TKO 10.14.13

the

Kenyon Observer October 14, 2013

Arian Foster and the Pitfalls of Amateurism by Alex Pijanowski|page 8

Kenyon’s Oldest Undergraduate Political and Cultural Magazine www.kenyonobserver.com

Kenyon Observer the

October 14, 2013

The Kenyon Observer October14, 2013

5 8

6

From the Editors Cover Story Alex Pijanowski Arian Foster and Amateurism

the

Pitfalls

of

Featured Contributors Jon Green, Ryan Mach, Gabriel Rom, Sarah Kawash, Alex Pijanowski and Jae June Lee

Gabriel Rom al Qaeda’s Resurgence

10 Sarah Kahwash

Gambier Theory Explained

12 Jae June Lee Kashmir: A Lost Cause

and

Editors-in-Chief Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and Gabriel Rom

Layout Editor John Foley

Forgotten

Art Directors Peter Falls Ethan Primason

14 Jon Green

Breaking The System

Faculty Advisor Professor Fred Baumann The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-tothe-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity.

All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu

Cover Art by Peter Falls

5

FROM THE EDITORS

Dear Prospective Reader,

The Kenyon Observer welcomes students back from Reading Days with what we hope will be our final issue printed manually. Following our first budget allocation since our refounding, we expect to print subsequent issues professionally and avoid holding up the work of those in the Library, Gund Commons, Peirce Basement and Higley.

Leading off this issue, Alex Pijanowski discusses recent disclosures made by Houston Texans running back Arian Foster that his poverty forced him to violate NCAA rules while he was at the University of Tennessee. Also in this issue, Gabriel Rom examines evidence of a resurgent al-Qaeda movement, Sarah Kahwash applies decision theory to the college and job search, Jae June Lee reflects on lessons learned from his time in Kashmir and Jon Green decries the Republican Party’s intransigence in light of the recent government shutdown.

We invite our readers to consider the topics discussed and the views expressed here, and to use that knowledge to form their own opinions on the matters they find most important. It is our hope that our contributors’ words will provoke debate among students, professors and community members alike. As always, we welcome letters and full-length submissions, both in response to content and on other topics of interest.

Jon Green, Sarah Kahwash and Gabriel Rom Editors-in-Chief, the Kenyon Observer

6

GABRIEL ROM

Al-Qaeda’s Resurgence In October 2012 Barack Obama claimed that “al-Qaeda is on the path to defeat.” This past week, in Northern Iraq a suspected al-Qaeda suicide bomber drove a truck packed with explosives into a primary school’s playground, killing 14 children and their headmaster. Two weeks ago in Kenya a group of ten armed gunmen methodically made their way through a packed mall, murdering over seventy civilians.

Are these the actions of a defeated group? It is tempting to shield one’s’ eyes from the horror of these stories, but even in a world dulled by atrocity and destitution, al-Qaeda’s evil is so heinous that it demands our closest attention.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, CIA director R. James Woolsey is said to have remarked “we have slain a mighty dragon, only to be thrown into a pit of serpents.” Of those serpents, none has been quite as vicious as al-Qaeda. Whatever optimism about the group’s imminent demise that followed the death of Osama bin Laden has quickly evaporated.

To get a sense of al-Qaeda’s resurgence, all one has to do is examine the diversity of their enemies: Shia Muslims in Iraq; Christians in Nigeria, Pakistan and Somalia; moderate Muslims in Mali; and, of course, Jews and Westerners. al-Qaeda’s territorial battlefront has radically expanded and their list of apostates has become correspondingly long.

This past weekend American forces launched simultaneous operations against al-Qaeda terrorists in Tripoli and in a remote Somali town off the coast of the Indian Ocean. al-Qaeda currently has regional affiliates across the world, from Algeria to Gaza to Syria. This signals a new phase in the group’s evolution and has increased their reach and influence to an unprecedented level in the group’s 25 year history. The al-Qaeda that was able to carry out the 9/11 attacks existed only in the hills of Afghanistan. The al-Qaeda is more difuse of today operates across thousands of miles, in dozens of countries and on multiple continents. The decentralized nature of al-Qaeda makes it that much harder to confront. Cut off one head and another pops up. The threat they pose to the West is difficult to quantify- it is a known unknown- and therefore cause for serious concern.

A Short History of al-Qaeda Since 2001 In response to the September 11th attacks, American forces decimated the command structure of al-Qaeda in

Pakistan and Afghanistan. However, tanking public opinion at home, which forced counter-terrorism practices to shift from boots-on-the-ground to targeted drone strikes, gave alQaeda time and space to regroup. By 2009, al-Qaeda’s Saudi and Yemeni wings united. Not long after, the newlyrejuvinated group placed the infamous underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on a commercial flight to Detroit.

Since then al-Qaeda has been reinforced both in its core locations of Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as gaining jihadist allies and pro- al-Qaeda affiliates across the Arab world. As America begins a panicked drawdown that is now bordering on complete withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq, al-Qaeda will only be more strengthened in its home territory.

To understand the command structure of al-Qaeda, one can think of it as having a core and a periphery. At the core is al-Qaeda Proper located in Afghanistan and Pakistan, while al-Qaeda’s periphery has grown by leaps and bounds.

These regional affiliates -- jihadist groups that have varying degrees of affiliation with al-Qaeda Proper -- are located across the globe and their members number in the tens of thousands. Some commentators have argued that the core al-Qaeda operatives based in Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only threats the West has to worry about, since regional affiliates are more concerned with local disputes. This distinction is important, but not entirely accurate. While it is true that regional groups are either fighting between themselves or the governments of their host countries, it should not be forgotten that the swaths of territories they are fighting for are, in many cases, meant to act as staging grounds for eventual attacks against the West. al-Qaeda’s Maghreb Strategy al-Qaeda’s greatest territorial gains have come in North African nations like Libya, Mali, Somalia and Kenya. Many nations in the Maghreb have weak and ineffectual governments whose influence does not extend past their nations’ urban capitals. Thus, al-Qaeda sees opportunities in vast swaths of lawless territory in these countries. Their strategy has been to offer financial and military aid to a diverse group of local jihadists and to gradually bring them within their sphere of influence. Somalia’s al-Shabaab, which was responsible for the recent Westgate mall siege which killed

“Jihad will continue even if I am not around.” —Osama Bin Laden

7 seventy in Kenya, is al-Qaeda’s strongest affiliate in the region. An email message found on a killed Somali insurgent stated that “Our objectives are to strike London with lowcost operations that would cause a heavy blow amongst the hierarchy and Jewish communities.” It’s not for want of desire that regional al-Qaeda groups have yet to strike the West.

Thus far, most attacks from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb (AQIM) have been more propogandistic than violent. In a statement released on September 11th 2013, the group said “the screams of the Americans and their whining makes our hearts celebrate in yearning. Insha’Allah the mujahedeen will continue with their Jihad against the West until the world is ruled by one sovereign state; an Islamic state.”

Terrorist experts do not believe AQIM currently has the manpower or technology to carry out an attack within the United States. But recent events like the massacre of 70 at an Algerian oil plant in Janury 2013 and the Westgate mall massacre hint at the groups increasing organization and competence. al-Qaeda in Syria Syria has become the epicenter of global jihad. Earlier this year, al-Qaeda’s Syrian and Iraqi wings merged to form the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and the group is responsible for thousands of deaths in both countries. Within Syria, al-Qaeda-controlled militias are the best trained and best armed soldiers in the rebellion. An increasingly radicalized rebel movement has coalesced around al-Qaeda and swallowed the more moderate rebel opposition of months past.

The size of these militias number at approximately 12,000.

Other militias are gradually coming under al-Qaeda’s sphere of influence and it’s not improbable to imagine the group having loose control – but control nonetheless, of up to 80,000 fighters.

Additionally, al-Qaeda groups have made concerted efforts to seize chemical and biological weapons. This June, it was reported that an al-Qaeda cell in Syria had seized two kilos of Sarin gas and transported them to Iraq.

It is important to note that al-Qaeda is not simply a paramilitary organization, but also a political one as well. Not only do they wish to inculcate their ideology in civilians but they also provide local governance in the areas they control, and are seeking to win hearts and minds by making various social services available to the population. This is a common trend from al-Qaeda in the various countries in which they operate. al-Qaeda in Iraq Nowhere has al-Qaeda been more deadly and ruthless than in Iraq. Violence is dangerously close to 2006-7 levels, which were then at the height of an al-Qaeda-led insurgency.

This resurgence is primarily due to a newly solidified alQaeda group called the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

The group acts as al-Qaeda’s umbrella organization in Iraq and Syria. Despite enormous pressure from American troops during the “Surge” in 2007, al-Qaeda in Iraq survived and is now flourishing. According to the UN 5,700 Iraqis have been killed in 2013, which is the highest level since 2008.

It should be noted that not all of these casualties are the result of al-Qaeda attacks, as there is a low-level insurgency from local Sunni and Shia militias. But al-Qaeda, a Sunni group, is responsible for the majority of those killed, many of whom are Shi’ite pilgrims and civilians. Iraq’s counter-terrorism forces are woefully underfunded and undermanned and the United States seems content to let the bloodshed go on unabated as long as its Iraqis killing other Iraqis. al-Qaeda’s goal seems to be the same as it was in 2006-7, to bomb mosques, stoke ethnic hatred and move the country towards anarchy and chaos. This time though, there seems to be no countervailing force to oppose them. al-Qaeda and The Arab Spring The tectonic changes in the Arab world have increased the influence and power of al-Qaeda to the greatest level in the organization’s 25 year history. Where anarchy reigns, jihadists breed and from Syria to Egypt’s Sinai, al-Qaeda not only has a strong foothold, but is at various stages in attempts to create new autonomous states.

In a document released in early September 2013, Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s current leader, imparted to his followers that “our struggle is a long one, and jihad is in need of safe bases.” Although the tactics and personalities of the various regional al-Qaeda groups vary significantly, their ideology remains uniform -- inflict as many casualties as possible on Westerners, Jews, Shi’ites, Hindus and moderate Sunnis with the ultimate goal of a Pan-Islamic caliphate.

This potential for growth has not been lost on al-Qaeda recruiters, and their influence in politically unstable countries like Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya is increasing. For example alQaeda inspired groups have gained power in Libya and were responsible for the sophisticated 2011 attack on a United States consulate that left four Americans, including an Ambbassador, dead.

Nevertheless, popular support for al-Qaeda is practically non-existent, especially in North Africa. The group remains a fringe extremist movement that kills Muslims, Jews and Christians without distinction. And yet, despite its unpopularity, al-Qaeda’s power is only increasing. The notion of establishing a permanent al-Qaeda-ruled state on sovereign territory was something Osama bin-Laden could have only prayed for. His dream and the West’s nightmare might soon become a reality. TKO

“Many hope al-Qaeda has been put to sleep.” —Lawrence Wright

8

ALEX PIJANOWSKI

Arian Foster and the Pitfalls of Amateurism

USC and Reggie Bush’s forfeited Heisman. Ohio State players trading championship rings for tattoos. Johnny Manziel’s off-the-field (and occasionally on-the-field) antics. These are just three examples of ethical violations in college football that might occur to the casual sports fan. However, Tania Ganguli of ESPN reported on Sept. 20 that Arian Foster, the starting running back for the Houston Texans of the National Football League, admitted to accepting benefits during his final season at the University of Tennessee. His statements were included in the documentary Schooled: The Price of College Sports. Though Foster’s story is not as f lashy as the scandals at Ohio State or Southern California, it is every bit as important for reform in college sports.

Ganguli writes that “[Foster has] called for an end to what he considers the guise of amateurism in college sports.” According to his commentary in the film, his poverty forced him to accept benefits from Tennessee officials in the form of food and under-the-table rent payments. Per the regulations of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), this was a violation of his amateur status. Nevertheless, Foster asserted that he did not believe there was anything intrinsically wrong with his actions, and he maintained that he does not fear any reprisals from the organization.

Foster’s admission is significant because it reframes the dialogue regarding benefits in college sports. Most previous collegiate scandals have involved illegal recruiting practices, f lagrantly unethical behavior and the like, and we have taken for granted that NCAA coaches and their athletes are the malefactors in any such scandal. It now comes to our attention that some violators of NCAA regulations have been all but forced into breaking the rules by any number of circumstances, and we ought to consider whether the NCAA’s rules have become excessively restrictive.

College athletics is an incredibly lucrative industry with a position of eminence in the sporting world.

The amount of money has reached dizzying heights, and only continues to grow. One can easily argue that the most successful collegiate programs are worth

more than lower-tier professional teams. According to Forbes, the University of Texas possesses the most valuable college football team in the nation, with an estimated value of $129 million, and a profit margin of $71 million. In 2008, Texas raked in $44 million from ticket sales alone, according to ESPN. That same year—also Arian Foster’s senior season— Tennessee had total revenues over $101 million. Although it is impossible to quantify how much money an athletic program makes from having talented players, there can be no doubt that much of this revenue is accumulated because of the unpaid work of studentathletes. It appears unlikely that an amateur tradition in college sports is even possible to maintain anymore, regardless of its theoretical value. In addition to defending his actions, Foster criticized the NCAA for the lavish benefits enjoyed by its officials. “I guarantee every NCAA official has a BMW or Benz or something,” he said. “That’s not wrong, but it’s wrong for me to get $20 to get something to eat?”

The frenzied media coverage has only augmented the problem. Athletes like Texas A&M quarterback Manziel, former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and former North Carolina forward Tyler Hansbrough have become nationally-known names not only for their success in their respective sports, but also because they have received mass amounts of media coverage during their collegiate careers.

We are irreversibly faced with the burdens which arise from the power of personality. The name recognition and respect often engendered by elite levels of performance produces for these young men and women vast opportunities for marketing themselves which, even if they receive no money while in college, can be considered benefits conferred by their programs. The best college athletes can expect to be taken early in the drafts of their sports, and to gain lucrative endorsements on the side, all of which is in addition to their professional contracts.

When the top performers in each sport are auditioning for draft position, contracts and endorsements, the

“It is easier to fight for one’s principles than to live up to them” — Alfred Adler

9 whole idea of amateurism becomes a charade. There is a reason we like to focus on scandals in college sports: we are innately turned off by the idea that athletes who are supposedly playing for “the love of the game” might be gaining unfair advantages from their talent. This explains the outrage that followed Manziel allegedly charging fans for his autograph. However, in light of Foster’s statements, we have cause to wonder how often college football programs, and the universities which they represent, are making unfair use of their athletes’ talent to enrich themselves. We must also wonder how strong is the dedication of these programs to amateur status, considering how much they stand to profit by the play of their athletes and how athletic administrators and coaches are not themselves held to amateur standards.

In a world in which the amateur tradition is becoming more and more impossible to maintain, it seems that the failure of the NCAA to conform to the changing tides of the national athletic milieu would be a mistake.

If we give credence to Foster’s comments, we must choose whether to look more forgivingly upon the more nefarious scandals of recent years. Can it be that, perhaps, the conditions condemned by Foster, rather than greed, led Ohio State’s players to sell their rings?

In some cases it will be obvious that such actions are not forgivable when viewed through any lens. It is too early to tell whether these recent revelations will prompt the NCAA to change its policies. Chris Smith of Forbes reports that Mark Emmert, the president of the organization, has declared that he refuses to reconsider the rules about benefits, although an article by the Associated Press suggests that he does plan to investigate public perceptions about the organization.

Even if no internal change is taking place on this issue, however, many people will advocate for the governing body of college sports to alter its approach. According to Emmert’s website, the NCAA prioritizes “student-athlete well-being and protection of the collegiate model that we all know and feel viscerally about.”

He has also been quoted as saying, “It is not a sin or fundamentally wrong” for the association to increase

its revenues, and he contends that, “It is a good thing to have more resources, if you are using those resources for the right purposes.” What those purposes are, he does not specify.

Perhaps the most crucial information here is the NCAA mission statement: “...to be an integral part of higher education and to focus on the development of our student-athletes.” NCAA rules placed Foster in a disadvantaged position that seems to directly impede his well-being and “development,” and it suggests that there are negative moral implications to increasing revenues when athletes themselves receive no compensation. If the purpose of amateurism is development as a student-athlete, certainly needing to break the rules to pay for food or lodging is not edifying for a person, either as a student or an athlete. It is time for the NCAA to engage in an extensive internal dialogue, and the organization must decide whether its policies will continue to undermine its stated goals, or whether it will reject some of its more unjust regulations.

I doubt many individuals would defend the actions of those involved in the Ohio State scandal, or any other for that matter. Even so, it would not be unreasonable for NCAA rules to become more forgiving of team officials who support team members in dire financial situations, especially when it is clear they have no way to provide basic necessities for themselves otherwise.

Now that a player who has had considerable success in the NFL has come forward about his experience, and has done so articulately, it seems likely that other players will feel more comfortable opening up about enduring similar hardships.

Some, like Foster, have made it out of that dark place, and are now making millions of dollars playing professionally. However, not all struggling college football players can count on becoming a superstar NFL running back like Foster. If this issue is not addressed, NCAA programs will continue to build revenue, glory and tradition through exploiting an untold number of young athletes, and the injustice will only continue to rise along with the profits. TKO

“Idealism is the noble toga that political gentlemen drape over their will to power.” — Aldous Huxley

10 SARAH KAHWASH

Gambier Theory

What Decision Theory Tells Us About Us In my admittedly short-lived career as a senior interviewer, I have seen several students whose schedules are filled to the brim with honors and activities that scream: “Look how talented I am!” As I found out by talking to him and glancing at his resume—because apparently high school seniors now have resumes—one applicant, Alex*, is literally involved in over a dozen in-school extracurriculars and has left his mark on numerous other activities. Perhaps more importantly, his academic record puts him at the top 5 percent of his class of almost 600 students. Alex’s accomplishments are admirable, but their multiplicity led me to question whether his passions were sincere, or contrived for the sake of being impressive.

These applicants have an apparent ability to prioritize the future over the present, but usually, we expect people to do the opposite. When offered a sum of money today or double the money one week in advance, experiment subjects usually decide to take the more immediate reward, choosing smaller sooner consumption over larger later consumption. This is regarded as a time inconsistency, meaning that distant rewards are valued less than their actual present value would suggest.

Applicants like Alex defy that rule. The driven high school seniors I have interviewed are clearly making sacrifices in anticipation of a future reward—that of gaining admission to their top-choice college. Maybe the reward of admission looms larger than enjoying high school. In behavioral terms, their actions would be a result of focusing illusion. In other words, things seem more important while you are thinking about them. Obviously.

Or maybe super achievers are not even thinking of their momentary happiness. To explain using a similar example, behavioral economists use the term “eudaimonia”

to describe the difficulty of basing public policy decisions on happiness. Even if we found what made people happy, our ultimate objective may not be to maximize that happiness. Some people may prefer instead to pursue a career they consider meaningful, for example, over one that makes them happier or richer.

Overachieving Kenyon applicants are particularly interesting because our school’s culture is not one of calculated practicality. Daily life here more closely resembles boarding school than life at most universities nationwide.

We never move or work off campus. Even the way we eat is unique. No other college has an essentially flat-rate dining system with just one dining hall. Nowhere else can students enter the servery as many times as they want and consume a virtually unlimited amount of food. Students are not expected to cook for themselves on a regular basis. That may not be a bad system—I am a big fan of the way meals are run at Kenyon, because as a social hub, Peirce represents much more than a dining hall for most students on campus. But it is certainly misrepresentative of, and poor preparation for, the real world.

My sophomore year, I wrote an article for the Collegian titled “High-Achieving Doesn’t Need to Mean Overworked” about why I thought Kenyon students were sacrificing their true interests to build their resumes.

“Productivity doesn’t have to be taxing,” I wrote. “There is a better way than to trudge through task after task, constantly thinking in terms of means and ends. Your most organic interests—those that aren’t direct pathways to landing a prestigious job or a coveted graduate degree candidacy—will make you a more interesting person, and probably a happier one, too.”

“Do nothing. Do everything. Give bad advice.” — Sam Bumcrot

11 In retrospect, I might as well have been talking to myself. I wrote that article as editor of the Opinions section, one of a laundry list of commitments that ultimately exhausted me and took away from my college experience.

What’s more, I think I was in the minority. The majority of students here, unlike their peers at similar schools, are not hyper-aware of their employability—a characteristic that can be both problematic and admirable. To think of college as an intermediate step is less an attitude here than it is elsewhere. Suits don’t walk around our campus recruiting as much as they do at other schools comparable educational quality.

This is not for lack of adequate resources, considering the concerted efforts of the administration and the CDO to help students with their future plans. A more significant reason is the lack of a go-getter culture at Kenyon.

Even if more investment banks and consulting firms were seeking Kenyon talent, I am not sure they would find many Kenyon students interested in them. Having spent three years here and met several alumni who have echoed my reflections, I have heard most people agree that Kenyon students are passionate—but about very different things than what their overachieving high school selves might have predicted. They are intellectually curious, involved members of their communities, but as a group, they are certainly not the resume-builders it seems they were in high school.

Of course, compounding that issue is the fact that employers streamline their recruiting efforts to be fiscally and temporally efficient, primarily visiting schools where they think they have the highest probability of finding and attracting talent. Williams, for example, has more prestige and a much more pre-professional culture than Kenyon. And beyond prestige, Kenyon is geographically remote and expensive to visit for so many companies and firms headquartered in major cities. Kenyon is a more selective school than the Ohio State University in Columbus, for example, but Deloitte recruits at OSU instead of sending recruiters an hour away to Gambier to attract a much smaller—though possibly more qualified—pool of applicants.

I appreciate that Kenyon’s culture encourages living in the present. But as a senior who has now watched dozens of friends graduate without a plan, I am also concerned about whether we will be as prepared for post-college life as our peers at other schools. Kenyon students are, in general, used to a relatively high quality of life—one they have not been expected to sustain on their own.

This is concerning because we are also loss averse; most of us tend to view losses as “more bad” than gains are good. Think about the way people spend money. Previous economic theory said that people would increase their spending when their incomes rose, and cut their spending when their incomes fell. In reality, however, they only do the former. Prospect theory, an updated version of standard behavioral theory, explains why loss averse workers act this way; they base their spending decisions on what they are used to.

If people’s salaries increase, they are happy to increase their spending. But if they show their incomes will decrease, they are reluctant to spend less. They don’t want to dip below the quality of life to which they are accustomed.

So which is better—to have a more memorable Kenyon experience at a truly special place? Or to adopt the preprofessional attitude of other schools, one that many of us had as applicants, but which we lost at some point along the way? In the long run, enjoying Kenyon and becoming successful are certainly not mutually exclusive; regardless of whether Kenyon lands you your first job, it does give you the skills to succeed. But in the short run, considering our precious little time here, a tradeoff arises between immediate and delayed gratification. I am not sure how to strike a perfect balance, but what matters more is to be aware that a tradeoff exists at all. The default is to invest fully in the present and take advantage of Kenyon culture—a perfectly valid decision, but one that should be consciously made.

TKO *Name has been changed.

“People make fun of the guy who stays home doing nothing. But the truth is, that guy’s a genius.” — Ted Mosby

12

JAE JUNE LEE

A Lost and Forgotten Cause I arrived in Kashmir when the snow had not yet fallen and the headlines had become mundane: “Market Buzzing with Business” and “House Boat Grounded on the Jhelum River.” Political magazines were spinning the old grievances out in fresh ways.

On the boulevard by the river bank, people walked homeward quietly, by 9:00 p.m. the streets had emptied out, and the shops had shuttered up; only a haggling hawker disrupted the quiet to offer the rare tourist a warm night’s stay.

But the silence is one of weariness. The land and its people are tired. With fraternal sentiment, Pakistan has sought the Muslim majority Kashmir, whilst India, which occupies a majority of Kashmir, denies the right of such sentiment: the Maharaja of Kashmir had acceded to India in 1947.The dispute engendered the violence of protests, wars and of a longdrawn intifada ruthlessly suppressed. Still the land bears the trudging of a half a million pairs of boots; to virgin ears, the trudging of military men make for a menacing beat that echoes down every street and alley.

No one needs reminding that the Kashmir valley carries the weight of more soldiers than any other place on earth. On a busy bridge, passersby look neither right nor left as they walk to work, to school, to a normal life. All walk straight across the bridge and pass the words on a pillar: “AZADI.” Freedom.

One week before Christmas, two Kashmiri journalists offered to take me and my friend out for a night-time cruise, a scenic drive under the starry night sky with a view of all that Srinagar had to offer. We thought this odd, since we had already been in Srinagar a week, but we gladly accepted. So that night, they came around in their car. We huddled in and looked at the street lamps blur past as the car began to move.That night we passed the usual sights: the iconic

Dal Lake, the Jhelum River that runs into Pakistan, the looming lights of army cantonments. We searched for the best Kashmiri barbeque. When we did, we sat, talked, and ate. Then again we huddled into the car and made our way back, but back a different way this time. Our guides—a journalist and a poet—became animated.

Off the main road, on a dimly lit alley, the poet looked back at us, gesturing to two buildings, “There’s Papa 1 and Papa 2.” He said smiling. “They used to torture people there, you know?” He chuckled and added, “Men came home to their wives from there, infertile. For a while, the wives didn’t know why they couldn’t bear children anymore, thought it was their problem. Then the stories started to go around that the jailers passed electricity through their testicles.

That’s how the wives found out: the men were just too ashamed to admit to it.”

They were lucky, he seemed to think, because at least they saw their wives again—at least they survived. For on our first meeting in the coffeehouse near ‘Suffering Moses’, the poet had softly said to me, “Many come, many go, many fight, many die.”

After five minutes, we were back on the main road.

There were no cars, no people, and the night’s cold was biting in. I pulled my shawl tight as we stepped out the car to walk onto the quay and onto the pier of Dal Lake. In every way possible, the night was perfectly dark and the far distant lights were perfectly starry—like a scene that Van Gogh painted in his “Starry Night Over the Rhone”—except there were no “two colorful figurines of lovers in the foreground”—only absence, only the yearning for their presence.

“So they dumped some of them here,” the journalist broke the silence, “the dead ones I mean. What’s it again? Ten thousand, no? Ten thousand disappear-

“Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.” — African Proverb

13

Photo by Christoph Trost ances since the intifada, and the monkeys got away with it.” “Monkeys”—that is how he often referred to them, the Indian military, and never without bitterness. They were always “monkeys with guns” to him, or as my German friend neatly pointed out “Affen mit Waffen.”They were monkeys with a strong body, a weak mind, but no heart.

He had once explained his bitterness to me by giving me an article to read as homework. In it was summarised what every human rights organization continually tries to bring to the world’s attention: half a million Indian troops in Kashmir are entitled and protected under AFSPA (Armed Forces Special Powers Act). And under this entitlement and protection, grave human rights abuses are committed. To quote Amnesty International, “widespread impunity prevailed for violations of international law in Kashmir, including unlawful killings, extrajudicial executions, torture and the enforced disappearances.” When a mass grave of what is believed to be 2,000 unidentified bodies was found, the world turned a cold shoulder.

There are still journalists, poets, writers, and lawyers. There are still mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers of the dead or disappeared. There are still those who might gaze into the dark waters of Dal Lake, and feel absence—the dead and disappeared the occupation denies to have ever lived. Though the world, in its indifference, has let Kashmir fade into the grey of history, there are still those who carry the land’s burden. Though the burden of such a superhuman task is tremendous, there are still those who look in the depths of winter keep in their hearts a single seed for the spring of hope.

Bitterness made the journalist quiet. He was quiet for the rest of the way back. He was quiet when he shook our hands and bid us good night; quiet, while the poet spoke to us of Srinagar in the spring. “Promise,” he says, “you will see the city in spring. Promise, for you must come again when the winter has passed.”

TKO

“If you scratch a cynic, you’ll find a disappointed idealist.” — George Carlin

14

JON GREEN

Breaking the System: The Republican Party’s Undemocratic Gambit “ We have just carried an election on principles fairly stated to the people. Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices…if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum.” - Abraham Lincoln, January 11, 1861 After five years of holding out, the American people can safely give up hope that the Republican Party is serious about governing. Congressional Republicans’ insistence on shutting down the government over the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as the ACA or Obamacare) - a law that had been approved by all three branches of government and affirmed by a presidential election - shows that they care more about making sure that as few people as possible sign up for health insurance than they care about upholding democratic norms and honoring separations of power. Moreover, the shutdown occurred after a deal between House Speakder John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid had been reached; Senate Democrats passed an agreed-upon budget bill which set federal spending at levels requested by Republicans, but House Republicans reneged on the deal by amending it to include the “de-funding” of the ACA in violation of the previous agreement.

What’s more, this government shutdown comes as the United States approaches its debt limit; failing to raise the limit will result in the United States defaulting on its debt as it will no longer being able to borrow money to pay its financial obligations. These obligations range from Social Security checks to debt held by domestic and foreign enti-

ties in the form of bonds.

Defaulting, therefore, comes with much greater consequences than shutting down the government; if a shutdown is what happens when a family can’t decide where to go for dinner and settles on ramen, defaulting on the debt is what happens when the family decides not to pay its bills for a few months, the electric company turns off their power and the parents can’t take out a car loan for a few years.

Contrary to the patently absurd assertion made

by Congressman Ted Yoho (R-FL) that breaching the debt limit would “bring stability to world markets,” a default would shock the global financial system at best. In short, it is impossible to find a credible source claiming that anything other than chaos will ensue in the event of a debt limit breach.

Because of the catastrophe that would ensue in the event of a default, raising the debt limit has never been up for debate. Since the debt limit does not authorize new spending, but instead involves Congress giving granting itself permission to make payments it has already committed itself to, negotiating does not make much sense. In fact, from 1979 until 1994, raising the debt limit occurred automatically when a budget was passed; the “Gephart Rule,” named for Congressman and future presidential candidate Dick Gephart, was established specifically to avoid these types of high-risk showdowns. Since Republicans took control of the House of Representatives in 2011, however, they have pointed a gun at the global economy’s head and demanded significant policy concessions in exchange for allowing it to function. With our country set to reach its debt limit on Oct. 17, Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) outlined the following laundry list of demands that are to be

“A fanatic is one who can’t change his mind and won’t change the subject.” — Winston Churchill

15 met in an attempt to kick off negotiations that have, for centuries, not been considered part of our country’s deliberative agenda: ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙ ∙

Delayed Obamacare implementation Building the Keystone X L Pipeline Tax reform Medicare means testing Tort reform Federal employee pension reform Changes to Dodd-Frank financial regulations Rolling back environmental regulations Restricting the writing of new regulations Increased oil drilling Abandoning Net Neutrality Closing the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Under ordinary circumstances, these items would be the makings of a full party platform — Mitt Romney’s failed 2012 campaign highlighted nearly all of them — and not a single one would be considered acceptable to demand in exchange for increasing the debt ceiling. But after failing to enact their policies through the normal mechanisms of government and after being unequivocally rejected by the American people at the polls last year, the Republican Party is lashing out in an attempt to extort the American people into adopting a slate of policies that it does not want (a Quinnipiac survey showed that 72 percent of Americans oppose shutting down the government over Obamacare) via outright threat of economic collapse.

Think back to any of the seven times President Bush raised the debt ceiling. If, instead of allowing him to proceed without any hoopla or horse trading as they did, Democrats had demanded that we end all military action in the Middle East; raise corporate and capital gains tax rates to 45 percent; implement single payer health care, a carbon tax and a soda tax; ban assault weapons and high capacity magazines; decriminalize marijuana; and legalize same-sex marriage, they would have been laughed out of Washington. That the Republican Party is demanding (not asking for) as much or more shows that their claims of being serious about engaging in bipartisan negotiations are nothing more than blown smoke.

Given the ideological rigidity of congressional Republicans, it is no wonder that President Obama is having an easier time negotiating with the government of Iran; Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s idea of compromise is something other than “Democrats coming to the Republican point of view,” as R ichard Mourdock, a failed Republican candidate for Senate, told Chuck Todd in an interview last year.

While Mourdock did not make it to Congress, his ideology is alive and well in today’s Republican Party.

As long as it is, our democracy will be unable to function effectively.

Nearly as shameful as Congressional Republicans’ reluctance to do their jobs has been the American media’s reluctance to call them out for it. Obsessed with being “neutral” and “balanced,” or afraid of being attacked by Republican politicians themselves, the media has cowered behind the false equivalence of saying, effectively, “Well, both sides do it…so it must be everyone’s fault.” Not only is this a cop-out, but it is also not backed up by data. In terms of DW-Nominate scores, considered the standard metric of partisanship and polarization in Congress, nine Republican senators are more conservative than the most liberal senator is liberal ( Bernie Sanders, a socialist who considers himself too liberal to identify with the Democratic party).

Moreover, Republicans’ levels of filibustering legislation, placing anonymous holds on judicial and governmental appointees and shunning any and all Republicans who dare to so much as hint at working across the aisle since President Obama’s election is entirely unprecedented. To pretend that the blame for Washington’s dysfunction is to be shared equally between Democrats and Republicans is laughable at best and intellectually dishonest at least.

Liberal democracy only works when elections have consequences, when losing factions willingly cede power to winning factions in hopes that they will do better in the next round of elections. The current Republican attempt to circumvent traditional channels of democratic governance and extract policy concessions, effectively a refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Obama administration’s right to govern, is shameful, undemocratic and unbecoming of the supposed leaders of the free world. TKO

“It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” — William G. McAdoo

RYAN MACH

The Last Word According to a recent poll, one in four young people now define the American dream as being debtfree, a far cry from what the conception has traditionally represented, such as home ownership and job satisfaction. What were some of the other new definitions given by responders? ∙ The opportunity for children to grow up in an environment in which they experience little to no discrimination based on the color of their skin (white people only) ∙ A new Smurfs movie every other year, if not a Shrek. ∙ Higher minimum wage and, therefore, a more expensive Big Mac. ∙ The possibility of anyone to work hard, make money, become rich and famous, lose touch with reality, pull their hair out in clumps, chatter quietly in bathtub for hours on end.

∙ Every once in a while finding a decent public bathroom. ∙ Proudly serving one’s country, even though all the cool wars are over and this stupid bin-Laden one is probably still happening. ∙ Free porn – not just the weird stuff. ∙ Pills. Vicodin, oxy, all that shit. Whatever you’ve got in that cabinet there will work. ∙ A garage with more than one car in it and less than three dead dogs in it. ∙ Enough time to work at a decent job, take your spouse to dinner, and work on that horrendous screenplay you’ve been writing. Are you still doing that? The one about the lonely gym teacher? Oh my God, that’s hilarious, actually. ∙ Normal-smelling buses.TKO

Cartoon by Brianne Presley