November 2009 by The Chariot

Chari t T

Delivering Gunn’s Culture and Politics

November 2009

Volume 6 Issue 3

Breathalyzing Blowing Away Our Civil Liberties Will Cromarty Pages 5-6

Accept the Breathalzyers Robert Chen Page 6

Is Buying American American? James Ma Page 4 Power Grab Halted in Honduras Andre Garrett Pages 6-7 Heir to Obama? Ron Ackner Pages 12-13 Review: The Lost Symbol Anish Johri Page 16

The Regulars What’s That? National Emergencies Page 3

Is Illegal Downloading Ethical? Downloading By the Numbers Brittany Cheng Pages 8-9

Not Only IIlegal, But Morally Wrong Hina Sakazaki Pages 10-11

The Lowdown on Illegal Downloading Neil Bhateja A Moral Decision Page 10 Jacob Guggenheim

Pages 11-12

Gunn Update: Cheating Robert Chen Page 4 The Life: Sportsmanship Aaron Guggenheim Page 7 Where We’re At Andrew Liu Page 15

More soldiers in Afghanistan? The Right Surge Max Lipscomb Page 14

Our Stake in Afghanistan Andrew Liu Pages 15-16

The Chariot Editors-In-Chief Robert Chen Aaron Guggenheim Senior Editors Ben Bendor Andrew Liu Copy Editors Tommy Huang Sarah Zubair Graphics/Layout Brittany Cheng Scott Wey Alexandra Yesian Circulation Jacob Guggenheim Publicity Priya Ghose Contributing Writers Ron Ackner Yoni Alon Arjun Bharadwaj Neil Bhateja Corey Breier Will Cromarty Naor Deleanu Andre Garrett Henry Gens Tara Golshan James Gupta Anish Johri Ryan Lee Alice Li Max Lipscomb Jeff Ma Sam Neff Saurabh Radhakrishnan Roxanne Rahnama Hina Sakazaki Yoyo Tsai Daljeet Virdi Charlie Wang Ian Wilkes Stanley Yu Ethan Yung Omer Zach Kevin Zhang Foundation/Group Sponsors Adobe Systems Palo Alto Lions Club Palo Alto Roller-Masonic Lodge Patrons ($100+) Lauren Michals and Vinod Bharadwaj Steven Guggenheim Shirley Zeng and Yajun Liu Sponsors ($50-99) Contributors ($21-50) Special thanks to Advisor, Marc Igler 2

November 2009

About Us The Chariot is intended to create and promote political discussion at Gunn and make people aware of issues that matter. We ask that you respect all opinions which are reflected in our publication, and write letters to the editors if you wish to voice your opinion. The views expressed do not reflect that of The Chariot, but rather those of the individual writers. The Chariot was originally founded in 2004 as the Partisan Review by Gunn alumni Ilan Wurman (‘06), Channing Hancock (‘06), and Sarah McDermott (‘05). Visit our website, www.gunnchariot.com if you wish to view any issues from previous years or for more information about us. Any questions, comments, suggestions, or requests to join can be sent to gunnchariot@gmail.com If you’d like to make a donation or subscribe, please send checks to: Marc Igler Re: The Gunn Chariot 780 Arastradero Road Palo Alto, CA 94306 Checks can be made out to Gunn High School with “The Chariot” on the memo.

The World in a Blurb Baghdad Bombings

In a break from the relative to trend calm in Iraq, twin suicide bombings on October 25 killed more than 130 people and wounded almost 600. The attacks, directed at governorate offices and the Iraqi Justice Ministry, sharply contrasted with the decline in both United States military and total civilian casualties in Iraq from their peak in 2007. The attack is the second major one against government offices in two months; the first happened in August, killing 122 people at the Foreign and Finance Ministries. Authorities say that these bombings were motivated by political parties trying to gain seats in the upcoming parliamentary elections. Ali al-Dabbagh, Iraqi government spokesman, said the attack had the footprints of al-Qaeda all over it. The attacks have contributed to a loss of trust in Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s government and security. The cars carrying the bombs, for instance, were able to pass through multiple Iraqi-manned checkpoints before detonating the explosives. The fact that the suicide bombers struck at government buildings also instills fear into Baghdad residents and makes them less likely to vote. Ironically, the Iraqi Parliament is now debating an election law that would allow Iraqis to vote for individual candidates.

Windows 7

Microsoft, a staple of the P.C market, released a new operating system on October 22nd. Windows 7, the seventh iteration of the popular O.S, promises to have improved performance and fewer bugs than the pervious operating system, Windows Vista. Microsoft has also stripped out some basic features that people have come to expect in pervious editions and put them online to streamline the system. Windows 7 Microsoft hopes to continue its dominance in the market, halt the growing market share of Apple O.S 10 and destroy the new Google operating system, Chrome O.S. We will have to wait and see to find out who gains control of this very large market.

The Chariot

“ “ “

Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. – Norwegian Nobel Committee The perpetrators of these treacherous and despicable acts are no longer hiding their objective but to the contrary, they publicly declare that they are targeting the state ... and aiming at blocking the political process, halting it and destroying what we have achieved in the last six years. – Jahal Talabani, Iraqi president, in response to Baghdad car bomings By the time regions or health-care systems recognize they are becoming overburdened, they need to implement disaster plans quickly. —White House spokesman Reid Cherlin on H1N1

What’s That? National Emergencies

President Obama has decided to declare swine flu a national emergency due to its highly contagious nature and the fact that twice the number that get the common flu each year are expected to contract the swine flu. This new declaration makes it easier for hospital to get reimbursed by government health care programs and allows for quicker care and less contagion in overcrowded waiting rooms. This new emergency act was made to deal with the millions of cases of pandemic flu, some of which have resulted in death and hospitalization. Incidence of swine flu is only expected to climb in the coming months and this act provides the ability for hospitals to deal with expected influx in demand.

November 2009

The Chariot

Gunn Update Cheating Robert Chen Co Editor-in-Chief

Many people feel compelled to cheat due to the academic pressure, but I have three simple reasons not to. Firstly, you don’t ever need to cheat. Really, there should not be any classes at Gunn where one can’t get a good grade just by working hard. By putting in the time to study, learn, and internalize the material, you will understand the material well enough to do well on tests. All it takes is grit and dedication. Secondly, any reward or boost in scores that you get out of cheating is false. It’s not actually your grade you are receiving, but somebody else’s grade. If you can’t even express your own knowledge and feel the need to cheat, then you should reconsider who you are. Do you want to lie to your knowledge or be in control of your own life? Finally, the potential reward is not worth the likely punishment. For the possibility of a good grade, you risk a permanent mark on your transcript that colleges will see. One or two bad grades won’t significantly affect the chances of getting into the college of your choice, but the mark of a cheater will.

November 2009

Is Buying American American?

issues with the Chinese steel, the project was delayed for almost eight months. In the new stimulus bill, there is a provision that mandates all projects be done using US steel, unless US steel is 25% more exJeff Ma pensive that foreign steel. By spending Contributing Writer more money per project, fewer projects When Congress passed the $800 billion can be completed. One also has to consider the side effects dollar stimulus bill in January, the second stimulus bill (first was TARP) passed dur- of buying American. In 1992, President ing the ongoing recession, there is a provi- Bush imposed a tariff on foreign steel to sion that requires all stimulus bill funded protect the US steel industry. However, projects be completed with US-made the rise in prices drove the industries that equipment and goods (using US labor). It heavily used steel, such as the auto indusis estimated to create/save almost 3 mil- try, to lose more jobs than were gained in lion new jobs in the manufacturing sectors. the steel industry. Some argue that these policies worked Although buy American sounds good, in other countries. For example, France it may not be good in practice. However, one has to consider who these provisions has recently tunneled its taxpayer’s money are supposed to target. Instead of hurting to the French auto industry in exchange countries like China, the provisions have for the French auto industry to commit hit countries such as Canada. Many Cana- to no layoffs. Furthermore, the Eurodian companies are boycotting US goods, pean economy is recovering faster than and are hurting US jobs. Now, in 2009, the US economy, but there may not be a connection between these two the US is exporting $10 billion facts. They also argue that, dollars less worth of goods when people claim that to Canada than in 2008, US exports have inand importing $20 creased due to free billion dollars less. trade agreements, Further more, such as NAFTA, other countries, one has to realincluding many ize that many in Europe, have of those exports enacted counare known as termeasures to “industrial tourthe provisions. ism”, where the 95% of the US sends parts out world’s population to countries such as lives outside the US, Mexico for assembly, and that is the market and the goods are then reMaybe not that the US should be tarturned for sale in US markets. geting. When these markets start Manufacturing jobs are also a victim of to shrink and the US is unable to export their own success. For example, agriculgoods, it will cost jobs in the US. ture used to employ 33% of the US workAn example of buy American policies is the reconstruction of the Bay Bridge. force in the 1900’s, but now it only emBoth a Chinese steel company and an US ploys 2% because productivity increased, steel company gave estimates on the cost and fewer workers were needed to make to repair the bridge. The Chinese esti- the same products. Buy American policies state basically mate was $400 million dollars less than the that a Ford made in Canada cannot not US estimate, which 23% higher than the be bought for a US project, but a Toyota Chinese estimate. The Californian government chose to buy the Chinese steel. made in the US is fine. Now, is that American? However, because of quality and shipping

Breathalyzing Blowing Away Our Civil Liberties Will Cromarty Contributing Writer The breathalyzer policy is a disturbing attempt to wrest from our hands one of the few rights we have left. As a strong believer in the Constitution and the importance of individual liberties, I vehemently oppose this oppressive measure. The mandatory testing of all students entering dances is not only an inconvenience, but a blatant violation of our 4th Amendment rights. The 4th Amendment clearly states,

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

social events, this is not a free pass to violate the rights of those with no history of guilt, and those with no behavior that suggests a violation of the policy. Using breathalyzers to test students who are acting intoxicated is reasonable, in the same way that police may search an individual, given probable cause. Any further than this, however, and we enter a slippery slope of rights infringements. Some claim that as minors, we have no rights. This is not entirely true. While in some cases adults are granted control over

The Chariot

some aspects of our lives or behaviors, this control must have a limit. In the eyes of the constitution, this limit has been established. In the case of Johnston v. Tampa Sports Authority (2008) the courts upheld the right of sports stadiums to search attendees in the interest of safety. Because the stadium was a private, rather than governmental, facility, the searches were not a violation of the constitution. The school, however, is not a private institution. It receives government funding, operates under government guidelines, and is thus undeniably restricted by the ultimate check against governmental abuse of power: the Constitution. In response to my objections, I have been told that I do not have to attend the events in question. This is absolutely true, and leads to a revolutionary concept; neither do you. Not a single one of us is required to attend, and as members of a constitutional republic that values civil liberties, it is our duty not to. If we want to alter this oppressive policy, we must vote against it in the only manner a bu-

To harass every attendee of a dance, regardless of behavior, is to violate this expectation of reasonable behavior from authorities in the same way that random searches of homes by police would be a violation. Proponents of the policy claim that it will make our dances safer, and there may be a kernel of truth in this blanket statement. While the school arguably does have a legitimate interest in keeping intoxicants out of its November 2009

The Chariot

reaucracy can comprehend: with our wallets. Since the implementation of the breathalyzer policy, I have denied my oppressors economic support by not attending dances. If you believe in the principles upon which our nation was founded, I urge you to do the same until this policy is repealed once and for all.

Accept the Breathalzyers Robert Chen Editor-in-Chief Breathalyzing every person going into the school dances has created unnecessary uproar. Many people believe that it is unjust or unconstitutional to be breathalyzed seemingly without reason or valid suspicion. Here is a simple suggestion to them: if they don’t want to be breathalyzed,they should not go to the dances. The school has every right to breathalyze everyone going to its dances, and students shouldn’t complain about this policy. Gunn, like all other public schools, is funded partially through federal funds. Because of this, it is obligated to adhere to and uphold federal law, in this case the law concerning underage drinking. It’s no different from how school is operated during the day. At school, students aren’t allowed to drink during or between classes. The school would call the police, and the city as well as the school would punish the guilty student. At 6

November 2009

dances, this is no different, especially since attendees are still on campus. Going to dances is not mandatory. In fact, students pay for the privilege of attending. Gunn provides students with a service, and they as the customers take the offer. Not only do students choose to attend, but if at any point they are unsatisfied, they can just leave. There are no teachers or doors keeping them inside until it ends at 10:30. Students can come and go as they please. Because dances are completely voluntary, students subject themselves to breathalyzation by attending them. And it’s not without warning either. The Gunn administration has made it clear that the breathalyzer test is mandatory for those who wish to attend. Once there, students are free to refuse the test and simply not attend the dance. The breathalyzer is not forced on students; they choose to take it in order to enter dances. In Board of Education of Pottawatomie v. Earls (2002), the Supreme Court decided that public schools are allowed to test students for drugs if they are participating in competitive sports or extracurricular activities. Since dances occur outside of school hours, they are considered extracurricular events. Therefore, Gunn is allowed to test for drug use (in this case, alcohol) among those participating in the dances. Breathalyzing is not a very intrusive way of attempting to enforce the law. Unlike pat-downs that are uncomfortable at best, breathalyzing is fast, nonphysical and simple. It does not require much: just a minute to blow into the straw. There are no records of the test that come back to haunt the student–no DNA, no fingerprints, nothing, provided that the student is clean. If the student has nothing to hide, breathalyzing should not be a problem. Where did the idea that students have the right to do something illegal come from? People aren’t allowed to steal and they certainly don’t have the right to. It’s against the law to kill and people shouldn’t be allowed to. Why should underage drinking be any different? The simple answer is that it shouldn’t. That’s why when push comes to shove, using the breathalyzer at dances is indeed necessary.

Power Grab Halted in Honduras Andre Garrett Contributing Writer Left-wing President Manuel Zelaya took office in 2006. As in America, Presidents are elected to four-year terms in Honduras. However, a president may only serve one term: at the conclusion of that four-year period another election takes place and a new president is elected. With the November elections drawing near, President Zelaya tried to remove the term limits from the Honduran constitution and was arrested and taken out of the country. The Honduran constitution was well written to combat power-hungry politicians like Zelaya. It has been in effect since 1982, when it was written with provisions designed to prevent a reoccurrence of dictatorial rule. Understandably, Zelaya was not pleased with the provisions that limited him to even fewer years as president than the typical American officeholder. He sought to change the constitution, emulating Hugo Chavez, the socialist leader of Venezuela who successfully removed his own term limits earlier this year, effectively making himself president for life. For the Honduran constitution to be changed, a constituent assembly must convene. This can only occur after a national referendum approved by the Honduran Congress. Zelaya proceeded to call for a referendum without the involvement of the congress. He also called upon Chavez, his political ally, for aid. Chavez, whose undemocratic rule in Venezuela would arguably benefit from the rise of a new leftist dictator in Latin America, printed out the ballots necessary for the referendum and sent them

The Chariot

to Zelaya. The Honduran Supreme Court ruled the referendum illegal due to its unconstitutionality, and ordered the Honduran military to not help with the attempted imposition of the referendum. When Zelaya ordered the military to distribute the ballots, General Romeo Vasquez refused. Zelaya then fired Vasquez, and ignored the pleas of the Supreme Court to reinstate the general. The ballots were still held by the military, so Zelaya gathered a cohort of his supporters, entered the military compound and seized the ballots. By his actions, Zelaya triggered a clause in Article 239 of the Constitution, which states:

No citizen who has already served as head of the Executive Branch can be President or VicePresident. Whoever violates this law or proposes its reform, as well as those that support such violation directly or indirectly, will immediately cease in their functions and will be unable to hold any public office for a period of 10 years.

Zelaya’s unconstitutional referendum was a proposition to reform the clause which prevented any former president from being elected president once more. He was summarily arrested under the order of the Attorney General and transported to Costa Rica, where he could not further interfere with the political process with additional violations of the rule of law. As prescribed by the Constitution, the Honduran congress selected as Zelaya’s replacement Roberto Micheletti, a member of the same left-wing party. The Honduran government intends to hold the election in November as planned. The current government has had its own issues since then. Following violent protests, a curfew was imposed, and a decree issued that gave the police authority to break up public meetings and restrict the news media. Officials who had supported Zelaya’s removal objected to these actions: their constitutionality is very much in doubt. Earlier this month, the decree was lifted, possibly signaling a smooth transition and a peaceful election in November. With civil rights restored and the rule of law upheld, Zelaya’s ploy has thus far been subverted. One could say that the coup— that of Zelaya against the constitution— failed.

The Life Sportsmanship Aaron Guggenheim Co Editor-in-Chief

I know that for some folks, good sportsmanship comes hard. When beating yourself up over losing something that you are sure that you should not have lost, it is easy to lash out at the other team. But, remember to be respectful. Shake hands with the other team, congratulate them on their victory and look for ways to improve the way you played the game so that you can win next time. Be proud if that was the best possible effort that you could have given on that day, given the conditions. You can’t do much better than your best. The same goes for winning. Even if you crush the other team, be respectful as well. Shake hands and be proud of yourself for winning and be grateful of the other team for putting in all the effort they did. Don’t be boastful or make comments insulting the losing team. I know that all of this might seem basic and obvious, but sportsmanship is the fundamental aspect of competition that makes the event what it is: just an event. I also know that in the heat of Homecoming competitions, some people might forget what exactly good sportsmanship is. Just understand that we are all students at the same high school working to a common goal; respect (by showing sportsmanship) is one of the threads that hold our community together.

Manuel Zelaya November 2009

Downloading By the Numbers The Chariot

Brittany Cheng Graphics/ Layout

40 billion songs

95%of music

illegally downloaded in 2008

is illegally downloaded

35% increase

effects & consequences Of this,

illegally because itâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s available for free

82% AMERICAN TEENS familiar

with the law who think that sanctions for illegal downloading are appropriate

November 2009

90% CONSUMERS who would stop

illegal downloading after two warnings from their Internet service providers

is blamed on file sharing

Motion Picture Agency of America & studios represented lost $2.3 billion

23%

For every song bought legally, 20 songs were illegally downloaded

consumer attitudes

70%

Increase in digital revenues of music companies to $3.7 billion in 2008

2000-2006

7/10 music consumers download music

Global sales of music fell by 8% in 2007

25%

CD Sales

regular illegal file sharers between 2003 & 2007

The Chariot

due to piracy in 2005

In 2007, the U.S. economy lost $3.7 billion as a result of illegal downloading

350,000

warning notices sent by the IFPI* in 2007

67% COLLEGE STUDENTS

who donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t care about illegal downloading

*International Federation of the Phonographic Industry

CRIMINAL PENALTIES for

first-time offenders can be as high as five years in prison and $250,000 in fines

References: http://www.surveyu.com/images/pdf/daily_collegian_riaa_04-04-2007.pdf http://www.ifpi.org/content/library/DMR2008-summary.pdf http://www.prweekus.com/Internet-piracy-can-provide-valuable-marketing-statistics/article/112881/ http://www.musicunited.org/2_thelaw.html

November 2009

Is Illegal Downloading Ethical? The Chariot

computers for anything but academic purposes is against the rules. This is a rule that is often broken and lazily enforced. Even the most innocent, law-abiding people I know have used a school computer for non-academic purposes, despite the fact that they have signed an agreement stating that they will not.

Priya Ghose

The Lowdown on Illegal Downloading Neil Bhateja Contributing Writer Illegal downloading is an ethically complex issue. Illegally downloading software, for example, might be considered stealing, but a different kind of stealing than we are used to. The user has created a copy without actually taking the product away from the seller. But that does not mean that the practice is harmless: free downloading might rob potential revenue, depending on whether or not illegal downloading was the only incentive to download in the first place. The question of the motive is a difficult one to answer honestly. Do we have a moral obligation to compensate the artists and producers if we benefit from their work even though illegal downloading does not evidently take anything away from them? Issues become more complex with music and video. Although the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has at times said that converting personal 10

November 2009

CDs or long-playing records (LPs) to mp3 is illegal, the practice is generally considered legal and ethical. But is it okay to bittorrent digital copies? And if it is illegal or immoral to download songs without paying for them, is it immoral to listen to them on YouTube? Most people would say YouTube is fine, but there seems to be little difference between watching something on YouTube and illegally downloading it onto a computer. Many people our age have not thought enough about these questions to resolve them. 69 percent of teenagers in a Los Angeles Times poll thought it was legal to make copies of CDs and distribute them to their friends, and according to an RIAA study, more than half of all college students illegally download music and videos. I have thought about these questions a lot, but that is only because I have gotten in trouble. This brings me to another point: Regardless of the answers to these questions, which the pro/con folks are going to answer, it is wrong to use school computers to do these kinds of things. School rules which every student must agree to before using computers dictate that using school

Not Only IIlegal, But Morally Wrong Hina Sakazaki Contributing Writer Where is the line between illegal and legal in downloading? At what point is downloading stuff on the Internet illegal? Ethics tells us that downloading or “sharing” anything copyrighted is wrong. Of course, there are few services online that are considered legal, with the purpose of sharing files, including LimeWire, Bittorent, and Kazaa. However, even if these services are legal, the files shared often are illegal. Anything copyrighted is illegal to share, so famous games, movies, and tunes are definitely out. So, why is downloading illegal files wrong? Well, first of all, it is “illegal.” People tend to think that the person who distributes the files is more at risk of punishment, but everyone is at risk. After all, downloading a copyrighted file for free, when it is sold for retail, is stealing. As a punishment, the Recording Industry Association of America actually sued more than 2,000 individuals in 2000, and more than 400 paid fines of $3000 each. Joel

The Chariot

Tenenbaum, a Boston University graduate student, paid $675,000 to four music companies for illegally downloading and distributing more than two-dozen songs. This punishment could happen to even the most innocent LimeWire user. Viruses traveling with files are also a consequence of illegal downloading. Some file sharers have malicious intentions, and file sharing is a perfect strategy to spread viruses. Buying music or movies at the retail price is a much better bargain when compared to the consequences. People were willing to pay a lot of money for their music and movies back in the day. In the 1970s, there were no CDs but only records, which were extremely rare and expensive. Movies could be only viewed in theatres, and tickets cost about $1.60 (9 dollars in modern day currency). In this era of mass media, we can go to YouTube for a quick listening or screening, and then go to iTunes to buy it for as cheap as 99 cents. Why do we bother going to a shady website offering free files while exposing ourselves to so much danger? However, the issue here is more than consequences or punishments; it also deals with appreciation of art. We wouldn’t illegally download a poorly made movie, a boring game, or an unpleasant song. Musicians, for example, put enormous amounts of work into their songs. The 99 cents paid per person is the least society can do to show appreciation for the many people who spend their time and money to make art. In reality, music industries have lost 20% of their revenue since 1999, the primary cause being the spread of illegal file sharing. I like buying things offered at cheaper prices, but my father is always fond of buying things at their retail price. His reasoning is this: Paying a retail price means paying the full value of that product, with profit going to the company that makes it. The profit will go to the employees, who will spend money on other necessities. This advances the “better” art forms, and also stimulates the economy as a whole. The economy works like a circular domino track: the more we spend, the more others will spend, and it eventually comes back around. With illegal downloading, no one

is rewarded for his or her effort. The fittest companies are not rewarded, and the buyer is not rewarded with superior services or products. By failing to pay the full price, we really are losing out on an entire array of possibilities. The next time you think about searching for free music, first think about the best way to appreciate the artist and to avoid legal and safety consequences. If the music is worth it, then lawfully buy it; if not, then do not illegally download it.

A Moral Decision Jacob Guggenheim Contributing Writer Over the past few years, free downloading of music has skyrocketed with the advent of Bit-Torrent and other file sharing services. Not surprisingly, the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has upped the ante to try and stop it. The RIAA argues that the downloading of free music off the Internet is equivalent to stealing. This begs the question, is it morally correct to download music for free off the Internet? I would argue yes. Now, I am not advocating the practice because it is, after all, illegal. I am just arguing that not all laws are correct and should, sooner rather than later, be fixed. First and foremost, we need to define what is morally correct. What clearcut rules were we taught when we were young? Do not harm someone else. Do not cheat. Do not lie. And do not steal. Following all of these and more will lead to a morally acceptable life. Then, is downloading free music tantamount to stealing? In short, no. The difference between pocketing gum in a store

and downloading free music is that one takes money for every production while the other does not. By taking the gum I am taking probably 30 cents worth of materials from the company that made it. When I download free music, it costs the artist and me nothing. Fair is fair, as far as I am concerned. Should the Louvre charge per view of the Mona Lisa? It does not cost the museum anything to allow people to view the Mona Lisa 1 or 100 times. So, the Louvre does the sensible thing and charges a flat rate to allow people to view it as many times as they like. Let us look at another example to prove my point. If I buy a book, it is mine. I can choose to share it or lend it to whomever I wish. No one has ever complained about sharing books. The difference between books and music lies in money, not ethics. The RIAA had found a way to milk the music-loving world and is upset about losing all that money. Even though it does not cost the artist anything per free download, it does cost the RIAA a lot of potential profit. Plus, it is the RIAA that is sweeping in piles of cash, not the artist. Most of the money does not go to the artist. In fact, some artists like Radiohead have produced free albums that are still charged for. Therefore, it is morally correct to download music off the Internet. But I will take it one step further and say that it is actually beneficial to music to allow free downloading. According to Harvard, music sales have increased since the advent of free d ow n l o a d i n g. Why? Because free downloading has allowed people to sample new music. Thus, new fans have been gained. And, according to the University of North Carolina “80 percent claim they bought at least one album after first sampling it on a file sharing network.” All in all, people want to support the artists they enjoy and are willing to buy albums November 2009

The Chariot

and go to concerts to do so. They just do not want to waste their money on an album that they may not like. In short, free downloading is morally correct because it is not equivalent to stealing and because it has already been socially justified in other media such as books. Even more importantly, music sharing is in fact increasing music buying rather than slowing it. Perhaps someone should clue in the RIAA.

Heir to Obama? Ron Ackner Contributing Writer If you were told of a Democratic African-American big-city politician in his forties with an education at some of the top universities in the United States and a political track record of charisma, prevailing honesty in the midst of corrupt politics, and above all, success, who would you think of ? To most people, these descriptions are a great account of president Barack Obama. However, the description applies just as well to the man that many Democratic Party leaders consider to be the successor to Barack Obama. Not many people outside the state of New Jersey, and even the city of Newark, have heard of Cory Anthony Booker. Those of us who have heard of the man are more likely to recognize him for his mock feud with late night TV show host Conan O’Brien than for his political career. However, the 40-year-old politician has an incredible track record of success and seems on the brink of attaining national recognition. Today, Booker may be banning Conan O’Brien from the Newark airport as part of their fake feud (Conan insulted Newark, after all), but tomorrow, Booker just might be one of the most recognizable faces in America. Born in Washington D.C. to two of the first African-American executives at IBM, Booker grew up in a predominantly white town in New Jersey, and was a high-school All-American football player. After graduating from high school, Booker studied at 12

November 2009

Stanford University and earned a B.A. in Political Science in 1991, followed by an M.A. in Sociology in 1992. In addition to actively pursuing his education, Booker was involved in several extra-curriculars, such as playing varsity football (even making the All-Pac 10 Team), being elected onto a 4 president council at Stanford, ran The Bridge, a student-run crisis hotline similar to Gunn’s ROCK, and organizing Stanford students to help East Palo Alto Youth. After graduating from Stanford, Booker was awarded a Rhodes scholarship and attended The Queen’s College in Oxford, gaining an honors degree in Modern History. While at Oxford, he was elected copresident of the L’Chaim Jewish Student Union, despite being a devout Baptist. Booker continued his education at Yale Law School, earning a J.D.; while attaining his legal degree, he set up free legal clinics for the low-income residents of New Haven. Also, he was also an active mentor in the Big Brother / Little Brother program. All his studying and hard work finally paid off when, following graduation, he served as Staff Attorney for the Urban Justice Center in New York and Program Coordinator of the Newark Youth Project. Booker’s political career truly began in 1998 when he beat a popular four-term incumbent in an upset election for the Newark Municipal Council, a council known for corruption.

As the youngest member of the ninemember council, he proved to be honest and unconventional, and he was quickly recognized as a rising political star. In 1999 he went on a 10-day hunger strike to protest open-air drug dealing and the associated violence; for five months in 2000, Booker lived in a motor home parked on street corners where drug trafficking was known to occur. His various proposals were designed to impact housing, young people, education, law and order, while also targeting the corruption in City Hall. However, he was regularly outvoted, often by margins of eight to one. In 2002, Booker ran for mayor of Newark against incumbent Sharpe James, who had been the mayor of Newark since 1986. James’ supporters questioned Booker’s suburban background and claimed he was “not black enough” to lead in Newark. Booker ended up losing with only 47 percent of the vote. However, Booker decided to continue being involved in Newark, starting Newark Now, a non-profit organization connecting Newarkers to varieties of services and resources to help improve the community of Newark. Booker served as a partner at a law firm, a senior fellow at Rutgers University, the state university of New Jersey, a member of the board of Trustees at the Columbia University Teachers’ College, and as a member of the Executive Committee at Yale Law School and the Stanford Board of Trustees. In 2006, Booker once again ran for mayor. Sharpe James decided not to enter the election and intended to focus on his seat in the New Jersey Senate; he was e ve n tually sen-

Cory Booker

The Chariot

tenced to 27 months in prison for mail fraud, wire fraud, and conspiracy. However, Booker ended up pitted against Deputy Mayor and State Senator Ronald Rice. On May 9, 2006, Booker won with 72 percent of the vote. Booker had supported nine candidates for the City Council elections, and each winning a seat on the City Council, giving Booker firm control of the city. Newark, New Jersey, with a population of almost 300,000, is the 65th largest city in the US and the largest in New Jersey. The city has been poverty-stricken for decades, with 28.4 percent of the population below the poverty line and a 12 percent unemployment rate in 2003. The longcorrupt local government, though largely cleaned up just by Booker’s victory, is still a problem. In 1996, TIME Magazine named Newark “Most Dangerous City in the Nation,” and the city has long had some of the highest crime rates in the nation. The public school system has struggled for decades with low graduation rates and standardized test scores. Booker did not pick an easy city to fix. Booker’s plan to reform Newark included adding police officers, ending background checks for many city jobs, helping former offenders find employment, refurbishing police stations, improving

city services, and expanding programs for youth. To accomplish these goals, Booker was forced to increase the property tax by 8.3 percent and add over 200 city employees. However, Booker also pledged not to increase taxes in 2007 (a promise he kept in 2007 and 2008 as well), and by 2009 he was able to reduce the number of city employees. Since Booker took over as mayor, the city has received awards for setting the budget, ending decades of neglect and corruption. Perhaps Booker’s greatest success so far has been the lowering of the crime rate. Several new police divisions were created in addition to the general overhaul planned by Booker. The city currently leads the nation in violent crime reduction. From 2006-2008, murders have dropped 36 percent, shootings by 41 percent, rapes by 30 percent, and auto thefts by 26 percent. In 2008, the city achieved the lowest murder rate since 1959. Despite slight rises in crime rates due to the global economic recession, the trends in the crime rate have mostly been optimistic. Booker has also doubled the number of affordable housing in development and quadrupled the amount in planning, as well as cutting the budget deficit from $180 million to $73 million. In fact, his leadership

has been so successful and alluring that the city has attracted approximately $100 million in private philanthropy in addition to a variety of nonprofits and partnerships to better the lives of Newarkers. In 2008, Booker helped actively campaign for his colleague and friend Barack Obama, with Obama receiving 91% of the Newark vote. All of Booker’s hard work paid off when he was offered the opportunity to head Obama’s new White House Office of Urban Affairs Policy; however, Booker turned the offer down, citing his commitment to his home city of Newark. Today, Cory Booker is seen as one of the fastest rising stars in the political arena and is considered by many to be the heir to Barack Obama. Booker has very strong approval ratings and appears likely to be reelected as mayor in 2010. The charismatic mayor has helped turn what was once “the worst city in America” around. Before Obama was elected as president, Booker was seen as one of the likely candidates to be the first African American president. It’s too late to achieve that goal, but in a political career that has already garnered recommendations for the United State Senate as well as other national offices, it seems that the Cory Booker era is coming soon. November 2009

The Chariot

More Soldiers in Afganistan? The Right Surge Max Lipscomb Contributing Writer This September, General Stanley McChrystal’s confidential assessment of the war in Afghanistan was released to the general public. The focal point of his report was a call for the United States to send an additional 60,000 combat troops to the war-torn country. McChrystal went on to say that without these, our efforts in the Afghan theater “will likely result in failure.” It is unequivocal that Afghanistan is beset with numerous challenges, including lack of government control and infrastructure, corruption, poverty, and levels of instability that are almost unrivaled in the world today. What is questionable is the necessity of sending additional troops to a conflict so ripe with mismanagement. Further examination of McChrystal’s 66-page assessment reveals numerous contradictions, including the call for more U.S. troops while citing existing forces in the region as a cause of physical and psychological separation between Afghans and their government. In addition he states that “we cannot be defeated militarily, but we can defeat ourselves,” as if to imply that troops aren’t needed so much as a reevaluation of NATO’s strategy. In foreign conflicts, the United States has too often answered problems such as the one in Afghanistan with the staple of military strategy: more troops. Iraq’s concentrated population, more than 60% urban, has benefited greatly from the 2007 surge, which served to quell violence and allow local law enforcement to get better footing in Baghdad and Al-Anbar. In Afghanistan, however, this method will prove costly and ineffective, as miles of dilapidated roads and poppy fields separate the primarily rural population. Instead of increased foreign intervention, an “Afghan solution” must be pur-

November 2009

sued, one which includes reconciliation with regional warlords and increased commitment to infrastructure, community improvement and the Afghan military. MIT professors and State Department officials alike have posited that winning over the hearts and minds of Afghanistan’s people with a comprehensive, non-military strategy will prove much more effective than filling the country with our young men and women in uniform. Especially overlooked is the strategy of reconciliation. A poll conducted by numerous news organizations in February 2009 revealed that an estimated 64 percent of Afghans agree that Taliban officials should be permitted to hold government office if they cease fighting. Despite this, reaction from the Afghan central government has been nonexistent, and the US policy on the subject has always been to detain any forthcoming local warlords. An example of this is Wakil Ahmad Mutawakil, the Taliban’s former foreign minister, who requested a position in the new government in February 2002 shortly after NATO’s arrival. He ended up taking a position in a prison cell as an inmate in Bagram Air Base for the next 18 months, followed by house arrest. Responses like these have solidified Taliban sentiments against the US and hardened those who were previously considering shifting their support. If an increase in reconciliation efforts were coupled with domestic reforms and new jobs to provide alternatives to joining the Taliban and a reason to respect the central government, it would result in drastic improvements for Afghanistan. McChrystal’s call for a military surge is yet a further misstep in the US’ presence in Afghanistan. His demands must instead be met with a surge of political and domestic strength, one which allows the people to hold up their own government instead of an AK-47 and contribute to the unification of their broken country.

Our Stake in Afghanistan Andrew Liu Senior Editor In a recent report to President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates, General Stanley McChrystal, top commander of American forces in Afghanistan, warned that he needs 40,000 more troops within the next year or else the effort “will likely result in failure.” His stark assessment continued, “Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) — while Afghan security capacity matures — risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible.” Yet, President Obama’s “war of necessity” has quickly lost its urgency in Washington. Public sentiment has understandably shifted against the eight-year-old war. However, Gen. McChrystal asserts with confidence that failure to send more troops would be myopic and risk American lives. More troops are crucial to improving the security situation and eventually handing full responsibility to Afghan forces, both of which are intertwined with U.S. security interests. The security situation has significantly worsened in 2009 due to a lack of troops, with coalition and Afghan casualties peaking in the month before the August elections (more than 30 died on Election Day alone). U.S. and coalition troop levels have

The Chariot

remained low since 2001 relative to the many insurgents joining terrorist ranks and bolstering insurgent momentum. Even the most recent surge in February, while bringing down fatalities by 30 in the first two months, could not sustain progress simply due to lack of magnitude. And even though the Army and Marines have developed a new counterinsurgency doctrine – to protect Afghan civilians in addition to fighting – that has proven successful in certain areas of Afghanistan, more troops will be needed to fully and effectively reap its benefits. Counterinsurgency, after all, is a troop-intensive operation. Gen. McChrystal writes, “Resources will not win this war, but under-resourcing could lose it.” Firstly, more troops are needed to stall and reverse the terrorists’ military momentum. Increases in army and civilian casualties, al-Qaeda and Taliban recruitment numbers, and attacks are all evidence of military ground that the insurgents are gaining. Without more troops to inspire confidence and make decisive short-term gains, the U.S. and coalition could fall behind indefinitely as the balance tips over the brink. Furthermore, it is now critical for troop increases because of the crisis of confidence in Afghanistan, especially after the fraud-tainted elections a few months ago. The civilian population, a powerful actor and ultimately the heart of the fight, is losing confidence in both the government of President Hamid Karzai and international security forces that have failed to convey a message of security. More forces would not only revive the perception of security and U.S. resolve, but also protect and win over more Afghan civilians from insurgents, meaning fewer reasons for Afghans to join insurgent forces and more reasons for them to help the coalition. According to WorldPublicOpinion.org, while Afghan support for the US military has declined, it is still around 60% as of the latest polls. Sending more troops would inspire trust, not backlash, among the populace. U.S. strategy – to garner grassroots support – can rescue confidence and lead to success but will require more forces going door to door and reaching out to civilians.

The third rationale for increased troops is the need to train the crucial Afghan forces that will ultimately have to win this war. As of now, the Afghan army remains a rudimentary force due to “shortages of U.S. trainers and mentors at almost every level of the Afghan operation,” says a recent report from the Defense Department’s inspector general. Of 5,688 U.S. trainers needed to train the 134,000-strong Afghan force, only 2,097 have been sent. More trainers will be required to instill confidence and provide instruction especially when Afghan troop morale is low and competence is suffering. The short-term goal to regain momentum and the long-term aims to win over the population and develop a competent Afghan army will largely determine our success in Afghanistan and hinge on troop increases. Conversely, failure to follow Gen. McChrystal’s recommendation would lead to more loss of life by exposing our troops to powerful insurgent tactical momentum, forcing them to fight without maximum cooperation from the civilian populace due to lack of trust and protection, compelling them to shoulder most of the casualties and responsibility without competent assistance from Afghan forces due to lack of trainers. Thus, sending more troops would actually save more American soldiers in the long run as well as ensuring the success of the mission. Without more troops, the U.S. mission is almost certain to fail, as insurgents surge

Where We’re At November Updates Andrew Liu Senior Editor

The key word of the recent fledgling recovery, most economists agree, is “uncertainty.” Here’s a breakdown of the latest news: • Labor plunged again in September as the economy shed 263,000 jobs, pushing unemployment to 9.8 percent. Private sector jobs were hit the most, now at levels last seen in June 1999, all portentous of artificial public sector labor supply. • Consumer spending grew 2.7 percent in August; changes in prices in July and August remained stable and close to historical levels. • The five-month-moving-average used to gauge the housing cycle now indicates that the housing downturn may have ended in April 2009, making it the deepest and third-longest on record. • Financial markets are healing as well: credit indicators are returning to historical levels, fewer banks are tightening credit to consumers, and the number and magnitude of bank failures are consistent with historical recessional recovery. • Internationally, many countries expanded during the second quarter, while others slowed rate of decline. However, investment in developed economies is still weak and employment is generally declining. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), citing past financial crises, expects that any global recovery will be slow.

November 2009

The Chariot

forward now. Failure would mean granting terrorists safe havens from which to launch assaults like the 9/11 attacks, which cost 3,000 American lives. Even losing bits of ground could allow terrorists to shift to Afghanistan again. More importantly, chaos in Afghanistan could destabilize neighboring Pakistan, with 173 million people and 20-50 nuclear warheads. If al-Qaeda or the Taliban were able to win enough momentum to commandeer even a decent fraction of Afghanistan, these groups could take control of the resources as a base to destabilize the Pakistani government. The Pakistani government is already embattled with harsh economic times, an internal war with Islamist insurgents, and a crisis in legitimacy; the U.S. cannot afford to make the prospect of terrorist nuclear sanctuary in Pakistan any more likely by conceding ground in Afghanistan. The U.S. needs to send more troops to Afghanistan to protect national security interests rife with risk of American lives. The above scenarios are all affected by success in Afghanistan and thus by U.S. troop levels there. The potential consequences warrant every measure possible to prevent the devastating loss of lives. Admittedly, there will be costs in resources and lives in the short term. But American troop casualties would actually decrease in the long term compared to those in the status quo, because more troops would mean the coalition’s regain of the initiative, more cooperation with the populace, and more effective Afghan forces. Sending more troops does not deny the moral worthiness of sacrifice. On either side of the decision, American lives are at risk, and neither side is more or less respectful of service or others’ suffering. Rather, the decision should weigh the benefits and detriments of troop increases. On balance, following Gen. McChrystal’s advice would save more American troops in the long term as well as sharply reduce the risk of terrorist casualties from al-Qaeda sanctuary. President Obama must not waver on his “war of necessity.”

November 2009

The Lost Symbol Anish Johri Contributing Writer World-renowned Harvard professor and puzzle-solver Robert Langdon is back in The Lost Symbol, Dan Brown’s mechanical but thrilling follow-up to bestsellers Angels and Demons and The Da Vinci Code. Readers will be pleased to know that Robert Langdon is once again pursuing mysteries held by a secret society, the Freemasons, through a city much closer to home–Washington, D.C. He is once again working against a psychotic individual determined to bring doom on the Freemasons and is aided by another group of less than competent officials including the fictional head of the CIA’s Office of Security. And yes, he is once more working against the clock to save timeless secrets and groundbreaking knowledge. Although this novel appears formulaic, it never ceases to keep the reader on his toes as Langdon and yet another educated, attractive female counterpart are thrust into the underground world of Freemasonry and Washington politics. Langdon hits the ground running when he is invited to Washington, D.C. by his friend and mentor, Peter Solomon, to deliver a speech at a Capitol dinner. When he arrives in the Capitol, however, he realizes he that was tricked into coming by a mysterious character named Mal’akh, whose dark nature and thirst for ultimate power is reminiscent of that of Hassasin, the antagonist in Angels and Demons. Langdon finds the severed hand of Solomon, tattooed with Masonic imagery. He soon realizes that it is the “Hand of Mysteries,” the first clue on his long journey to find and decipher the Ancient Mysteries held by the Masonic Pyramid. Author Dan Brown takes advantage of the familiarity of an American city and uses references to NFL playoffs, Twitter and Google to make his novel more credible than his earlier novels, which were filled with wild adventures in distant European cities. Brown is able to illustrate the complexities and mysteries that shroud our capital throughout the novel, particularly in a flash-

back, wherein Langdon informs his students that “Washington, D.C. has some of the world’s finest architecture, art and symbolism. Why would you go overseas before visiting your own capital?” Although readers will be more familiar with the locale and political references in this novel, Brown’s unbeatable manner of unveiling mysteries is sure to keep readers intrigued and guessing at all times. Fans of Dan Brown’s previous novels are sure to be enthralled once again by Langdon’s use of wit, intellect and the typical dark suspense. However, this novel is not as good as Angels and Demons or The Da Vinci Code for it lacks the origanilty and craftmanship of the first two. First-time Brown readers should definitely read his previous two books before his latest work. Still, The Lost Symbol delivers its fair share of suspense and ancient mysteries. Any individual who enjoys crime novels is sure to enjoy Brown’s combination of thrills, adventure and mysteries.