the
POLITIK PRESS
A publication of
JHU POLITIK jhupolitik.org
EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Jeremy Orloff, Matt Varvaro MANAGING EDITOR Alex Clearfield ASSISTANT EDITORS Julia Allen Colette Andrei Ari Schaffer LAYOUT EDITOR Victoria Scordato
HEAD WRITER Rachel Cohen STAFF WRITERS Megan Augustine, Akshai Bhatnagar, Michael Bodner, Henry Chen, Virgil Doyle, Chris Dunnett, Cary Glynn, Peter Lee, Daniel Roettger, Chris Winer FACULTY ADVISOR Steven R. David Cover Art by Will Denton (‘12) and Victoria Scordato
The views expressed within this publication reflect the personal opinions of each article’s author and are not necessarily endorsed by JHU Politik or the Johns Hopkins University.
VOLUME XII, ISSUE V OCTOBER 15th, 2012
Volume XII, Issue V
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
WEEK IN REVIEW by Julia Allen ‘15, Assistant Editor Taliban Targets 15-year-old Activist This past Tuesday, Taliban militants shot and critically wounded 15-year-old Malala Yousafzai as she was leaving her school in the Swat region of Pakistan. After experiencing first hand what life was like under Taliban control, Malala began writing a blog for the BBC in which she voiced her criticisms of the Taliban and how their policies affected her life. Malala spoke out against the closure of schools for girls by the Taliban and their belief that no woman should receive an education. Because of this brave act of support for women’s rights and education, Malala was put on a Taliban hit list in 2011. Pakistani Prime Minister, Raja Pervez Ashraf, claims that “Malala is Pakistan’s daughter, Pakistan’s real face, Pakistan’s messenger of love and peace,” and that she will be given the medical attention she needs. The shot hit her head and has left her in critical condition. Malala is currently breathing from a ventilator and might require medical attention from outside of Pakistan.
Hezbollah Claims Responsibility for Sending Drone Into Israeli Airspace This Thursday, the Secretary General of Hezbollah, Hassan Nasrallah, claimed responsibility for launching a drone into Israel on October 6th. Hezbollah is a radical Shiite paramilitary group based in Lebanon that does not recognize Israel as a state, and claims that it has the “natural right to send other reconnaissance flights inside occupied Palestine.” The unmanned aircraft flew 25 miles into Israel before it was shot down, representing a rare violation of Israeli airspace and a major breach of its security. Israeli officials say that there were no explosives attached to the Iran-made drone which appears to have been completing a reconnaissance mission. It was shot down near Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor in the Negev Desert but, according to Nasrallah, not before it was able to fly “over sensitive installations inside southern Palestine.”
Mo Yan Becomes China’s First Nobel Laureate In Literature This Thursday, Mo Yan became the first Chinese recipient of the Nobel Prize in literature. Mo is a member of the Communist Party and has been a major source of pride for the leadership of the People’s Republic of China, although some have criticized Mo Yan for his relationship with the Party and claimed this relationship has influenced his work, compromising his artistic freedom. It therefore came as a surprise to the Party when Mo called for the release of China’s other Nobel laureate and political dissident, Liu Xiaobo, this past Friday. Liu Xiaobo won the Peace Prize in 2010 but was forbidden to attend the ceremony and is still serving an extensive prison sentence for crimes against the state. Mo Yan called for Liu’s release while talking to the media and expressed his hopes that, if released, Liu would be able to learn more about the positive aspects of the Party and the PRC. PP
2
Volume XII, Issue V
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
SMALL BUSINESS NOT MAGIC ELIXIR FOR ECONOMY by Nicholas DePaul ‘13, Contributing Writer
O
ver the course of the first presidential debate, President Obama and Mitt Romney collectively said “small business” 29 times. They both claim that such enterprises are major engines of job creation; however, both are living in a fantasy world.
yet built a strong credit history.” When young companies can’t access capital (principally and traditionally through low interest loans), they can’t expand and have a much harder time turning a profit within a time frame that needs to be met in order for the business to survive.
The term “small business” is a popular political tool, as it rings of Sam Walton outside his five and dime store and stands in contrast to the huge corporations so many Americans view skeptically. However, a concrete definition of what constitutes a “small business” remains elusive. The candidates appear to be using the popular definition of an establishment that employs up to 500 workers, propagated by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBA also offers a host of detailed specifications that include annual income measurements and product type.
“If small business owners and entrepreneurs can’t get their hands on capital at affordable prices, their tax rates won’t matter because they won’t be able to produce any profit—or jobs.” So wrote Ami Kassar, founder of MultiFunding, a group that helps small businesses find financial sources, in a New York Times blog post. The Obama administration has addressed the issue behind the scenes, raising the limits of SBA loans and passing the “Jumpstart Our Business Startups” (JOBS) Act. But the nation heard no mention of these steps during the debate, and the serious issue of capital was passed over in favor of false claims, like “the top three percent (earnings wise) of small business owners employ one quarter of all the workers in America.” So said Mitt Romney, alluding to a discredited study from a conservative think tank.
Rarely do politicians point out that, according to the most recent census data, 79% of all “small” businesses employ a single person. Another 17%, as Forbes reports, employ less than ten people. That leaves only 4% of American businesses employing more than ten workers. Are the candidates only referring to this small percentage when discussing small business job growth? Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, argues that small businesses “in fact contribute proportionately less [jobs] than their share.” It is the companies that employ over 500 workers that have a statistically relevant impact on boosting employment. It isn’t that small businesses don’t want to hire because they want to stay small, though surely some do express that sentiment. The principal limitation to small business employment growth is access to capital, which in recent years has grown prohibitively difficult. In August, the New York Stock Exchange released a survey of CEOs and small business owners covering economic outlook, business practices, and job creation. Duncan Niederauer, CEO of NYSE Euronext, commented on the results: “Our early sense is that the lack of access to capital is having the biggest impact on job creation… Banks are less willing to bet on small businesses [now] than in the past, especially on newer ones that have not
Lack of available capital is just one limitation to small business growth. Technological advances have erased positions across many industries, and managers have learned how to run successful operations with a leaner workforce. The positions erased by such developments are not coming back. Candidates cannot openly state that unemployment will likely continue to stay high, or even rise, in coming years. But the world has reached a point where necessary functions no longer require many workers. As the economy stagnates, older workers will hang onto their positions, further exacerbating youth unemployment rates. America has been lucky for decades, and now the realities faced by much of the world are catching up. This is not to say that small startups are a waste of time and resources. They are necessary to societal progress, and have been sources of major innovation. But it’s time for the men and women who would run the country to acknowledge realities that voters will see for themselves soon enough. But heck, that’s just too much to ask. PP
3
Volume XII, Issue V
Opinion
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION REMAINS AN IMPORTANT POLICY by Peter Lee ‘14, Staff Writer
E
quality in opportunity, rather than equality in result, has always been an important tenet of American political philosophy. Americans widely subscribe to the notion that hard work should result in success, and it infuriates many to see people denied rewards for their efforts. Perhaps this is why the policy of affirmative action has touched such a nerve with the American public. Supporters of affirmative action hail the policy as a necessary means of ensuring diversity in education, while detractors denounce it as modern racial discrimination. This week, in the case Fisher v. University of Texas, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the use of race in university admissions. This potentially landmark case could determine the future of affirmative action policies at all public American universities. In many respects, I can understand the anger felt by the plaintiff and her supporters. Abigail Fisher, a Caucasian Texas student who graduated in the top 12% of her high school class, was rejected from the University of Texas in 2008. The University of Texas maintains a “Top Ten Percent” plan by which students in the top 10% of their high school class are guaranteed admission to the flagship in Austin regardless of race or ethnicity. Fisher alleges that she was denied admission due to affirmative action policies at the university that favor minority candidates. Fisher argues that the University of Texas’ policy violates the 14th Amendment, which states that “No state shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The University of Texas maintains that Fisher would still not have been granted admission even if race were not taken into account. To many, it may seem unfair that race, a trait given to us at birth of which we have no control over, should be considered as a factor in university admissions. Yet, it was that attribute that was used as a justification for unequal treatment and discrimination throughout much of America’s early history. America’s history is fraught with instances of minorities being denied basic civil liberties simply because of their race. Although great strides have been made towards racial
equality, years of racial prejudice and discrimination have created a systemic imbalance in the level of opportunities available to certain races. Great disparity in education still exists in this country today. In 2009, while 28% of Americans older than 25 had a bachelor’s degree, only 17% of African-Americans and 13% of Hispanics above 25 fit in that category. Affirmative action plays a role in redistributing the equality in opportunity that has been denied to many minorities in America. Nevertheless, it is also necessary to have certain limitations on the use of race in college admissions. In the 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s affirmative action admissions policy, highlighting the “educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body.” Yet in Gratz v. Bollinger, a case heard concurrently with Grutter v. Bollinger, the Supreme Court also ruled that the University of Michigan’s “point-based admission system,” where applicants of certain races were automatically given points towards undergraduate admission, was unconstitutional. Gratz was a further restriction on the use of race in college admissions. In the 1978 case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled that while the use of racial quotas in admissions for a public medical school was unconstitutional, race could still be used as a “plus” factor in admission. In the majority opinion in Grutter, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that affirmative action would probably be unnecessary in about 25 years. Our nation may one day reach a point where there is a balance of opportunity and representation amongst all different races and genders. While race should not be an exceptionally critical factor in university admissions, universities should be able to take race account in order to holistically evaluate and understand the applicant. Our belief in the equality of opportunity rests on the false assumption that we all start off on equal footing. Affirmative action is simply one way of promoting diversity and adequate representation in education; for now, the current standard must be upheld. PP
4
Volume XII, Issue V
Opinion
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
BENJAMIN NETANYAHU: HYPOCRITE AND WAR HAWK by Peter Natov ‘16, Contributing Writer
I
sraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a hypocrite and a war hawk. His recent speech at the United Nations in New York touched upon many issues. Prime among them was the interminable debate about Palestinian statehood. More important, however, were his comments and proposals on how to deal with Iran’s alleged development of nuclear weapons. Netanyahu asserted that Israel and the rest of the international community must draw “a clear red line” that would serve as a point beyond which Iran cannot pass in its alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons. Citing diplomacy and economic sanctions as previous failures, Mr. Netanyahu believes that such a red line would be the last and only successful method of deterring Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The most memorable point of the speech was when Mr. Netanyahu pulled out a comical diagram of an atomic bomb that looked like something out of a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon. He then drew an arbitrary red line on the ludicrous diagram representing the line Iran cannot pass . Netanyahu and his fellow hawks within the Israeli government, not Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or anyone else within the Iranian government, are looking for war. Drawing a red line with regard to Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program demonstrates that fact. The idea of drawing a red line has two fundamental problems. First, Netanyahu’s claim that Iran must not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon is utterly hypocritical, considering Israel itself is a highly militarized state its own arsenal of nuclear weapons. Israel is one of four states (along with India, Pakistan, and the internationally-isolated North Korea) that refused to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, a treaty with the explicit goal of preventing what Israel is hoping to prevent in Iran: the development of nuclear weapons. Iran should not have to give in to Israel’s demands until Israel itself formally commits to preventing nuclear proliferation.
Second, although Netanyahu claims that “red lines” can stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons and ensure peace in the Middle East, the Israeli prime minister is actually hoping to use a red line to justify a war with Iran. Up until this point the United States, Israel’s most important ally, has been entirely opposed to an Israeli military strike against Iran. An arbitrarily-determined red line drawn against Iran, however, could possibly provide Israel the justification it needs for a military attack. Netanyahu could unilaterally determine where a red line should be drawn, placing Iran in an unfair and vulnerable position. Netanyahu hopes his militaristic and hawkish approach toward Iran will force them into abandoning its alleged nuclear program. Accordingly, he believes it would serve as a deterrent. In practice, however, a red line would only exacerbate the situation by urging Iran to finally develop a nuclear weapon. Rather than acting belligerently towards Iran, Israel should start treating them with respect and decency. A policy of diplomacy with Iran will provide Israel with an opportunity to ensure its security and peace in the Middle East. However, Israel has preferred to depict the Iran as an irrational, apocalyptic state determined to end Israel’s existence in the Middle East. Clearly, Israel’s bellicose and disrespectful attitude has only urged Iran to quicken its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Iran hopes that it can potentially use the possession of nuclear weapons as leverage to persuade the international community into lifting the economic sanctions hurting Iranian society, and as a means of earning more respect and influence in the international community. Yet, Netanyahu will certainly not adopt a policy of diplomacy and respect towards the Iranians. The red line he so ardently believes will keep peace in the Middle East will just be a simple justification for war against Iran. If the Israeli people truly want to maintain the Middle East’s current precarious peace, they should strive to elect a new prime minister. After all, it is Netanyahu, not Iran, who wants war, and it is Netanyahu and his cabinet who are leading Israel on the path to war. PP
5
Volume XII, Issue V
the
POLITIK PRESS
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
PAUL BROUN: THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE by Malka Herman ‘15, Contributing Writer
R
eligion is a beautiful thing. There is nothing wrong with believing in a higher power or having faith in the Bible. But religion can also be a frightening force. Religion has been the cause of countless wars and can sometimes counter progress. When religious leaders become involved in politics then, there is a great chance that religious persecution of others will follow. On September 27th, 2012, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA) was filmed speaking about science at the Liberty Baptist Church Banquet. He said, “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” After Broun’s proclamation that science originates from the “pit of hell,” he then explained how science is actually taught in order to corrupt religion. He proclaimed that the Big Bang theory, embryology, and evolution are “lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
from “understanding that they need a savior” then he should have a job that fits his beliefs. People are upset by what Paul Broun said. If Broun’s statements actually represented many Americans’ beliefs he would have said these words in front of everyone, instead of at a church function. If Broun’s words truly represented the majority of the population, why would Broun’s spokesman say, “Dr. Broun was speaking off the record to a large church group about his personal beliefs regarding religious issues”? Why the need to justify what he said if he was only expressing the majority opinion?
The truth is that Paul Broun was not just speaking about his personal beliefs at the Liberty Baptist Church; he was also proclaiming how his personal beliefs will affect his political agenda, saying, “[The Bible] teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that’s the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I’ll continue to Paul Broun serves on the House Committee on Sci- do that.” Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, but ence, Space and Technology. With him in that posi- Broun clearly does not intend to keep his faith persontion, what will happen when scientific research finds al. Rather, he intends to force it on everyone else. information that contradicts the Bible? Will Broun dismiss the research as “lies” simply because it does Paul Broun is not alone in his condemnation of scinot match his religious beliefs? Will that affect the ence. Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Todd way he performs his job on the House Science Com- Akin are just a few prominent people who have spoken mittee? out against science within the past ten years. These are influential current and former elected officials who The House Committee on Science, Space, and Tech- can have a powerful effect on the future of science in nology is meant for a certain kind of person. It is America. meant for scientists who are willing to challenge the past in order to continue discovering the newest Americans, be careful about who you elect to office. breakthroughs in scientific research. It is meant for Remember that freedom must be protected by levelpeople who view science positively, not those who headed individuals who do not accuse others of telling think certain scientific theories come from a “pit of “lies straight from the pit of hell.” PP hell.” Broun can believe what he wants. But if he does not believe in evolution, the Big Bang theory and embryology, he should not be in his position. If he views science as a source of evil intended to prevent people
6
Volume XII, Issue V
OCTOBER 15th, 2012
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 believe that progress comes from conversation and that every voice deserves to be heard. Our staff is made up of students with majors that range from political science to bio-molecular engineering. We seek out the best political writers on campus and regularly interview professors and graduate students. In many ways, the Homewood campus is a microcosm of the American political landscape. We find ourselves at a crossroads defined by students from across the country, professors with disparate political theories, and a city constantly confronting racial violence, political corruption and systemic economic problems. While we publish the Politik Press weekly, we work simultaneously on our special issues. These magazines confront a single topic from multiple angles. In 2011, with the Arab Spring fully underway, we interviewed five Hopkins professors whose expertise ranged from Archeology to US-Israeli relations, in order to provide some clarity on an immensely complex and constantly shifting situation. In 2012 we focused on the political issues of Baltimore, conducting interviews with professors and local politicians in order to shed light on the complexities of our school’s relationship to our city. Possible topics for our next special issue include the politics of financial aid and student debt.
If interested e-mail us at
POLITIK@jhu.edu Or find us online at
jhupolitik.org 8