. They have been linked to numerous riots and street fights, often involving immigrants. In September of this year, an antifascist rapper was murdered by a member of Golden Dawn, and soon the Greek government launched a crackdown on the party, accusing it of numerous murders
What is saddening about this situation is that the Europeans seem not even to consider a less powerful government as an option for solving their problems. While some European governments are trying a policy of austerity, the protests we see call for the exact opposite. Nowhere in Greece were there cries for a freer market or less state power. When a crisis happens that was due in large part to the failures of the state, all we see in Europe is demands for more statism. The people of Europe must realize that a powerful government is not a necessity for their wellbeing – it is a detriment. If they do not, we will see the same pattern repeat itself over and over, and the state will only grow in power. PP
7
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
THE RACIAL IMPLICATIONS OF MEDICAID EXPANSION by Akshai Bhatnagar ‘15, Staff Writer
A
s someone who was born in Texas and grew up in Kentucky, I often notice the snide disapproval that other Americans have for my part of the country. In their eyes, it is common knowledge that the South is something of a national embarrassment - a region forever tarnished by its affiliation with slavery and Jim Crow. They forget that the American South has been perhaps the most culturally productive region of the twentieth-century, producing blues, jazz, rock and roll, William Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, Elvis Presley, and George Clooney. However, in the months ahead, the South faces a critical opportunity from an unlikely source: the chance to move away from its sordid, racial past by expanding Medicaid. Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government was supposed to expand Medicaid, the national health insurance program for the poor, across all 50 states, bearing 100% of the cost for the first three years, after which it would pay at least 90% of the costs until 2022. This meant that the states would only pay, at most 10% of the costs, after the first three years---an expense which is estimated to require a mere 3% increase in their current Medicaid budgets. However, last year’s Supreme Court ruling granted states the opportunity to refuse the Medicaid expansion. As a result, the issue has become something of a political purity test within the Republican Party, as 26 Republican governors have refused the Medicaid expansion to demonstrate their opposition to the ACA. That decision, to refuse health insurance that would have been virtually free for their states, is slated to leave 7.3 million people without healthcare. Approximately half of the states that have refused to expand Medicaid are in the South. Every state of the former Confederacy, except Arkansas, has refused the expansion. These states contain many of the most uninsured, least healthy, and poorest people in the country. Yet the true offensiveness of the decision to block Medicaid expansion is that these states, which represent roughly half of the nation’s total population, contain two thirds of its poor African-Americans. In other words, majority-white electorates in these states are blocking the federal government from expanding
Medicaid to large ethnic minorities, even though the expansion would be basically free. This is not just a political or states-rights issue, it is a civil rights issue. The two states I’ve called home, Texas and Kentucky, have much in common, including Daniel Boone, electing members of the Paul family, and producing the two presidents most responsible for advancing civil rights. Yet the differing responses of my two home states to the Medicaid expansion perfectly illustrates what is wrong and what can be right - about the South. Kentucky has realized that the current Southern electoral landscape - one that depends on poor whites voting down social programs that would help poor whites and poor blacks - is unsustainable. Unlike Texas, Kentucky, with its Democratic governor, has decided to embrace the ACA, including the Medicaid expansion. This expansion will allow millions of Kentuckians access to preventive, affordable medical care for the first time, an incredibly important development as the state currently ranks first in cancer deaths, first in smoking, and forty-sixth in life expectancy. Kentucky even set up its own website, allowing it to avoid the problems facing the federal online exchanges. In Texas, however, Governor Rick Perry has refused to cooperate in any way with the national healthcare law, even though Medicaid expansion would provide 1 million Texans with health insurance. I love the South. But like any Southerner, I recognize the South’s obvious room for improvement. As a region, we must understand that this health care law, which was written by the Heritage Foundation and enacted in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney, is here to stay. What remains to be decided, however, is whether the South will recognize the opportunity that this law provides to the South itself. Four of the five states of the Deep South, rank between forty-fifth and fiftieth in terms of overall health. No governor of a state as unhealthy as Mississippi, Louisiana, or Alabama should refuse to expand Medicaid to millions of its constituents, virtually for free. And no white-majority electorate should deny Medicaid access to some of the largest black and Hispanic populations in the country simply because it would require the state to pay 3% more. PP
8
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
UNHRC ELECTIONS: THE BEGINNING OF MORAL DECLINE? by Mira Haqqani ‘17, Contributing Writer
R
ussia, China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Algeria and Cuba have successfully won seats on the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), creating chaos in the international community. Even though there is evidence to suggest that these countries have committed the type of human rights violations that the UNHRC works to protect and improve, they have agreed to comply with and conform to UNHRC regulations hereafter. However, the extent to which they will learn from the responsibility that has been placed upon them seems minimal because it is unlikely that they will be able to end all human rights abuses in their own countries immediately.
which has failed to deal with the Syrian crisis as a result of Chinese and Russian vetoes, the forty-seven member UNHRC is likely to have more success in this area because it requires a working majority for resolutions to be passed. Hence, it can be said that the presence of these countries at the UNHRC is likely to produce some solid results in relation to human rights abuses in the international community. However, with the inclusion of Saudi Arabia in the UNHRC, one may fear that the council will become a platform through which the Saudis will forward their personal agenda against Syria, paving the way for unnecessary politicization of a human rights body.
The newly elected UNHRC members have been contested by several protest groups arguing that given Russia, China and the others’ continuous refusal to allow UN investigators into their countries, there is uncertainty about their actual commitment to upholding human rights.
To be sure, there is fear that these newly elected countries will continue their irresponsible behavior and oppress their own citizens. Their election to the UNHRC unearths significant issues relating to their human rights records. China’s election opens the question over the fate of Tibet and the extensive human rights violations that the authoritarian one-party regime of China has carried out in the disputed region. Similarly, Russia is unlikely to end its restrictions on the activities of nongovernmental organizations, freedoms of assembly and speech, violent discrimination against its LGBT population, and horrendous abuses in the counterinsurgency campaign in the North Caucasus. The extent to which these manifestly unworthy members will conform to the expectations of the UNHRC is unknown; Russia, China, Saudi Arabia and Cuba have failed to meet the UN’s basic criteria for membership of the Council as a result of their widespread abuse of human rights.
The election is a clear sign that the mission of the UNHRC is far from over. Now that Russia, China and Saudi Arabia are on the UNHRC, the Council will have their agenda set out for next year: addressing the poor state of human rights in these very countries. Perhaps having these countries on board will result in their governments taking the required measures to deal with the poor human rights conditions that their citizens suffer from. There is already evidence to suggest that the election of China to the UNHRC is bearing fruitful results as the Chinese government has decided to loosen its infamous one-child policy, causing speculation that it may be on the path of scrapping the policy completely. Despite the widespread fear that these countries, with human rights violations, will cast a dark shadow upon the credibility of the Council, one can hope that they will help to strengthen cooperation and allow for constructive debate, particularly on the Syrian crisis. The election of Russia and China to the UNHRC has allowed the P5 countries to convene in a body other than the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), increasing the importance and influence of the council over matters such as human rights abuses in Syria. Unlike the UNSC,
It is unlikely that the UNHRC will be able to entirely address these issues immediately; Therefore, the presence of these human rights violating countries on a body that seeks to protect the rights of people around the world, is perhaps indicative of the fact that their election to the UNHRC has started what can be referred to as the moral decline of this human rights body. PP
9
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
SOCIETY CANNOT AFFORD TO AVOID VACCINATIONS by Shannon Libaw ’15, Contributing Writer
M
any people remember having vaccinations forced on them by their parents as children. However, vaccines shouldn’t be controversial, and it’s a public health tragedy that some parents choose not to vaccinate their kids. In my opinion, vaccinations are not a widely enough accepted preventative measure in American society, and it should be a routine process for every child to receive vaccinations. Kids not getting vaccinated can cause the resurgence of diseases that were once thought to be eradicated. Pertussis, also known as whooping cough, is one such example. This holds negative health consequences for both individuals and the population. Parents are often misled into the decision not to vaccinate their children. This choice is not grounded in scientific evidence, but rather influenced by over-hyped false media portrayals. For example, the media picked up on the story about Jenny McCarthy’s son randomly acquiring autism after a vaccine, and blew it up. Given the dangerous spread of misinformation, a greater push towards education and advocacy must be made available for parents about child vaccines. This is a testament to how easily people are influenced from media hype. Some people have said that their kids acquired autism after receiving certain vaccines, such as the vaccine for measles, mumps, and rubella, but there is no such scientific evidence that proves this. Most prominent medical organizations, such as the Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics, agree that there is most likely no relationship. According to National Geographic, reviews from the Institute of Medicine in 2001 and 2004 have also found no association. To be sure, there are sometimes side effects from vaccines. However, the ultimate long-term costs for society, if the population is not sufficiently vaccinated, are much worse than these rare side effects. Vaccines can prevent diseases like polio, meningitis, diphtheria, and so many more. To incentivize vaccinations, health policies should be centered around decreasing the costs for vaccinations or making them more easily accessible. Increased availability would likely result in an increased
number of children getting vaccinated. Individuals not being vaccinated in a society can also become a catalyst for the spread of other diseases. Because of the decreasing rate of childhood vaccination, health officials must now deal with emerging diseases in addition to old diseases, which were once thought to be effectively preventable. For the disease pertussis, cases are at the highest level in 50 years according to an official from the Centers for Disease Control, and states such as Texas, California, and Washington have recently seen huge outbreaks. Meningitis has recently become a problem as well, with several cases occurring in the past few months at universities such as Princeton and the University of California Santa Barbara. According to NBC News, apprehension about the disease in Princeton has been so prevalent that a highly specialized and effective vaccine, supposed to eradicate at least 1 in 10 infections, is being imported to that area for students. This vaccine hasn’t been approved in the United States yet. Meningitis is quite preventable and has been a rare occurrence in past years, so the fact that health officials and schools must now take the steps to deal with it is an example of the aforementioned disease burden. This burden is unnecessary because it distracts society from more pressing issues, and induces anxiety in communities. Furthermore, health care costs are raised to treat these people. Finally, because people afflicted with these diseases cannot attend to their daily responsibilities, a loss of productivity occurs. More widespread vaccinations of college students could easily remedy these problems. The public health problem of undervaccination is significant because it can spread serious illnesses through populations. Ultimately, society cannot afford the longterm ramifications of so many unvaccinated children. If vaccines were more of a mainstream process, this problem wouldn’t be so prominent because it would be assumed that everyone is sufficiently vaccinated. Future health policies should be geared towards increasing awareness for parents about vaccinations, which includes effectively separating truth from myth. PP
10
Volume XIV, Issue XI
the
POLITIK PRESS
NOVEMBER 25th, 2013
WRITE FOR thePOLITIK PRESS
Photo Courtesy: United States Library of Congress’s Prints and Photographs Division
The Politik Press, originally founded in 2008 as JHU Politik, is a weekly publication of political opinion pieces. We proudly seek to provide the Johns Hopkins campus with student voices and perspectives about important issues of our time. Rather than hide within a cloistered academic bubble, we know we must critically engage with the world that surrounds us. That, we believe, is at the heart of what it means to be learning. We’re lucky to be situated in the city of Baltimore, a city with a rich history and an ever-changing politics. We aim to look at the politics of the Homewood campus, of the city of Baltimore, of the domestic landscape of the United States, and then of the international community as well. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues which come out once per semester. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. We have run issues covering topics like the political nature of research, the Arab Spring, and our city Baltimore.
If interested e-mail us at
JHUPOLITIK@gmail.com Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 11